Does Canon really deserve this?

[Loswr]

[sarcasm]So the conclusion is that a "full-frame" camera with a mediocre, entry-level AF system trumps a "crop-frame" camera with a terrific, state-of-the-art AF system. Got it.[/sarcasm]

Trumps? For some that is absolutely true (with no need for sarcasm), for others no. Why would you conclude everyone choosing between the 70D and 6D would choose the latter? Of course, you should keep in mind that the 6D is a modest upgrade to the 5DII, which was an extraordinarily popular camera despite having a glorified version of the AF system from the 20D (which soon made its way to the Rebel/xxxD line).

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.

That's a nice moral if you want to tell a completely different story from the one with which you started. It is a fact that dSLRs outsell mirrorless by a very large margin. You stated that pretty much everyone who was going to switch to mirrorless has already done so. So unless you'd like to retract that statement, the moral of your original story is that MILCs have a very dismal future.

 

[Sella174]

That's a nice moral if you want to tell a completely different story from the one with which you started.

What does "mirrorless" have to do with my recommendation that Canon dumps their "crop-frame" system and concentrate exclusively on "full-frame" - mirrored and, if they so desire, mirrorless?

It is a fact that dSLRs outsell mirrorless by a very large margin.

So what does that prove? (But also read below.)

You stated that pretty much everyone who was going to switch to mirrorless has already done so.

So?

So unless you'd like to retract that statement, the moral of your original story is that MILCs have a very dismal future.

I am sorry, but how you came to that conclusion is for me a mystery.

However, if I understand you correctly, based on my typewriter analogy, DLSR's outsell "mirrorless" and thus "mirrorless" is doomed.

But if we push this interpretation of yours a tad further, then we see that "crop-frame" DSLR's outsell "full-frame" DSLR's. So does this mean that "full-frame" DSLR's are also doomed?

 

[Sella174]

Why would you conclude everyone choosing between the 70D and 6D would choose the latter?

Perhaps because you said so?

 

[fragilesi]

But you really didn't answer the more serious points that I made.

Serious points, right. OK, here goes ...

I am not saying that the 70D and the 7DII are bad cameras. I am also not saying that these particular cameras are non-innovative on the whole. What I am saying is that in my opinion, for Canon, the "crop-frame" sensor DSLR is something that no longer has any place in their line-up. The reason for this is that the camera market has shrunk considerable and therefore it will not be possible to continue supporting two form-factors indefinitely. Many on this forum, you included, have pointed out the increase in cost per product should Canon decide to actually support "crop-frame" cameras with more (actual or equivalent) L-grade lenses. This is quite true and should be a primary reason for Canon picking a form-factor and dropping the other. The obvious choice would be "full-frame", due to all the best lenses being "full-frame" already.

For the future, once Canon eventually rolls out a "full-frame" camera with an equivalent 20MP "crop-frame" sensor, something like the now rumoured 50MP sensor, then "crop-frame" will be truly dead. Ignoring the cost, ask yourself why would anyone use a 20MP "crop-frame" camera and "full-frame" lenses, when they can rather use a 50MP "full-frame" camera with those same "full-frame" lenses? (Everything else being equal, e.g. AF speed, frame rate, etc., of course.)

As to the cost argument, well ... the really low-end, entry-level market as per ca.2008 has gone over to whatever imaging-enable device is the current fad. This means that the current (ca.2015) entry-level market is from the start a more advanced photographer, basically the mid-level "prosumers" of the previous decade. Yes, cameras will be more expensive for the entry-level models, but the purchasers thereof have for the most part already gone through everything their imaging-enabled phone can deliver and they want more right out of the (camera) box and are/should be willing to pay for it. IMO, for Canon, that is "full-frame" cameras ... with or without mirrors.

Coupled with the above reasoning regarding the cost factor, electronics (should) become cheaper and more capable every year. If not, then whosoever is in charge is definitely doing something wrong. I concede that any particular line of technology always somewhere "hits the wall" and can go no further, but if that happens, then the people in charge should start looking for alternatives or concentrate on something else within the confines of that technology. In the case of Canon and their sensors, for example, if they cannot increase the DR of their current designs, then start figuring out a cheaper manufacturing process (or even an algorithm for fixing dead photo-sites through extrapolation). Anything to keep with the spirit of electronics: more for less. (No, I am not saying I want a 6D for the price of a 700D.)

I think that adequately answers the points you made in your post.

"ignoring the cost" - if only we could! Though it's a valid point about the duplication.

