EOS 5D Mark IV - the crippled generalist

[fussy III]

It already is a reality that there are a significant number of potential buyers out there sharing my critisizm, be it photographers or videographers. Just search the web. This is not propaganda, these are all people who are really into what they are doing. Many are fealing let down by Canon. And to many pricing is not the primary concern.

Besides there is a reality outside business that could tell Canon that it isn't nice to piss people off.

So I ask again - which camera does everything you want and includes all the things in your wishlist at a price you are willing to pay?

Keep asking

I was just interested if there was any manufacturer on the market illustrating what Canon should be doing in addition to what Canon are already doing. It seems not. And you have to ask why not....

Sorry about my laconic response. I sort of gave the answer in my initial post that started the threat. Pentax K1 is getting close to what I am hoping for but is (compared to Canon) obviously lacking in lens-selection, speed and AF.
To give a more personal answer: If I cannot have it all in one camera (or as it is not even in one system), I believe I will keep my Canon 500/4.0, perhaps add a 100-400/5.6 II but otherwise move to Fujifilm GFX where I expect I can use a range of Pentax 645 / 67 lenses that I own. I will probably buy the Standard-Zoom and the ultra-wide for the Fujifilm GFX that are not overly heavy and offer AF. I understand that I am trading speed and the optical viewfinder for image-quality with the Fuji.
But the slow speed of The Fujifilm GFX is caused by current technical limitations, not by company-philosophie. The short flange will allow to adapt or even tilt my existing 645-lenses. And I intend to make good use the extra resolution.

 

[Loswr]

It already is a reality that there are a significant number of potential buyers out there sharing my critisizm, be it photographers or videographers. Just search the web. This is not propaganda, these are all people who are really into what they are doing. Many are fealing let down by Canon. And to many pricing is not the primary concern.

Let me translate for you:

"It is known that..." = "I think that..."

"It is widely known that..." = "Me and a few other people think that..."

How many is 'many'? What sort of research have you done? Let me guess – you read the Internet. Maybe talked to a few people. Canon collects actual data from users and others. If even 10% of buyers register their purchases, that's a few hundred thousand data points per year. Then there are surveys, contracted market research, etc. But...you've read the Internet, so you know what 'many' people want.

 

[romanr74]

Plus, does anyone actually think someone who chooses 'fussy' as his/her forum identity is going to be satisfied?!?

To all those suggesting an Angle Finder C... It's pretty much a non-starter because of its main limitation – it doesn't help with the classic hand-held selfie.

You Canon-hater. How dare you suggest that anyone would want a feature which Canon, in their infinite wisdom and beneficence, should choose not to provide?!?
(This is not what a non-hyperbolic post looks like.)
;D

Yeah, mirrorless means the death of the dSLR within 5 years. Now, when have I heard that before? Oh, yes...7 years ago.

She/he is apparently expecting a 1D X II with a 5DsR sensor stuffed into a 6-series body and priced at $1000. If Canon doesn't deliver, they're doomed. :

Exactly. Not sure why people have such a hard time comprehending basic business concepts. Maybe their own wants drown out any common sense thoughts in their heads.

I start to understand your concept of meaningful contributions :

 

[xps]

Some thoughts from this video are IMO tue:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o43OfZ5rIbI

Well designed Workhorse, good upgrade, but in some aspects not on par with the compretitors

 

[romanr74]

Some thoughts from this video are IMO tue:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o43OfZ5rIbI

Well designed Workhorse, good upgrade, but in some aspects not on par with the compretitors

I have to say I tend to agree. I continue to struggle if this is a worthwhile upgrade from the Mark III - on the body side I've lost some "confidence" that they are fully up to the game - be it intentional or not - while on the glass side they do fantastic (yet expensive).

 

[Loswr]

I start to understand your concept of meaningful contributions :

No, you don't. But it's not worth further discussion since the explanation would clearly be lost in you.

In any case, I recall you said, "I'm done." Like I suggested, Google 'metacognition'. Or, if that's too hard, Google 'liar'.

 

[romanr74]

I start to understand your concept of meaningful contributions :

No, you don't. But it's not worth further discussion since the explanation would clearly be lost in you.

In any case, I recall you said, "I'm done." Like I suggested, Google 'metacognition'. Or, if that's too hard, Google 'liar'.

