Does Canon really deserve this?

[Loswr]

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.

As I've stated before, you seem to have trouble seeing any viewpoint other than your own. There are nearly as many reasons people would choose the 6D over the 70D as there are people who make that choice. I could produce a list of reasons, but they're not my reasons...

But if you must have a reason, try this for starters...

They've already lost the mirrorless market ... almost everyone who wanted mirrorless has switched by now.

Really? If so, then consider that dSLRs continue to outsell MILCs by a very large margin, and extrapolate from that the implication for the future of MILCs.

 

[zlatko]

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?

There's no such thing as "losing" the mirrorless market. Every year, people buy new cameras, so there are constant opportunities to sell new cameras. It's not as if the market closes its doors at some point. Canon will have plenty of opportunities to sell mirrorless system cameras if they want to.

As for the video crowd, Canon seems to be doing very well in video. I photograph weddings and at most weddings there are 1 or 2 videographers. Nearly every videographer I've seen in the past 5 years has been a Canon user, usually with several Canon bodies and a bag full of Canon lenses (sometimes some 3rd party lenses too). At some weddings, there are so many Canon DSLRs that it's common for wedding guests to ask the videographers to take still photos of them (not realizing they are shooting video). So, as far as I can see, videographers are heavily into Canon. I have yet to see a wedding videographer using Nikon or Sony.

 

[Don Haines]

As I've stated before, you seem to have trouble seeing any viewpoint other than your own. There are nearly as many reasons people would choose the 6D over the 70D as there are people who make that choice. I could produce a list of reasons, but they're not my reasons...

I can see great reasons to go either way... For cost, you can't beat crop.... for quality you can't beat FF.... For AF or weatherproofing you could go 1DX or 7D2, if it just has to work no matter what and with no surprises, go 1DX, for portability, EOS M..... and to duct-tape it to someone's head and push them out the door of the plane, GoPro.

If we all had the same resources and the same requirements, Canon would make 1 camera.... Nikon would make 1 camera, Sony would make 1 camera, ...... and they would all be similar.

Rather than argue about how relevant our personal preferences are, rejoice in the variety out there to meet everyone's needs as they see fit.

 

[Marsu42]

At some weddings, there are so many Canon DSLRs that it's common for wedding guests to ask the videographers to take still photos of them (not realizing they are shooting video). So, as far as I can see, videographers are heavily into Canon. I have yet to see a wedding videographer using Nikon or Sony.

But how long is the lag is between tech development and pros adapting to changed circumstances?

From what I read on the Magic Lantern forum which used to be a stronghold of the 5d2 video revolution, people are either trying to fix the Canon system below the 1dc with raw video or abandoning the hybrid stills/video system in favor of dedicated video gear. Getting a 5d3 just for video is a lot of €€€.

Question how much impact the 7d2 will have as it's good value and hasn't got the moire issues anymore. But the 7d2 doesn't run ML, and you get get the 4k Panasonic GH4 for less money...

 

[Lawliet]

But the 7d2 doesn't run ML, and you get get the 4k Panasonic GH4 for less money...

A w/o ML we're stuck with the reasons that made the raw output hack mandatory in the first place - with a devil in the details difference: back when the 5D2 came out there was not much to compare it against. Today you cut back and forth between footage from different cameras, making such details more apparent.
(Not to think about the additional implications of roll stabilization via sensor vs. post. Now considering a timeframe that encompasses typical write-offs or the last product cycles. )

 

[scyrene]

Most of the critical comments directed against Canon revolve around:
a) Dynamic range
b) Pixel count
c) Video capabilities
d) In camera tools

Regarding (a), that is minor for most users, both with stills and video. Some people doing specialist work might have an issue, but it does not affect most.

I don't see what the big deal is about pixel count. Unless you are producing a huge image in a lossless format, the current resolutions are more than adequate.

Video capabilities are a valid criticism. The video capabilities in pretty much all consumer cameras lag far behind the competition.

In camera tools (lack thereof, or poor implementation) are a valid criticism. Having an extensive tool set and wide control of shooting parameters is something that a modern camera should have. Programmable and flexible tools such as peaking and exposure indicators are a must have feature in any modern camera.