That said I think your rebuttal to the cost point is over-reaching. There will always need to be a range of products on offer, there is no one-size fits all. Many people aren't going to want or need a 50MP anything for some time because they are "just" prosumers and the additional cost of computing in terms of processor power for editing, bigger cards and hard drives etc for storage becomes significant. I regularly shoot 1000 shots in a trip out. That's a hell of a truckload of data as it is. This is just one aspect of it, consider the need for lenses with that kind of resolving power to make it worthwile. Yes storage and PC power affordability will improve but it's still ramping up the costs far beyond the cost of the camera.

The crop form factor is likely to continue to offer a cheaper entry into the market regardless of the relative levels of cost. Do I personally need or want 50MP? Nope, no way no how. Do I highly desire the AF system in the 7dII? You bet your life I do. And I want that at a price I can justify for my next camera body. The crop form factor delivers for me and many, many others.

Maybe there will come a time when the factors that you refer to come together to eliminate it but the way the world economy is teetering I think it would be unwise of Canon to put all their eggs into the high end basket right now.

 

[dak723]

No offense intended, but I believe the entire argument based on "full frame lenses" is flawed. Canon has EF-S lenses that are only for crop cameras, but the "Full Frame" lenses are no such thing. I have used them on crop cameras for almost 10 years and I'm sure that many others do to. In fact, you can get great deals on older "FF" lenses - such as the 28-70 mm non-L lens that gives great results on a crop camera, but less than stellar results on a FF camera due to a lot of vignetting. Calling them "FF lenses" and then basing your arguments on them has no basis in reality, in my opinion.

Having been a crop camera user for 9 years (the original rebel) and then getting a full frame 6D, I would choose the crop camera as the better choice for general photography. I miss the extra reach and found the crop much more appropriate for "semi" macro work such as pics of flowers. Too little DOF with the 6D in many circumstances. If you shoot in daylight, mainly vacation type photos - along with semi-macro, then a crop camera will be perfectly fine. Even the 6MP original rebel is good enough to create "sell-able" pics up to 8" x 12".

So does Canon deserve this? If you shoot in daylight, then your IQ will be high. Are the Sonys and Nikons better for people doing general daylight shooting? I doubt there can be any noticeable difference.

 

[Sella174]

There will always need to be a range of products on offer, there is no one-size fits all.

... but the way the world economy is teetering I think it would be unwise of Canon to put all their eggs into the high end basket right now.

I do not mean (and never stated as much) that Canon should have just the one "full-frame" camera. Obviously they should have three to five models available, each with different capabilities. For example, a 6D'ish entry-level camera, a 5D3'ish mid-level camera, a 50MP'ish studio/landscape camera, a 1DX'ish photojournalist camera and a 50MP'ish sports/wildlife camera. For this spread of products there is obviously no single basket at risk and there is something for everyone. (Well, except for me, because I kind of like "crop-factor" MIRRORLESS cameras.)

 

[Sella174]

No offense intended, but I believe the entire argument based on "full frame lenses" is flawed.

None taken ... offense, that is.

Here's something else to chew on: The current crop of L-lenses can provide the resolution necessary for the new 7D2 "crop-frame" sensor. Yet all the current "full-frame" cameras cannot use that resolution because their sensors do not have the necessary pixel-density. So, more waste?

 

[privatebydesign]

Here's something else to chew on: The current crop of L-lenses can provide the resolution necessary for the new 7D2 "crop-frame" sensor. Yet all the current "full-frame" cameras cannot use that resolution because their sensors do not have the necessary pixel-density. So, more waste?

That is the kind of nonsensical, but logical sounding, bullshit people say who don't understand how a system resolution figure is achieved.

 

[Sella174]

That is the kind of nonsensical, but logical sounding, bullshit people say who don't understand how a system resolution figure is achieved.

"Never look down on anybody, unless you are helping them up."

 

[privatebydesign]

That is the kind of nonsensical, but logical sounding, bullshit people say who don't understand how a system resolution figure is achieved.

"Never look down on anybody, unless you are helping them up."

I agree, I was looking out for the people who might be impressionable enough to buy into your snake oil garbage and I assumed you knew better, sorry if I overestimated you.

Like I said, it kind of sounds logical, but is completely erroneous and you are doing those that don't know better a huge disservice by repeating such utter garbage.

 

[Sella174]

I agree, I was looking out for the people who might be impressionable enough to buy into your snake oil garbage and I assumed you knew better, sorry if I overestimated you.

Like I said, it kind of sounds logical, but is completely erroneous and you are doing those that don't know better a huge disservice by repeating such utter garbage.

