Does Canon really deserve this?

[Sella174]

You have a choice between the XT-1 + 56/1.2 or a 6D + 85/1.8.

There is absolutely no way you can compare the X-T1 with the 6D. Rather do your comparison using an X-T1 vs 5DIII or an X-M1 vs 6D. Plus a better lens than the ancient EF 85mm f1.8, please. Try not to equal the X-T1 with the 56mm, but to beat it.

 

[Sella174]

Canon cares about majority of the market, you're obviously not in that majority. Bad luck for you I'm afraid, but there is really no win-win scenario, which would cater all needs of all the photographers out there...

flaming post removed by moderator

 

[raptor3x]

(Ignoring the sarcasm tag for a bit ...) The 100L is a "full-frame" lens, whereas the 7DII is a "crop-frame" camera. Yes, it works ... but so would a 1DX have worked. My point is that it is silly to buy a "crop-frame" camera and then use brilliant "full-frame" lenses on it ... 'cause you're wasting that part of the lens you paid through the nose for: the edges. Bad economy, but the shareholders love it!

How much cheaper do you think that an 'L' version of the 60 macro with IS and weather sealing would be than the 100L?

 

[Harv]

Any company that tries to be 'all things' to 'all people' would soon be 'all broke' and 'all gone'.

From my viewpoint with a background in marketing, Canon is undoubtedly far better equipped to research and determine what the market wants than any individual posting on this forum. They have global assets and access to market trends throughout the world. Do any of us? I hardly think so.

In recent years I have purchased Nikon and Fuji, in addition to my Canon gear thinking some of their products might serve me better. I did not find that to be the case. I take approximately 35,000 - 40,000 images per year in some very demanding environments. My Canon gear delivers everything that I need. Are they perfect. Hell no. But then neither am I and neither is anyone else out there. On balance, I find them to be the best for my needs.

I didn't buy into a Canon camera or Canon lens. I bought into the Canon system and the Canon product development philosophy. I'm sure many photographers also bought into the same with Nikon.

All that to say that in my opinion either of those companies can satisfy the needs of 99% of the photographers that walk this earth.

Remember that often times a company that appears to be on the 'leading' edge, is actually on the 'bleeding' edge.

Just one man's opinion. ;D

 

[Khalai]

Canon cares about majority of the market, you're obviously not in that majority. Bad luck for you I'm afraid, but there is really no win-win scenario, which would cater all needs of all the photographers out there...

Wow, talk about a knee-jerking parrot post. I would think that you all would be pretty happy if Canon dropped their "crop-frame" system and concentrated exclusively on "full frame" cameras and lenses, but apparently not. Very interesting.

They would go down the drain in no time. Majority of their sales are crop, entry-level cameras, not fullframe bodies. It's just simply too expensive to produce FF sensor...

 

[Sella174]

That wouldn't be economic, even if ff sensors would get cheaper because of larger production volume. Unlike a computer cpus, afaik you cannot just software-fix faulty sensors on the silicon wafer, meaning smaller sensors = cheaper. And that's what you need if you retain any foothold in the high-volume entry-level market.

Quite true. However, in my opinion the term "entry-level market" no longer applies to the same demographic that it did in the previous decade. Digital photography is no longer the latest gadget - phones with pretty decent built-in cameras saw to that, as well as killing the P&S - and the people who now buy dedicated cameras buy them because it offers more than the imaging capabilities of their latest electronic gadget.

Also, as technology moves forward, consumers expect more capabilities at lower prices from electronic devices. In my opinion the current "Rebel" line just simply doesn't hack it anymore. However, the fact that they do still sell moderately well, just proves that people will buy anything they're sufficiently told to buy and that reality has quite hit them yet.

What I'm saying is that I agree with you regarding the high-volume entry-level market being important. I just kind of disagree on the weight of "high-volume" and what exactly defines the entry-level market. Personally I see the 6D as an entry-level camera now and for the next five years.

Another aspect with mirrored cameras is the size: Larger sensor = larger camera. What good is ff if you cannot tell the latest aps-c from ff up to iso 400? Last not least, ff is more difficult to handle due to the smaller depth of field. Enthusiasts may rave about creamy bokeh, but lots of people want infinite dof = smaller aperture = diffraction = less iq or at least no advantage to ff.

Yes, everyone wants something else. However, theoretically, if Canon dropped the "crop-frame" system and went with "full-frame" exclusively, then they would be in a better position to cater to more diverse needs.

 

[jdramirez]

Tell me why would anyone purchase a 6D instead of a 70D?

I feel like poor Donnie walking into the middle of a conversation.

but. .. it depends on what you shoot. For portraiture or landscape I would take the 6d any day of the year. For concert photography or ballet, etc.