The fact that some people don't have a problem does not mean that other people's issues have no merit. They are customers as well.

One should also not forget that the vast majority of purchasers buy the badge on the front of the camera, so suggesting that because a particular manufacturer sells a lot of product implies that the product has exceptional quality is a load of rubbish. The quality of a product is determined by it's capabilities alone, not how well it sells.

I certainly don't moan about resolution, but it's worth pointing out that some of us crop a lot, and more resolution would help with that (those pesky birdies are often too far away, even with long lenses).

 

[scyrene]

I think there are 2 serious issues plaquing the Canon system:
a) sensor performance at low ISO
b) slow / inaccurate contrast based AF in their compact cameras e.g., G7X, EOS-M etc
Hopefully Canon can address these 2 problems.

These are just some of the symptoms. The underlying problem is, that Canon has not been willing to drive innovation full speed and/or has not been able to do so. They have switched to iterative small, purely marketing-driven steps. This has resulted in losing their towering technological dominance in digital cameras they had until about 2006, when many pros, semi-pros and enthusiasts bought their initial sets of canon digital slrs plus lenses plus flash. Today canon is an "ok" supplier and they still sell the most dslrs and they may be market leaders, but they are no longer the clear industry leader when it comes to digital imaging per se.

Canon is still an 800 pound gorilla, but it has gotten old, fat, tired, and complacent, unwilling to learn new tricks or to take any risks. They are now the supplier of choice to a) inexperienced brand believers shopping for a rebel plus kit lens (provided they still want to lug around any dslr) and b) professionals/semi pros with a large investment in the system who believe they need or really need cps service. But canon is loosing the most important segment fast: photo enthusiasts with some money to spend. They want the best cameras. Lenses and systems, they can afford. And they are doing their homework and know what those systems are. Unless one is bird/wildlife/outdoor sports oriented and into long tele lenses, it ai t canon these days. And it aint small iterations of clunky mirrorslappers.

Do you get a reward every time you use the word 'mirrorslapper'?

 

[scyrene]

There certainly are plenty of mirrorless and software comments, and you are correct most threads start out ok and tend to get progressively worst.
It's hard for me to be objective about software as they mostly involve features I won't use, but I certainly understand why people want to untapped resources that are there. Fuji is very good at upgrading firmware on their cameras , but canon ensured f8 autofocus and that's a feature I wanted.
Now the mirrorless argument for me I don't get at the moment. The major sacrifices are af and ergonomics which are things I don't want to sacrifice. Now mirrorless will be the future but I haven't seen anything that makes me want to swap to a mirrorless as my primary camera. I have a fuji x100s which i like as my portable camera, but I wouldn't take it wildlife watching.
Now regarding criticism of Canon software and the mirrorless options to me they aren't even close to causing me to want to leave Canon, to others perhaps they are. Should those comments unnecessarily dominate many threads? I don't think so, and I find a lot of the out of place. But if they are constructive rather than complaints then good on them.

On the mirrorless option am I the only person who doesn't like smaller cameras in general?

You're not alone. I simply don't think it's feasible to use larger supertelephoto lenses with tiny bodies effectively - so even if the future is mirrorless, it needs to come in a roughly DSLR-shaped body.

 

[jrista]

There certainly are plenty of mirrorless and software comments, and you are correct most threads start out ok and tend to get progressively worst.
It's hard for me to be objective about software as they mostly involve features I won't use, but I certainly understand why people want to untapped resources that are there. Fuji is very good at upgrading firmware on their cameras , but canon ensured f8 autofocus and that's a feature I wanted.
Now the mirrorless argument for me I don't get at the moment. The major sacrifices are af and ergonomics which are things I don't want to sacrifice. Now mirrorless will be the future but I haven't seen anything that makes me want to swap to a mirrorless as my primary camera. I have a fuji x100s which i like as my portable camera, but I wouldn't take it wildlife watching.
Now regarding criticism of Canon software and the mirrorless options to me they aren't even close to causing me to want to leave Canon, to others perhaps they are. Should those comments unnecessarily dominate many threads? I don't think so, and I find a lot of the out of place. But if they are constructive rather than complaints then good on them.