I said "I'm gone". Google 'Alzheimer' or 'reading comprehension'...

Now I am done.

 

[tpatana]

I haven't waded through all 16 pages of this, but re: the first poster's desire for a deeper buffer - in my testing with a Lexar Professional 1066x UDMA 7 CF card I was able to get 32 RAW images before it began to slow down.

Interesting. Was the scenery very low details and shot at iso100? Because I did test with exactly same card and ended up with ~22 RAWs until it slowed down. I can't remember my settings for sure, but normal-ish scene and I think it was iso400.

 

[Loswr]

I start to understand your concept of meaningful contributions :

No, you don't. But it's not worth further discussion since the explanation would clearly be lost in you.

In any case, I recall you said, "I'm done." Like I suggested, Google 'metacognition'. Or, if that's too hard, Google 'liar'.

I said "I'm gone". Google 'Alzheimer' or 'reading comprehension'...

Now I am done.

Apologies for misquoting you. Still, I'd rather be incorrect than a liar...twice.

Bye.

 

[fussy III]

I start to understand your concept of meaningful contributions :

No, you don't. But it's not worth further discussion since the explanation would clearly be lost in you.

In any case, I recall you said, "I'm done." Like I suggested, Google 'metacognition'. Or, if that's too hard, Google 'liar'.

I said "I'm gone". Google 'Alzheimer' or 'reading comprehension'...

Now I am done.

Apologies for misquoting you. Still, I'd rather be incorrect than a liar...twice.

Bye.

Readers of this forum will simply have to accept that there will always be contributors arguing like shareholders, not like photographers.

To the share-holder in you: Even if you measure Canon by its relative success, it remains a relative one. I honestly believe they could fare far better on the market now and in the future (and in the past 10 years) if they displayed a more generous attitude. I have no facts but the strategic omissions of features are obvious even to you as I have gathered.

I remember the ties I once had to the company. These ties were made of trustworthyness, honesty and a more ambitious attitude overall. That was back in the days when it basically only mattered which lens you put on the camera. Things change.

 

[Mikehit]

To the share-holder in you: that really sounds like another snide backhanded insult. Why do we have to be ' a shareholder' or have any vested interest in the status quo? I think we generally agree that most of the features under discussion would be great. The only things really under discussion is how important they are to the target market and their technical feasibility. You and others claim either a conspiracy or marketing incompetence in not incorporating them. Others (like myself) do not see the as key to Canon's target market or not yet sufficient quality to merit inclusion. Talk of fanboyism and 'shareholders' is simply and excuse to not listen to reasonable counterarguments, stick your fingers in your ears and shout 'no point in talking to fanboys' Even if you measure Canon by its relative success, it remains a relative one. is that not that the one that matters? They are competing with other camera manufacturers for a defined market I honestly believe they could fare far better on the market now and in the future (and in the past 10 years) if they displayed a more generous attitude this is an interesting word 'generous' - do you mean by including more features at no extra cost so cutting their profits to give you what you think is important?. I have no facts but the strategic omissions of features are obvious even to you as I have gathered. you admit you have no facts yet your comments are worded so powerfully to suggest an innate knowledge of Canon's abilities. Yes, their omissions are 'strategic' and every manufacturer makes them. Do you go onto Sony sites and pan them for their failure to match Canon's AF, how they are 'crippling' their otherwise brilliant camera? I suspect not...

I remember the ties I once had to the company. These ties were made of trustworthyness, honesty and a more ambitious attitude overall. That was back in the days when it basically only mattered which lens you put on the camera. Things change. one big change has been that all companies have hit technological brick walls in almost all directions and we are waiting for the next big breakthrough (there has been no real increase in sensor performance for at least 4 years now). For 10 years people got used to quantum leaps every year with new models and there is still that lingering disappointment with every new camera that being an incremental upgrade with additions aimed at small parts of the market. Some look on the lack of mega steps and lead calls of conservatism' or 'market protection'. Others accept the situation and some decide other marques provide what they want and change brands with no recriminations or whinging or claims of Canon's incompetence

 

[romanr74]

Re: EOS 5D Mark IV

Readers of this forum will simply have to accept that there will always be contributors arguing like shareholders, not like photographers.