So what's the beef here?

 

[Sella174]

It's just simply too expensive to produce FF sensor...

Really? I would have thought that in the ten-twelve years that Canon has been R&D'ing sensors that they would at least have developed a process to reduce the manufacturing cost of same sensors. I mean, the current "full-frame" sensors have the same photo-site density as ca.2006 "crop-frame" sensors, so there must have been some improvements and advances. After all, the validity of Moore's Law rest on this being fact.

 

[Loswr]

There are far more numerous and better reasons than that. Obviously you don't get the idea. Your inability to comprehend that you and your views are in the minority as far as dSLR gear is concerned is rather sad.

Tell me why would anyone purchase a 6D instead of a 70D?

If you can't figure that out, that's more than sad, it's pathetic.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

Wow, talk about a knee-jerking parrot post. I would think that you all would be pretty happy if Canon dropped their "crop-frame" system and concentrated exclusively on "full frame" cameras and lenses, but apparently not. Very interesting.

There are photographers who actually prefer the crop sensor.

 

[Khalai]

It's just simply too expensive to produce FF sensor...

Really? I would have thought that in the ten-twelve years that Canon has been R&D'ing sensors that they would at least have developed a process to reduce the manufacturing cost of same sensors. I mean, the current "full-frame" sensors have the same photo-site density as ca.2006 "crop-frame" sensors, so there must have been some improvements and advances. After all, the validity of Moore's Law rest on this being fact.

We are talking about pristine perfect silicone wafers here. That does not dispute Moore's law. But to simply produce a very precise product with milions upon milions pixels with all the required circuitry, where not even a single pixel cannot be faulty is expensive. It's the same with lenses - no matter what technological breakthrough you achieve, you still need a micron-level precision in the glass elements - the bigger they are, the more costly is to make them 100% precise.

 

[Sella174]

What I'm saying is that I agree with you regarding the high-volume entry-level market being important. I just kind of disagree on the weight of "high-volume" and what exactly defines the entry-level market. Personally I see the 6D as an entry-level camera now and for the next five years.

If this is a case and I'd be a Canon shareholder, I'd call my stock broker right now ordering a panic sale. If Canon's upcoming consumer market starts with a €1500 price tag without even a lens included, they're in for big trouble.

Just lower the price on the 6D. (IMO it's over-priced anyway.) The big trouble that they (Canon and possibly Nikon) are in for is that the whole camera market has changed ... very rapidly. Just look at how fast decent EVF's have become the norm once the technology reached a viable stage, even though it probably took years and years of research. From history we need only look at the impact that the IBM PC (which was more expensive than a small car) had on the typewriter industry. In many ways price is not an exclusionary factor for mass adoption of new technology.

Canon (and Nikon) needs to consolidate and reinvent their photography business, as in right now.

I disagree because I doubt there are such a lot of "diverse needs". Actually I agree for once with the expert mainstream in the forum here - for most stuff, Canon is certainly good enough. And since they cannot get back behind this, upcoming products including crop will be more than good enough.

Indeed, but for how long. They've already lost the mirrorless market ... almost everyone who wanted mirrorless has switched by now. Who are next? The video crowd, or have they also already gone?

Last not least, all this is academic - with a company that places as much weight on investment of their customer's investment, they won't obsolete (how many?) sold ef-s lenses just like that. True enough, Nikon allows you to use their crop lenses on ff, but imho Canon demonstrated they're not willing to go this way.

The year is 1987. Just three years previously Canon spent gazillions promoting their FD system by being an official sponsor of the Olympics. Now (in 1987) the FD system is dropped and replaced with the incompatible EF system.

They did it before, so they can do it again.

 

[Sella174]

If you can't figure that out, that's more than sad, it's pathetic.

Ditto on not being able to explain it to me.

 

[Marsu42]

Just lower the price on the 6D. (IMO it's over-priced anyway.)

I'm with you there, but that's purely from a consumer point of view. Canon has to generate their profit from somewhere, not just to make their shareholders happy, but to finance upcoming r&d. If they cannot cash in on legacy tech like the 5d2=6d, and the high-end market isn't high volume, what's left?

Canon (and Nikon) needs to consolidate and reinvent their photography business, as in right now.

But who *is* Canon or Nikon? Their workforce? Their devs? Their management? Their shareholders? Any hint of upcoming large investments into r&d would drive their quarterly reports into the ground or generate a mandatory shareholder warning. Any CEO ack'ing such action wouldn't be around for long. Large companies aren't driven into bankruptcy because their people are stupid, but because that's how the stock system works.