Honestly, I am totally gobsmacked by the abusive resistance from the CR "regulars" to the suggestion that Canon should drop the "crop-frame" system.

 

[Don Haines]

Now for a dose of reality...

Canon has sold over 100 million EOS cameras and something like 130 million lenses.

Of that number, it was estimated that 120 million lenses were sold in kits with 96 million bodies.... in other words, 4 percent of the bodies sold are bought as lone items, and only 10 million lenses are sold outside of kits.

The vast majority of the market is people buying low end cameras in one or two lens kits.

FF camera buyers are a niche market.
"After initial sale" lens buyers are a niche market.

We CR readers do not represent the typical consumer. We are a small "prestige" niche. To say that Canon should direct their efforts to meet our needs and to abandon the bulk of their market is, to say the least, ill advised. Watch what happens over the next few years.... crop cameras will go mirrorless and the form factor will shrink. The cameras like the SL1 will be the big ones, most will probably be EOS-M form factor, along with the tiny and cheaper lenses that go with them.

FF and the big lenses will survive. There is a profitable market for them... but it will always be a niche.

 

[Sella174]

I have to say the current state of the thread goes even beyond the expected. Probably time to call it a day - surely there are lots of upcoming opportunities to call each other names.

Only if I can be the chap with the glasses and the rod!

(Good advice. Taken and thanks.)

 

[privatebydesign]

I agree, I was looking out for the people who might be impressionable enough to buy into your snake oil garbage and I assumed you knew better, sorry if I overestimated you.

Like I said, it kind of sounds logical, but is completely erroneous and you are doing those that don't know better a huge disservice by repeating such utter garbage.

Honestly, I am totally gobsmacked by the abusive resistance from the CR "regulars" to the suggestion that Canon should drop the "crop-frame" system.

I am just as aghast when people quote one very specific comment and then talk about something completely different. I am not pro or anti crop or ff and never said I was, they both have their uses and pros and cons.

My comment was directly aimed at your erroneous suggestion "Here's something else to chew on: The current crop of L-lenses can provide the resolution necessary for the new 7D2 "crop-frame" sensor. Yet all the current "full-frame" cameras cannot use that resolution because their sensors do not have the necessary pixel-density. So, more waste?". That is an entirely fallacious and misleading statement.

You can suggest whatever you want, I don't care, but I do hate inaccuracy and your resolution comment is so off base I felt it needed questioning. How does that make me pro or anti crop?

 

[Loswr]

That's a nice moral if you want to tell a completely different story from the one with which you started.

What does "mirrorless" have to do with my recommendation that Canon dumps their "crop-frame" system and concentrate exclusively on "full-frame" - mirrored and, if they so desire, mirrorless?

It is a fact that dSLRs outsell mirrorless by a very large margin.

So what does that prove? (But also read below.)

You stated that pretty much everyone who was going to switch to mirrorless has already done so.

So?

So unless you'd like to retract that statement, the moral of your original story is that MILCs have a very dismal future.

I am sorry, but how you came to that conclusion is for me a mystery.

However, if I understand you correctly, based on my typewriter analogy, DLSR's outsell "mirrorless" and thus "mirrorless" is doomed.

But if we push this interpretation of yours a tad further, then we see that "crop-frame" DSLR's outsell "full-frame" DSLR's. So does this mean that "full-frame" DSLR's are also doomed?

Why would you conclude everyone choosing between the 70D and 6D would choose the latter?

Perhaps because you said so?

You continue to misinterpret my statements, and now you're outright fabricating statements you're attributing to me. Sorry, but your reading comprehension is abysmal and that makes any further discussion totally pointless.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

I agree, I was looking out for the people who might be impressionable enough to buy into your snake oil garbage and I assumed you knew better, sorry if I overestimated you.
Like I said, it kind of sounds logical, but is completely erroneous and you are doing those that don't know better a huge disservice by repeating such utter garbage.

Honestly, I am totally gobsmacked by the abusive resistance from the CR "regulars" to the suggestion that Canon should drop the "crop-frame" system.

I read canonrumors for many years, and I see consumers in North America complaining of how Canon is a greedy company. I also see many snub the APS-C users, as if they were ignorant and undemanding people.

