Does Canon really deserve this?

[Maximilian]

and when i ocassionally go to the zoo or to a national park i also put the grip on and the 100-400 II plus 1.4x converter ... Plus tripod.

You already have a 100-400 II? Would you mind to share some RAW samples?
just kidding

 

[Sella174]

I don't think that Canon is lacking patentability to make a good mirrorless.

For the sake of argument, let's consider the following: nearly every top-end "mirrorless" camera uses the EPSON EVF. I am quite sure that EPSON patented the little thing, so anyone who wants to use it must either buy the already manufactured units from EPSON, or purchase a license if they want to manufacture it themselves.

I have looked at the EVF's in the latest Canon "bridge" cameras and compared to the EPSON EVF they just plainly suck. So obviously Canon doesn't have the technology to make an EVF similar to the EPSON one.

This means that Canon must either develop their own EVF technology from scratch and do it in such a way that it doesn't infringe on EPSON's patent.

Or they can buy a license from EPSON. Now, in this regard it is wholly up to EPSON to grant such a license or not. And since both Canon and EPSON compete head-to-head in the printer market and since Canon is so fond of playing the patent game, maybe EPSON just simply refused to grant a license out of pure spite.

This then effectively leaves Canon without an EVF that is on par with that in the cameras of their competitors.

(Of course, the above is all conjecture. But it is nonetheless a possibility.)

ADDITION: I see that the new Canon C100 Mark II will have a 1.23 megapixel EVF. Compare this with the 2.36 megapixel EVF in the FUJIFILM X-T1 (made by EPSON).

 

[Sella174]

[sarcasm]...[/sarcasm]

Well it rather depends what you're shooting. Sport, birds in flight - you need good AF, high shutter speed. For landscapes, most macro, a lot of portraiture and even street work, AF is much less important, and image quality (which the full frame will trump the crop in many circumstances) comes to the fore.

sarcasm = a taunt, a bitter or wounding remark, especially one ironically worded.

irony = expression of one's meaning by language of opposite or different tendency, especially mock adoption of another's view or tone.

The moral of the story (regarding typewriters) is that one year you are on top of the world, selling thousands upon thousands of units, and the next year you sell nothing, and the year after that you file for bankruptcy. Good sales today doesn't necessarily mean good sales tomorrow.

I think the analogy is flawed. Sure, wordprocessors (and then computers) replaces typewriters for most purposes. That doesn't mean your predictions about future camera technologies are proven. You're just saying what feels right to you, without providing evidence.

I made no predictions about future camera technology. I merely proved that "[g]ood sales today doesn't necessarily mean good sales tomorrow".

 

[sanj]

The trend in high end mirrorless cameras is that they are getting larger not smaller. The NX1, which I've used, isn't any smaller or lighter than a DSLR. I'd expect the A9 when it arrives to be similar. Although the small chassis MLC's generate a lot of "gee how'd they do that" buzz, the "lens with a camera attached" ergo's are off-putting for a lot of serious shooters. You may not agree, but that's what many think.

edit .. Interestingly, the only bundle that's available for the NX1 includes a battery grip. Doesn't sound to me like smaller and lighter is what they are going for.

Indeed! The small factor is fine for a street photographer's tool, which is why most mirroress cameras went with rangefinder style designs. Not an issue with a 25-50mm prime. But, when you start slapping on large glass the small factor advantage erodes an actually becomes a detriment. So, one of the commonly touted advantages of a MILC (small size and light weight) either becomes a detriment or you make your MILC the same size as a DSLR to improve large telephoto handling. Although you still have the other principal MILC advantage of seeing the exposure changes you make reflected in the EVF, the disadvantages of lag (especially under low light), lower quality view and higher battery consumption. MILC's are interesting cameras---but it's a huge mistake to assume they've rendered the classic DSLR obsolete. This is especially true for action/wildlife/sports shooting!!!

I think Canon does deserve some blame. Personally, I have grown to hate the stratification of their cameras, missing features and incremental updates.

I am not tied to a body. Bodies come and go. I don't care about if the camera is mirrorless or DSLR, I just want the best image quality, at a reasonable price. I would wait for Canon and the 5DIV but I think I will probably buy a A7S or A9 with an adapter when they arrive. If Canon releases a good product by the time I buy a new body, I will go back. Easy. For pro studio shoots, I don't see much an A7 series isn't great at.

Wow. Give me tips too.

 

[sanj]

[sarcasm]...[/sarcasm]

Well it rather depends what you're shooting. Sport, birds in flight - you need good AF, high shutter speed. For landscapes, most macro, a lot of portraiture and even street work, AF is much less important, and image quality (which the full frame will trump the crop in many circumstances) comes to the fore.

sarcasm = a taunt, a bitter or wounding remark, especially one ironically worded.

irony = expression of one's meaning by language of opposite or different tendency, especially mock adoption of another's view or tone.

