paul13walnut5 said:
I'm not sure if backwards compatibility was such a problem with the EOS-M.... They changed the lens mount... but making an adaptor to EOS was a simple task.... and pretty well whatever route they took with lenses an adaptor would have been easy. I think that with sensors it was a choice between going FF or APS-C, and Canon being conservative would have gone with APS-C.
To me, what didn't make sense was how poor the AF is on the EOS-M, other than that, people seem to like it.
(This is all guesswork, I have no inside knowledge) I really think that the EOS-M was designed for dual-pixel and was given the standard APS-C sensor when development was taking too long. You can bet that the dual-pixel project is at least 5 years old. Probably, in the infancy of the project, Canon realized that this would make a kick-ass compact mirrorless camera that nobody else could touch.... and so began the EOS-M project. When the planned time for release came, dual-pixel was not ready so it went without it, probably in the hope of getting some lenses out there in the buying public to make the eventual release of a dual-pixel EOS-M an easier system to buy into.
I don't understand how people can rant about "lack of innovation" from the company that has just introduced what may well be the best balanced sensor for use in mirrorless cameras... The 70D sensor is merely the first iteration of this technology, more and better will come. How long before you see a dual-pixel sensor where you can set the two halves to different ISO's and take pictures with 16 stops of dynamic range? If we have thought of it you can bet that Canon has thought of it.
Upvote
0
There are liquor filled chocolates, so the technology does exist.... Tea filled would be a down-gradepaul13walnut5 said:
Upvote
0
I'm glad you like the new OM-D EM1 - except that its viewfinder isn't as good, and aside from photographing things that move, the EM5's performance is much the same, and very impressive it is, too; using the Canon M after owning the OM-D for several months, despite the potentially excellent image quality, was frustrating. If Canon could somehow acquire/develop similar mirrorless performance for a body (preferably FF - I don't care if it's big, and preferably with IBIS) that could take its pre-existing lenses, I would be all over it. Meanwhile, don't mind owning both systems. On top of everything else, it's remarkable how good the images taken with Olympus 4/3 sensors can be: like Pentax and Nikon, they seem to get better performance out of Sony's sensors than Sony does, which seems a tad counter-intuitive (if they can conjure up such quality from those smallish sensors, imagine what they could do with a FF sensor...).
Upvote
0
Two things to keep in mind:
a) Canon talked about MILCs as early as 2006, way before the first Olympus MILC appeared in the market. This is what Chuck Westfall told PC Photomagzine in a 2006 interview:
"If you substituted an optical viewfinder with an EVF, the size, weight and cost of the camera would come down quite a bit. You’d be eliminating the need for a prism and a mirror, which currently limits how small of an SLR you can make."
b) But Canon chose not to do anything about it. Why? Because they know current MILC technology is not good enough to replace DSLR. I know that because I used the OMD for a year. The masses have already spoken with their wallets, interest in MILCs is dropping rapidly. Currently, in Europe and USA, for every MILC sold, 9 to 10 more DSLRs are sold.
a) Canon talked about MILCs as early as 2006, way before the first Olympus MILC appeared in the market. This is what Chuck Westfall told PC Photomagzine in a 2006 interview:
"If you substituted an optical viewfinder with an EVF, the size, weight and cost of the camera would come down quite a bit. You’d be eliminating the need for a prism and a mirror, which currently limits how small of an SLR you can make."
b) But Canon chose not to do anything about it. Why? Because they know current MILC technology is not good enough to replace DSLR. I know that because I used the OMD for a year. The masses have already spoken with their wallets, interest in MILCs is dropping rapidly. Currently, in Europe and USA, for every MILC sold, 9 to 10 more DSLRs are sold.
Upvote
0
I would rather imagine that Canon could do whatever it wants to, assuming some marketing geek can make a
financial case for it and some insider is willing to champion it. If I were running Canon I'd be much more concerned about the bottom falling out of the point and shoot market as cell phones get better and better
photo functions. The Rebel SL1 isn't that much bigger than the Olympus or Panasonic top end m43 offerings,
with access to a much fuller line of lenses - some of which anyone who looked to buy the SL1 would probably
already have. I'd be much more concerned about the rumored new full frame, basic photography oriented
Nikon DF as having the potential to impact my high end product lines than any smaller format ILC offering.
It's reasonable to assume that within five years only Canon, Sony, Panasonic and Fuji will be making serious
cameras anyway.
financial case for it and some insider is willing to champion it. If I were running Canon I'd be much more concerned about the bottom falling out of the point and shoot market as cell phones get better and better
photo functions. The Rebel SL1 isn't that much bigger than the Olympus or Panasonic top end m43 offerings,
with access to a much fuller line of lenses - some of which anyone who looked to buy the SL1 would probably
already have. I'd be much more concerned about the rumored new full frame, basic photography oriented
Nikon DF as having the potential to impact my high end product lines than any smaller format ILC offering.
It's reasonable to assume that within five years only Canon, Sony, Panasonic and Fuji will be making serious
cameras anyway.
Upvote
0
P
paul13walnut5
Guest
Most folk at the seminar today brought their own cameras.
Most of those folk had canons.
Most of those folks had 1100d's.
True story.
I went to listen and play.
Quite a revelation. I think canon have became quite complaicent.
I was straight with the olympus guys, I said I'm thinking bmd or panny gh.
So would they for video. The oly lenses are nice however.
And the om-d was a revelation.
Most of those folk had canons.
Most of those folks had 1100d's.
True story.
I went to listen and play.
Quite a revelation. I think canon have became quite complaicent.
I was straight with the olympus guys, I said I'm thinking bmd or panny gh.
So would they for video. The oly lenses are nice however.
And the om-d was a revelation.
Upvote
0
paul13walnut5 said:
Unfortunately, totally agree, absolutely.
The chap earlier that rambled about Canon being Non Profit, non etc etc, is deluded, Canon is and has been for many years, a Multi Billion Dollar Company, having owned my own Business I know exactly what drives Companies, Profits, Profits first, profits always, anything else, quality, design etc etc, is secondary, important of course (and ignoring these areas tends to have a negative impact on, Profits), but all are secondary to Profits.
Innovation is what Companies generally need to stay on top of in order to continue generate Profits (Apple being the perfect example I believe), without Profitable Companies and Innovation we would all be still using Box Brownies, and likely quite Happy, Companies don't bother with innovation if it doesn't generate more profits, more market share, the Car Manufacturing Industry is an example where Companies fold because there is little room left within the Market for innovation, everyone is making the same piece of crap for the same Market, less room for the smaller companies.
Canon has I feel let the innovation department slip, 1Dx is a lovely Camera, for me no question, 5DMK III is Ok nothing special, does the job, the M is somewhat ill designed and lacks in most areas, unfortunately I own one so this is disappointing, but I've learnt to live with that (My Apologies up front Paul for throwing dispersions on your Once Loved), Canon missed the Boat on the D800, I feel this Camera took Canon as much by surprise as did the 5DMK II for Nikon.
The Sony a7r took most everyone by surprise, yet to see if it's going to live up to the Hype, but I hope it does at least mostly, if for no other reason than it will push Canon, Nikon etc etc to innovate, otherwise Sony will eat into those Profits that large, and small, companies bow down to, allowing us, the Consumer, access over the years to better and better products, don't much care from which company, but as I've a large investment in Canon, I hope Canon lifts their game going forward, I don't really see that at the moment though.
Upvote
0