The year is 1987. Just three years previously Canon spent gazillions promoting their FD system by being an official sponsor of the Olympics. Now (in 1987) the FD system is dropped and replaced with the incompatible EF system.

True enough - but could they really do it again in this day and age? Any major system change would open up the option to jump ship for a lot of customers who hold on to Canon because of former investments. But now, there are more alternative options around than 30 years before.

 

[Luds34]

Kind of sad that people are so illogical...

Have you done any reading on behavior economics? I find it entertaining."Sad" is such a depressing way to look at, what fundamentally is, human nature. Well we are all wired a little differently, I feel blessed to be a fairly rational, logically individual . However, it's my feeling that the average person though is probably more emotional (vs logical) driven in their decision making. Or maybe my observations have just been disproportionately of those of my wife.

 

[Sella174]

There are photographers who actually prefer the crop sensor.

Yes, and I am one of them.

 

[Don Haines]

So let's look at the 100L....

Suppose Canon also made an APS-C only and a FF only version of the lens.....

The first think that would happen is that sales of the FF version would drop, we would loose economies of scale, and the price would probably go up.

...

All the more reason for Canon to pick a form factor (preferably "full-frame") and do that exclusively.

except that for every FF camera they sell, they sell ten times that with crop cameras... If they picked one FF only, then say goodbye to FF....

 

[Don Haines]

Any company that tries to be 'all things' to 'all people' would soon be 'all broke' and 'all gone'.

From my viewpoint with a background in marketing, Canon is undoubtedly far better equipped to research and determine what the market wants than any individual posting on this forum. They have global assets and access to market trends throughout the world. Do any of us? I hardly think so.

In recent years I have purchased Nikon and Fuji, in addition to my Canon gear thinking some of their products might serve me better. I did not find that to be the case. I take approximately 35,000 - 40,000 images per year in some very demanding environments. My Canon gear delivers everything that I need. Are they perfect. Hell no. But then neither am I and neither is anyone else out there. On balance, I find them to be the best for my needs.

I didn't buy into a Canon camera or Canon lens. I bought into the Canon system and the Canon product development philosophy. I'm sure many photographers also bought into the same with Nikon.

All that to say that in my opinion either of those companies can satisfy the needs of 99% of the photographers that walk this earth.

Remember that often times a company that appears to be on the 'leading' edge, is actually on the 'bleeding' edge.

Just one man's opinion. ;D

Well said!

 

[Marsu42]

From my viewpoint with a background in marketing, Canon is undoubtedly far better equipped to research and determine what the market wants than any individual posting on this forum. They have global assets and access to market trends throughout the world. Do any of us? I hardly think so.

Indeed, that's why I find any claims about what the majority wants around here somewhat lacking.

However, global research *capability* doesn't equal actually following the long-term implications if it has short-term drawbacks. Wasn't Kodak undoubtedly equipped to research and determine what the market wants? Wasn't Nokia? And look what happened to them.

 

[Don Haines]

Now (in 1987) the FD system is dropped and replaced with the incompatible EF system.

They did it before, so they can do it again.

But why did they do it?

EF stands for Electronic Focus. It was designed as a FF mount for FILM cameras that would allow electronic communication between the body and the lenses. They had two ways to go.... they could keep all the smarts in the body and use wires to control the motors and read the switches, or they could put some intelligence in the lens and use data communications to control the lens.

With data communications, they had a more flexible system.... they could add motors and switches and keep the interface the same... in other words, it was future-proofed.

The future hit. Digital cameras appeared. There were 1.6X crop, 1.3X crop, and FF. They all kept the same lens mount and there were ZERO changes needed to the EF standard. You can take one of those 1987 lenses and plop it onto your brand new 7D2, a 1DX, a c-500, a 1D-C, any rebel, or with an adaptor, onto an EOS-M. That is what happens with good design....

Would they ever change the design? Of course! It has already happened. To get into the low-cost market that represents the vast bulk of their sales, they created the EF-S mount.... electronically IDENTICAL to the EF mount and even using the same image circle so that you could use the existing EF lenses. Then they did the same thing again and created the EOS-M mount.... still electronically identical, but with shorter flange distances and a smaller mount circle so that they could produce tiny lenses for the mirrorless crop market, yet with an adaptor you can still use any of the EF or EF-S lenses on it.

Remember the direction things are moving in... Canon started with an EF lens mount and ONLY FF lenses.... then they added EF-S and smaller crop lenses.... then they added EOS-M and even smaller mirorrless lenses...

Yes, the pro's use FF, but it is crop that keeps the factory lights on and mirrorless that is the hope for the future. Never forget that we are the minority and in the grand scheme of things it is the low end cameras bought by soccer moms and proud fathers that are what truly matters....