The moral of the story (regarding typewriters) is that one year you are on top of the world, selling thousands upon thousands of units, and the next year you sell nothing, and the year after that you file for bankruptcy. Good sales today doesn't necessarily mean good sales tomorrow.

I think the analogy is flawed. Sure, wordprocessors (and then computers) replaces typewriters for most purposes. That doesn't mean your predictions about future camera technologies are proven. You're just saying what feels right to you, without providing evidence.

I made no predictions about future camera technology. I merely proved that "[g]ood sales today doesn't necessarily mean good sales tomorrow".

Yes absolutely. Seen it happen in the past.

 

[Sella174]

Yes absolutely. Seen it happen in the past.

So what was it for you? One year people can't get enough of photographs about elephants and the next year you have to give them away with each photograph of meerkats, which people can't enough of.

 

[jasny]

I don't think that Canon is lacking patentability to make a good mirrorless.

For the sake of argument, let's consider the following: nearly every top-end "mirrorless" camera uses the EPSON EVF. I am quite sure that EPSON patented the little thing, so anyone who wants to use it must either buy the already manufactured units from EPSON, or purchase a license if they want to manufacture it themselves.

I have looked at the EVF's in the latest Canon "bridge" cameras and compared to the EPSON EVF they just plainly suck. So obviously Canon doesn't have the technology to make an EVF similar to the EPSON one.

This means that Canon must either develop their own EVF technology from scratch and do it in such a way that it doesn't infringe on EPSON's patent.

Or they can buy a license from EPSON. Now, in this regard it is wholly up to EPSON to grant such a license or not. And since both Canon and EPSON compete head-to-head in the printer market and since Canon is so fond of playing the patent game, maybe EPSON just simply refused to grant a license out of pure spite.

This then effectively leaves Canon without an EVF that is on par with that in the cameras of their competitors.

(Of course, the above is all conjecture. But it is nonetheless a possibility.)

ADDITION: I see that the new Canon C100 Mark II will have a 1.23 megapixel EVF. Compare this with the 2.36 megapixel EVF in the FUJIFILM X-T1 (made by EPSON).

Canon G1 X II has optional 2.36 MPix EVF...

 

[Sella174]

Canon G1 X II has optional 2.36 MPix EVF...

[cheesy]That EVF is probably just a rebranded Olympus VF-4 (which uses the EPSON EVF) ... they even look the same![/cheesy]

 

[sanj]

Yes absolutely. Seen it happen in the past.

So what was it for you? One year people can't get enough of photographs about elephants and the next year you have to give them away with each photograph of meerkats, which people can't enough of.

Never sold a photo in my life…. :-\

 

[AvTvM]

and when i ocassionally go to the zoo or to a national park i also put the grip on and the 100-400 II plus 1.4x converter ... Plus tripod.

You already have a 100-400 II? Would you mind to share some RAW samples?
just kidding

hehe you caught me there!
No I do not have a 100-400 II. But if I *had* one, I *could* use it on my EOS-M.
I *do use* my 70-200 II plus Extender 1.4x on the EOS-M ... sometimes. ;D

And if Canon brings a worthwhile EOS-M3 Pro, I *may* buy it and if so, I *might* occassionally rent a 100-400 II ... 8)

 

[scyrene]

As has been pointed out by a few of us, until and unless mirrorless gets the form factor and battery life we're used to in DSLRs, we're not interested

You and a few others may not be interested.
I and many others are. Looking forward to lighter, smaller gear that is more capable than older, larger, antiquated stuff.

Sony A9 may come sooner than you think, and be bettet and smaller, too.

More capable for some things, not for others, as we keep stressing. It's not antiquated just because it's not new. Some things work well for a long time.

 

[scyrene]

As has been pointed out by a few of us, until and unless mirrorless gets the form factor and battery life we're used to in DSLRs, we're not interested

Speak for yourself as you get older your old bones and limps are not going to be too fond of lugging heavy DSLR's around, whether it be on your neck, on your shoulders (Black Rapid) or in a backpack. But Advil and Aleve will be happy as two peas in a pod.

Sure. I accept that as I get older I may want to stop carrying big gear. I accept that may be the end of my bird photography, too. Unless there's some revolutionary technology - my lens accounts for around 4/5 of the weight of my usual setup. Even if smaller bodies were ergonomic (which as I say, I doubt), it's only shaving a small amount off the total.

I realise this has all been said above. We seem to be going in circles. It boils down to, naturally, your needs and expectations shape your view of them as a company. I guess I'm lucky in that my favourite areas are their strongest.

 

[Don Haines]

As has been pointed out by a few of us, until and unless mirrorless gets the form factor and battery life we're used to in DSLRs, we're not interested

Speak for yourself as you get older your old bones and limps are not going to be too fond of lugging heavy DSLR's around, whether it be on your neck, on your shoulders (Black Rapid) or in a backpack. But Advil and Aleve will be happy as two peas in a pod.