On the mirrorless option am I the only person who doesn't like smaller cameras in general?

You're not alone. I simply don't think it's feasible to use larger supertelephoto lenses with tiny bodies effectively - so even if the future is mirrorless, it needs to come in a roughly DSLR-shaped body.

It's not the biggest body, for sure...but it is the closest thing to a DSLR-sized and shaped (ergonomically) mirrorless that I've seen thus far. I have to try it out to say for sure, but I would much rather use this with a giant supertelephoto than any other mirrorless. I still think it might be a little cramped...but, so was my Rebel, and I used that with the 100-400 all the time. Samsung is also readying it's own superteles for use with this body, and they seem to be just as large as Canon's.

 

[Loswr]

I simply don't think it's feasible to use larger supertelephoto lenses with tiny bodies effectively...

Earlier in this thread I referred to using a MILC (EOS M, in my case) with a 600/4 as an ergonomic nightmare. I will say that applies to handheld shooting – with the lens mounted on a gimbal head, a tiny body isn't a problem, provided your plate/clamp has enough positioning flexibility to balance properly with a very light body.

 

[scyrene]

Waste to use FF lenses on a crop frame Canon camera??? LOL Now I really have heard everything!!! One of he great strengths of the Canon crop-frame line is that it can use the entire family of EF-S and EF lenses!

Yes, it is a marketing angle. However, please tell me the point of a small camera like the 100D, when you have to put huge "full-frame" lenses on it to get decent optics, like the 70-200mm lenses or the 400mm lens?

Um... if you want to shoot wide/standard focal lengths, you can get small lenses. Afaik there's little to no size advantage in making long focal length lenses for EF-S versus EF mount (tech guys, right?). You're looking at it the wrong way round - you could say, how awesome that a tiny camera like the 100D can also be used with the full range of lenses - you lose the size advantage at longer lengths, but you only need the one body to cover all eventualities.

Moreover, issues like corner softness and vignetting either 'go away' or become far less acute.

L-lenses are not supposed to have these "issues" and that is why they are so expensive. Thus, by using the "full-frame" L-lenses on a "crop-frame" camera, you just paid for something of which you cannot enjoy the benefit. Bad economy ... or simply wasting your money.

No lens is perfect. L lenses tend to be very good, but nobody claims they are perfect - optical perfection doesn't exist in the real world. Vignetting, especially, is just a fact of life for wider aperture lenses. That's hardly a fault, it's just reality.

AND my 100-400mm becomes a 160-640mm equivalent!

No, your 100-400mm lens stays a 100-400mm lens. You just lose the great edge performance you paid for, 'cause of a reduced field of view due to in-camera, "hardware" cropping. (Honestly, do you really still believe that line of marketing hokey about the focal length increase?)

Ah, the silly, silly things people complain about!

You got that right, at least.

Well, the 7DII has nearly as many pixels as the 5DIII, so you'd be able to resolve more detail on a subject. You can crop the full frame image, but you can't gain any extra resolution that way.

 

[scyrene]

However, for those of us who do not need *GASP* "full-frame", having to purchase "full-frame" lenses for our "crop-frame" cameras 'cause Canon neglected to cater to our needs, is bad economy: we pay for what we cannot even use.

Bad economy for you, you mean. Canon cares about their economy, but about yours only insofar as you give them your money.

Consider the reverse...if you as a crop user did buy a FF body, how would you like to have to buy a complete new set of lenses for it? The economy of EF lenses mounting on crop bodies works both ways.

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.

The APS-C version of the lens would still be the same size and the end element would still be the same size. We could shave a bit off of the internal elements and the resulting lens would be a few percent lighter than the FF version, but once again, we would have lost some of the economies of scale and the resulting lens would cost more.

Realistically, you have to go shorter than 50mm to get any significant size savings on an APS-C lens. There are a few lenses (17-55F2.8 comes to mind) which are "L" quality, but with anything longer, it just isn't worth it.