+1

I am currently not a Canon shareholder. I'm looking at Canon as an enthusiast photographer. What I like in a company or provider of whatsoever service or product is when you can feel the passion for the product or service. Given minimal business acumen, this in my opinion is the key to becoming economically successful. With growing size and market share, companies struggle to maintain a comparable level of enthusiasm and passion but fall into a pattern of economically controlled thinking, of maintaining market share, of avoiding mistakes, of avoiding risk, of observing and managing the market vs. creating a market, of being managed through marketing and finance departments vs. by passionate creators and inventors. This is where Canon is. They do what they believe they have to do to maintain their position. Economically that's perfectly right. Yet it certainly doesn't boost innovation...

 

[Mikehit]

+1

I am currently not a Canon shareholder. I'm looking at Canon as an enthusiast photographer. What I like in a company or provider of whatsoever service or product is when you can feel the passion for the product or service. Given minimal business acumen, this in my opinion is the key to becoming economically successful. With growing size and market share, companies struggle to maintain a comparable level of enthusiasm and passion but fall into a pattern of economically controlled thinking, of maintaining market share, of avoiding mistakes, of avoiding risk, of observing and managing the market vs. creating a market, of being managed through marketing and finance departments vs. by passionate creators and inventors. This is where Canon is. They do what they believe they have to do to maintain their position. Economically that's perfectly right. Yet it certainly doesn't boost innovation...

I am very much of the opinion that Canon incorporates new functions when they are sure the new camera will be a definite upgrade as a package. That apparently is one reason the 7D2 took so long to come out - they had some last minute additions and wanted to make sure the camera as a whole was better than the one they had originally trialled. They didn't rush it and the success of the camera shows they were right not to.
Sometimes their upgrades are lots of relatively little things that and up to a significantly better camera and this seems to be the growing impression with the 5D4.
The M5 shows they are not yet there on their mirrorless technology so will not even think about a mirrorless 5D/1D. That is a sensible position.
They have market view that serious 4K video is the realm of professionals and a professional will not pick the 5D4 as their video camera of choice. And the 1080 they have provided in the 5D4 is perfectly adequate quality for people who want to rattle off a few seconds/minutes of video during a day otherwise dedicated to stills photography. Again perfectly reasonable, and that decision helps keep the cost of the camera to the very top end of what many are saying they are willing to pay. What is wrong with that?

Too many people confuse 'comprehension' with 'complicity' - I am not sure if this is because they themselves are unable to understand something without agreeing with it, or if they just want to state their point of view and will use any insult to reinforce their argument, or if they are intellectually illiterate.

 

[scyrene]

It already is a reality that there are a significant number of potential buyers out there sharing my critisizm, be it photographers or videographers. Just search the web. This is not propaganda, these are all people who are really into what they are doing. Many are fealing let down by Canon. And to many pricing is not the primary concern.

Depends what you mean by 'significant'. Hence people keep coming back to sales. People have been complaining for years. But it's had no tangible effect on sales. So we conclude their numbers weren't weren't significant.

 

[fussy III]

It already is a reality that there are a significant number of potential buyers out there sharing my critisizm, be it photographers or videographers. Just search the web. This is not propaganda, these are all people who are really into what they are doing. Many are fealing let down by Canon. And to many pricing is not the primary concern.

Depends what you mean by 'significant'. Hencenpeople keep coming back to sales. People have been complaining for years. But it's had no tangible effect on sales. So we conclude their numbers weren't weren't 'significant'.

How do you know it had no tangible effects? Just because Canon is still selling it does not mean that they could not sell even better.

 

[Loswr]

Readers of this forum will simply have to accept that there will always be contributors arguing like shareholders, not like photographers.

To the share-holder in you: Even if you measure Canon by its relative success, it remains a relative one. I honestly believe they could fare far better on the market now and in the future (and in the past 10 years) if they displayed a more generous attitude. I have no facts but the strategic omissions of features are obvious even to you as I have gathered.

To the photographer in you: like me, you want things from Canon – certain features or products, lower prices, etc. As potential customers, Canon wants something from us – our money. In one sense, that's a cooperative relationship, but in another, it's adversarial...particularly when one wants something Canon has apparently been unwilling to provide.