Sure. I accept that as I get older I may want to stop carrying big gear. I accept that may be the end of my bird photography, too. Unless there's some revolutionary technology - my lens accounts for around 4/5 of the weight of my usual setup. Even if smaller bodies were ergonomic (which as I say, I doubt), it's only shaving a small amount off the total.

I realise this has all been said above. We seem to be going in circles. It boils down to, naturally, your needs and expectations shape your view of them as a company. I guess I'm lucky in that my favourite areas are their strongest.

I'm older.... I know better.... and I am still hauling around a cedar-canvas canoe and the pelican case from hell... I guess I missed out on the wisdom that comes with age

 

[Eldar]

As has been pointed out by a few of us, until and unless mirrorless gets the form factor and battery life we're used to in DSLRs, we're not interested

Speak for yourself as you get older your old bones and limps are not going to be too fond of lugging heavy DSLR's around, whether it be on your neck, on your shoulders (Black Rapid) or in a backpack. But Advil and Aleve will be happy as two peas in a pod.

Sure. I accept that as I get older I may want to stop carrying big gear. I accept that may be the end of my bird photography, too. Unless there's some revolutionary technology - my lens accounts for around 4/5 of the weight of my usual setup. Even if smaller bodies were ergonomic (which as I say, I doubt), it's only shaving a small amount off the total.

I realise this has all been said above. We seem to be going in circles. It boils down to, naturally, your needs and expectations shape your view of them as a company. I guess I'm lucky in that my favourite areas are their strongest.

I'm older.... I know better.... and I am still hauling around a cedar-canvas canoe and the pelican case from hell... I guess I missed out on the wisdom that comes with age

I'm older too ... I still hawl a 50 pound backpack with me, on long hikes in the mountains, including the 1DX/600mm and tripod. I believe I would have to be tied to a wheel chair or something similar, before I'd give up the ergonomics of a good SLR and my long whites. I have just held an A7r for the first time and to me, the view finder and ergonimics were total turn-offs.

 

[dolina]

I think people just want to buy more toys that they can say is "superior" to the competition.

All I want is a 5D Mark IV that is equal in features and price to the Nikon & Sony full frame bodies that will come out in 2015.

Is that too hard to ask?

 

[Eldar]

Back to the original question: Does Canon really deserve this?

Well, today is Black Friday. I have seen numerous papers and web sites full of recommendations. Some dedicated to photography.

One independent magazine, Lyd og Bilde, which is read by lots of people, both as a magazine, on their web and through Norway's biggest newspaper, just published their list of recommendations, ranging from compact to pro cameras, in 7 groups. For the first time ever (as far as I can remember) there is not one single Canon product listed. Nasty sales figures tend to follow advice like this.

So Canon, you're receiving some punches, because you deserve it. Make sure you fight back while you're still standing ...

 

[sanj]

Back to the original question: Does Canon really deserve this?

Well, today is Black Friday. I have seen numerous papers and web sites full of recommendations. Some dedicated to photography.

One independent magazine, Lyd og Bilde, which is read by lots of people, both as a magazine, on their web and through Norway's biggest newspaper, just published their list of recommendations, ranging from compact to pro cameras, in 7 groups. For the first time ever (as far as I can remember) there is not one single Canon product listed. Nasty sales figures tend to follow advice like this.

So Canon, you're receiving some punches, because you deserve it. Make sure you fight back while you're still standing ...

This is not good. But if they do not list 1dx in their 'pro' list then I do not think their list is of any substance. Hmmm.

 

[Loswr]

All I want is a 5D Mark IV that is equal in features and price to the Nikon & Sony full frame bodies that will come out in 2015.

Is that too hard to ask?

So, you want Canon to make no improvements in some areas, and downgrade in others, so Nikon and Sony can catch up? ???

 

[AvTvM]

All I want is a 5D Mark IV that is equal in features and price to the Nikon & Sony full frame bodies that will come out in 2015.

Is that too hard to ask?

So, you want Canon to make no improvements in some areas, and downgrade in others, so Nikon and Sony can catch up? ???

hehehe ... if Canon ever manages a 5D IV with 36 MP sensor [and low ISO noise and all-over DR 8) matching Sony/Nikon], it would be OK for me, if Hi-ISO capability would make no progress over 5D III. ;D

 

[Don Haines]

All I want is a 5D Mark IV that is equal in features and price to the Nikon & Sony full frame bodies that will come out in 2015.

Is that too hard to ask?

So, you want Canon to make no improvements in some areas, and downgrade in others, so Nikon and Sony can catch up? ???

hehehe ... if Canon ever manages a 5D IV with 36 MP sensor [and low ISO noise and all-over DR 8) matching Sony/Nikon], it would be OK for me, if Hi-ISO capability would make no progress over 5D III. ;D

It will be a new and revolutionary 1920x1080 sensor in the 5D IV... everyone knows that still pictures are dead and Canon won't put in 4K video

Seriously though, I am sure the next camera will do some things better than the competition and some things worse. Whatever the mix is, lots of people will spend time and energy complaining that would have been better spent out taking pictures....