Thanks! That was what I had in mind with my previous response. I hadn't read all the way through the thread yet

 

[Don Haines]

There certainly are plenty of mirrorless and software comments, and you are correct most threads start out ok and tend to get progressively worst.
It's hard for me to be objective about software as they mostly involve features I won't use, but I certainly understand why people want to untapped resources that are there. Fuji is very good at upgrading firmware on their cameras , but canon ensured f8 autofocus and that's a feature I wanted.
Now the mirrorless argument for me I don't get at the moment. The major sacrifices are af and ergonomics which are things I don't want to sacrifice. Now mirrorless will be the future but I haven't seen anything that makes me want to swap to a mirrorless as my primary camera. I have a fuji x100s which i like as my portable camera, but I wouldn't take it wildlife watching.
Now regarding criticism of Canon software and the mirrorless options to me they aren't even close to causing me to want to leave Canon, to others perhaps they are. Should those comments unnecessarily dominate many threads? I don't think so, and I find a lot of the out of place. But if they are constructive rather than complaints then good on them.

On the mirrorless option am I the only person who doesn't like smaller cameras in general?

You're not alone. I simply don't think it's feasible to use larger supertelephoto lenses with tiny bodies effectively - so even if the future is mirrorless, it needs to come in a roughly DSLR-shaped body.

+1
By the time the 7D3 comes out, I expect it to be mirrorless and about the same size. You can't go smaller and keep the ergonomics.... not just for the grip, but for the knobs, buttons, and switches too.

 

[JohnDizzo15]

As far as the claim that Canon has already "lost" in the mirrorless market, I don't think that that is the proper perspective to view it from.

First, they only half-heartedly entered the market to begin with which wasn't really an attempt at winning any type of battle. Second, they already possess the sensor and other technologies to make a worthwhile mirrorless body e.g. use the existing EOS M with a dual pixel sensor. Third, the ecosystem is the ecosystem. Nothing changes with regard to everything else that Canon has to offer in conjunction with any camera body they release.

Those few things alone would make it much easier for Canon to simply release another M with a few simple upgrades they are already capable of and take a decent chunk of the mirrorless market. This doesn't even really require that they break a sweat.

Now imagine if they actually threw some additional innovative features into it. Point is, it wouldn't take a whole lot to get back into the battle (assuming they ever lost it).

 

[scyrene]

There certainly are plenty of mirrorless and software comments, and you are correct most threads start out ok and tend to get progressively worst.
It's hard for me to be objective about software as they mostly involve features I won't use, but I certainly understand why people want to untapped resources that are there. Fuji is very good at upgrading firmware on their cameras , but canon ensured f8 autofocus and that's a feature I wanted.
Now the mirrorless argument for me I don't get at the moment. The major sacrifices are af and ergonomics which are things I don't want to sacrifice. Now mirrorless will be the future but I haven't seen anything that makes me want to swap to a mirrorless as my primary camera. I have a fuji x100s which i like as my portable camera, but I wouldn't take it wildlife watching.
Now regarding criticism of Canon software and the mirrorless options to me they aren't even close to causing me to want to leave Canon, to others perhaps they are. Should those comments unnecessarily dominate many threads? I don't think so, and I find a lot of the out of place. But if they are constructive rather than complaints then good on them.

On the mirrorless option am I the only person who doesn't like smaller cameras in general?

You're not alone. I simply don't think it's feasible to use larger supertelephoto lenses with tiny bodies effectively - so even if the future is mirrorless, it needs to come in a roughly DSLR-shaped body.

It's not the biggest body, for sure...but it is the closest thing to a DSLR-sized and shaped (ergonomically) mirrorless that I've seen thus far. I have to try it out to say for sure, but I would much rather use this with a giant supertelephoto than any other mirrorless. I still think it might be a little cramped...but, so was my Rebel, and I used that with the 100-400 all the time. Samsung is also readying it's own superteles for use with this body, and they seem to be just as large as Canon's.

This is to be welcomed.