A key point is that we are dependent on camera manufacturers to provide the gear we need/want. While our perspective is that of photographers and our goal is making images, those manufacturers have a very different motivation – returning value to shareholders.

So, consider that an understanding of business practices and realities is very relevant to a discussion of photography-relevant features, because those features aren't something we can just add, ourselves. Put simply, "Know your enemy." I read that in a book.

Alternatively, people can just go on complaining about this missing feature or that here on CR, or they can piss into the wind, which is about as effective.

This is where Canon is. They do what they believe they have to do to maintain their position. Economically that's perfectly right. Yet it certainly doesn't boost innovation...

Yeah, except for the thousands of patents they file annually. Couldn't be anything innovative in there.

Too many people confuse 'comprehension' with 'complicity' - I am not sure if this is because they themselves are unable to understand something without agreeing with it, or if they just want to state their point of view and will use any insult to reinforce their argument, or if they are intellectually illiterate.

^^This

I want many things – a high MP 1-series body, a 600/4 DO, an 11-24 and TS-E 17 that take drop-in filters, bodies with built-in RT flash control, etc. I'm disappointed that Canon doesn't offer a small-as-possible full-featured FF mirrorless with a set of pancake primes with IS.

But I also understand the business realities that are part of the reason Canon isn't making those products that I want. That seems to be too big a leap for some forum members, and so instead, people who see and understand reality are called simple-minded fanboys.

 

[Mikehit]

How do you know it had no tangible effects? Just because Canon is still selling it does not mean that they could not sell even better.

Ah, the old 'we don't know everything so whatever claim I make is equally justified'.
The very least we can say is that it has not done them any harm.

I could rephrase your question as 'How do you know that if Canon met all your wishes the camera would be financially viable'. That is, be profitable based on unit price x number of units? You don't and my guess is that the Canon marketing guys know better than you what will be profitable. Cameras at this level will not be the loss-leaders because loss leaders are the models that are sold to get people to end up with the 5D4.

 

[fussy III]

"Know your enemy." I read that in a book.

Agreed. I just wish I could focus entirely on my struggle with the elements when photographing rather than worrying about the shortcomings of my tools. I am not enjoying this!

Alternatively, people can just go on complaining about this missing feature or that here on CR, or they can piss into the wind, which is about as effective.

I do believe holding on to these discussions contributes to something bigger than to collecting urin in my face.

 

[fussy III]

How do you know it had no tangible effects? Just because Canon is still selling it does not mean that they could not sell even better.

Ah, the old 'we don't know everything so whatever claim I make is equally justified'.
The very least we can say is that it has not done them any harm.

I could rephrase your question as 'How do you know that if Canon met all your wishes the camera would be financially viable'. That is, be profitable based on unit price x number of units? You don't and my guess is that the Canon marketing guys know better than you what will be profitable. Cameras at this level will not be the loss-leaders because loss leaders are the models that are sold to get people to end up with the 5D4.

So the only substantial facts to remain are the obvious shortcomings of the 5DIV and the fact that Canon is still faring well compared to some competitors when it comes to sale-statistics of previous modells.

Everything else is entirely part of the irrational human sphere. Reality is just another superstition. Business-numbers and marketing philosophies are made by people, generated by the plasticity of human behavior, not by some godly wisdom. Men has history, conviction and language. Men changes. Business changes.

In roman times, many servants claimed they were happy being servants. Some women in Switzerland until recently preferred not to be entitled to vote for parliament. However most modern day western women by today's standards would feel deprived if they were not entitled to vote.

Customers continue to learn to educate themselves. This is not the last word.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I haven't waded through all 16 pages of this, but re: the first poster's desire for a deeper buffer - in my testing with a Lexar Professional 1066x UDMA 7 CF card I was able to get 32 RAW images before it began to slow down.

Interesting. Was the scenery very low details and shot at iso100? Because I did test with exactly same card and ended up with ~22 RAWs until it slowed down. I can't remember my settings for sure, but normal-ish scene and I think it was iso400.

I was shooting at ISO 100 and making sure to have a faster shutter speed so that wasn't the issue. I also had all of the "optimizers" (Peripheral Illumination, DLO, etc...) turned off. With an SD card under the same circumstances I got 28 RAWs.