There is a wide range of photographers on this planet, and not everyone has the money to full frame, or do not want to carry more heavy and expensive equipment. :

Here in Brazil, a ordinary Canon 6D + 24-105mmL is being sold in Canon official store at a price equal to 4,700 US dollars. There is the option to buy cameras from smugglers, and without warranty valid. :-[ :'(
I live in a city with 6 million inhabitants, where 90% of marriages are photographed with a Canon 60D or 7D + 18-135mm lens + flash. :'( In Nikon side is used D90 or D7000 + 18-105mm + flash. :-X

Someone keeps thinking that in the future all cameras will be full frame? :-X

 

[privatebydesign]

Honestly, I am totally gobsmacked by the abusive resistance from the CR "regulars" to the suggestion that Canon should drop the "crop-frame" system.

Proudly being not part of the CR regular club in this case (though my post count suggests otherwise :-o) I have to say the current state of the thread goes even beyond the expected. Probably time to call it a day - surely there are lots of upcoming opportunities to call each other names. That's the problem with current board system, you cannot unsubscribe unless you delete all your posts in a thread :-\

I get where you are coming from but one of the main issues I see is people overreacting to a solid questioning of their comment or opinion, saying 'that is a stupid thing to say', is not the same as saying 'you are stupid'. I say stupid things and I don't mind being called out for it when I do, and I have been, and I don't confuse people telling me that to telling me I am stupid.

 

[privatebydesign]

I agree, I was looking out for the people who might be impressionable enough to buy into your snake oil garbage and I assumed you knew better, sorry if I overestimated you.
Like I said, it kind of sounds logical, but is completely erroneous and you are doing those that don't know better a huge disservice by repeating such utter garbage.

Honestly, I am totally gobsmacked by the abusive resistance from the CR "regulars" to the suggestion that Canon should drop the "crop-frame" system.

I read canonrumors for many years, and I see consumers in North America complaining of how Canon is a greedy company. I also see many snub the APS-C users, as if they were ignorant and undemanding people.

There is a wide range of photographers on this planet, and not everyone has the money to full frame, or do not want to carry more heavy and expensive equipment. :

Here in Brazil, a ordinary Canon 6D + 24-105mmL is being sold in Canon official store at a price equal to 4,700 US dollars. There is the option to buy cameras from smugglers, and without warranty valid. :-[ :'(
I live in a city with 6 million inhabitants, where 90% of marriages are photographed with a Canon 60D or 7D + 18-135mm lens + flash. :'( In Nikon side is used D90 or D7000 + 18-105mm + flash. :-X

Someone keeps thinking that in the future all cameras will be full frame? :-X

Now this is the kind of thing that does upset me.

I have never been anti crop camera, Sella constructs a strawman argument and implies I am, then another poster uses the same completely unconnected quote to add weight to their comment.

I do not look down on crop camera users, in many instances they offer significant advantages over ff cameras, so how come I am now quoted twice as saying I do? Crazy.....

 

[slclick]

Canon's bread and butter for bodies are 1.6 variants. The sales fund R&D for better cameras of all varieties. I personally use only FF but why in the world would I have anything against what someone else uses? It would be very juvenile.

 

[tcmatthews]

This is an interesting time to be a photograph enthusiasts. The rapid developments in software and hardware of the mirror-less cameras is quite frankly amazing. It is not so interesting if you are Canon. They seem to be doing their own thing. The lack of interest (apparent or imaginary) or inability of Canon to change with the times is concerning. The half baked EOS M system which actual sells well in Japan is a poor excuse for a mirror-less system. It could even be forgiven if it was released around the same time as the Sony NEX system. But they learned nothing from Sony's early missteps. If the Rebel sales go to mirrorless Canon is poorly positioned. The camera market is shrinking. Canon could possibly profit by reducing the number of Rebel models to one. Consolidating features into fewer APC cameras. Lowering R&D cost.

I expect that Canon will eventual get mirror-less right. It could fill in the low end right along the Rebel cameras with one prosumer model (with EFV) so satisfy the critics. I do not thing they can do it without eating into there own Rebel sales. The question is when. I say get on with it already.

Canon OWNS the pro full frame Market. That will not change anytime soon.
I fully expect that Canon will release a true full frame rebel.


On a side note: (but I may be misremembering it was a long time ago.)
I vaguely remember reading an interview of one of the Canon executives. I read around 9 years ago. Most of it covered the recently released 5D. In it the Canon executive basically stated that he expected most DSLR to eventual be full frame. That as soon as the manufacturing could was perfected that ASPH would be fazed out. Eventual the full frame sensor could be cheep enough to put in a Rebel. He just shrugged when asked what would happen to the EF-s mount.

It basically covered Canons road map from then to the present. It was also part of a 10 year plan. So focusing on full frame is right in line with early Digital camera plans.