 

[scyrene]

I simply don't think it's feasible to use larger supertelephoto lenses with tiny bodies effectively...

Earlier in this thread I referred to using a MILC (EOS M, in my case) with a 600/4 as an ergonomic nightmare. I will say that applies to handheld shooting – with the lens mounted on a gimbal head, a tiny body isn't a problem, provided your plate/clamp has enough positioning flexibility to balance properly with a very light body.

Oh sure, I've mounted the 500 f/4 on the EOS-M on a tripod, it works fine. I wouldn't want to do it handheld - especially without a viewfinder.

 

[East Wind Photography]

I simply don't think it's feasible to use larger supertelephoto lenses with tiny bodies effectively...

Earlier in this thread I referred to using a MILC (EOS M, in my case) with a 600/4 as an ergonomic nightmare. I will say that applies to handheld shooting – with the lens mounted on a gimbal head, a tiny body isn't a problem, provided your plate/clamp has enough positioning flexibility to balance properly with a very light body.

Oh sure, I've mounted the 500 f/4 on the EOS-M on a tripod, it works fine. I wouldn't want to do it handheld - especially without a viewfinder.

And about 5 minutes of battery before it runs dead and try to focus in bright sunlight. Large format DSLR won't ever be replaced by small format cameras, especially mirror less. Small cameras have their purpose but they are just a tool....and limited at that.

 

[zlatko]

At some weddings, there are so many Canon DSLRs that it's common for wedding guests to ask the videographers to take still photos of them (not realizing they are shooting video). So, as far as I can see, videographers are heavily into Canon. I have yet to see a wedding videographer using Nikon or Sony.

But how long is the lag is between tech development and pros adapting to changed circumstances?

From what I read on the Magic Lantern forum which used to be a stronghold of the 5d2 video revolution, people are either trying to fix the Canon system below the 1dc with raw video or abandoning the hybrid stills/video system in favor of dedicated video gear. Getting a 5d3 just for video is a lot of €€€.

Question how much impact the 7d2 will have as it's good value and hasn't got the moire issues anymore. But the 7d2 doesn't run ML, and you get get the 4k Panasonic GH4 for less money...

I don't know about any lag. When the 5D2 appeared, I started seeing videographers using it at every wedding. More recently, I see them using everything from the Rebel (xxxD series) to the 70D to the 5D3.

They don't need the 7D2 to run ML *today*. They're already using other Canon bodies, so there's no urgency to add a 7D2. Getting a 5D3 just for video is a lot of money, and yet I see a lot of videographers doing exactly that, usually coupled with other Canon bodies.

Sure you can get a GH4 or something else, but that's not what I see them getting. In recent years, I've seen exactly one videographer shooting with Panasonic gear. All the rest were using Canon. The video crowd that I see is not rushing away from Canon. Instead, they are nearly all using Canon.

 

[Sella174]

There are nearly as many reasons people would choose the 6D over the 70D as there are people who make that choice. I could produce a list of reasons, but they're not my reasons...

But if you must have a reason, try this for starters...

Just as I thought: the primary reason for picking the 6D over the 70D is the "full-frame" sensor; and not the better AF, better frame-rate, etc. which the 6D hasn't got. Simply and only the bigger size of the sensor.

They've already lost the mirrorless market ... almost everyone who wanted mirrorless has switched by now.

Really? If so, then consider that dSLRs continue to outsell MILCs by a very large margin, and extrapolate from that the implication for the future of MILCs.

And typewriters outsold computers ... until the mid-1980's.

 

[Marsu42]

Just as I thought: the primary reason for picking the 6D over the 70D is the "full-frame" sensor; and not the better AF, better frame-rate, etc. which the 6D hasn't got. Simply and only the bigger size of the sensor.

Sure, but the image quality of the sensor is kind of important ... it's not just the lower noise level, but significantly better gradients, colors and tonality, postprocessing leverage, depth of field. Last not least, the same lens has a different bokeh and "look" on full frame. And I'm writing this as a big fan of crop for macro shooting, my snappy 60d is much more fun than the crippled 6d.