If Canon made a " truly ultimate" DSLR body for, say, $10k would you buy it?

[ppix]

As a working pro that makes a living off my tools (currently 1DX's), there are a couple of features that I'd spend a lot of money for. In my line of business, sellable images straight out of the camera is of paramount importance, and the following improvements would vastly improve the number of sellable images I could make:

#1: Auto white balance & auto exposure that works well under cycling sodium/mercury vapor lighting. The 7DII apparently makes a step in dealing with cycling lights on the auto exposure front. Currently cycling lights do horrific damage to IQ.
#2: Digital crop that would allow cropping into the sensor on the fly, similar or better than the Nikon D3/D4 can do.
#3: Better AF in poor lighting (the 1DX is awesome, but there's always room for improvement)

John

 

[danski0224]

I voted no, but considering that many of the 1D bodies were awfully close to $8k at release, $10k may not be much of a stretch.

Seems that high ISO usability and the interface have changed the most over the years. Good images taken today with a 2002 vintage 1D still look good.

I bet that if Canon could merge the best of the 1DX with the best of the 1DsIII, many would pay the asking price.

 

[jrista]

I voted no, but considering that many of the 1D bodies were awfully close to $8k at release, $10k may not be much of a stretch.

Seems that high ISO usability and the interface have changed the most over the years. Good images taken today with a 2002 vintage 1D still look good.

I bet that if Canon could merge the best of the 1DX with the best of the 1DsIII, many would pay the asking price.

I think the biggest reason they were so expensive in the past was the cost of manufacturing the larger sensors. It used to be extremely expensive to manufacture a full frame sensor. That's also the reason MFD used to $60k and up in the past, instead of ~$10k or so. There is very little reason for DSLRs with FF sensors to be expensive anymore...manufacturing larger sensors is a lot more efficient (especially on 300mm wafers). I think a lot of the $6700 price premium of the 1D X is just the prestige of the line, and a more hand-crafted (or rather hand-assembled and optimally tested) touch.

 

[preppyak]

The answer is easily no for me. I can own a 1DX and a 7dII right now and still have enough leftover for a few L lenses. If the $10k body came with a fixed 16-300 f/1.8 lens, then it'd do something the others couldn't. Otherwise, $10k is about double the max I could ever see a body being worth.

 

[3kramd5]

As a working pro that makes a living off my tools (currently 1DX's), there are a couple of features that I'd spend a lot of money for. ..
#2: Digital crop that would allow cropping into the sensor on the fly, similar or better than the Nikon D3/D4 can do.

Interesting. May I ask why? It's a nice to have, maybe, but if that (software) functionality adds "a lot of money" to the cost of a body, I'd prefer to put that money into memory and crop in post.

 

[wsmith96]

I'd have to pass. In a year it would be worth $5000, then the next year $2500, then the next year $1800. I'm not necessarily an early adopter of large priced items. Besides, they'll obsolete the model with a rebel that has wifi, cellular data and quad pixel AF. Then the complaints will start right back up.

* disclaimer - of course, if it were making me significantly more money than what my previous camera would, that may change my mind.

 

[Zv]

I'd have to pass. In a year it would be worth $5000, then the next year $2500, then the next year $1800. I'm not necessarily an early adopter of large priced items. Besides, they'll obsolete the model with a rebel that has wifi, cellular data and quad pixel AF. Then the complaints will start right back up.

* disclaimer - of course, if it were making me significantly more money than what my previous camera would, that may change my mind.

Really? Do you think of it would depreciate by that much? By that calculation the 1DX should be about $1500 right now on the used market. Damn why is this not on the front page! Deal alert!

 

[tolusina]

For $10K I'm thinking medium format... current Pentax 645Z is "just" $8,500.......

Handled a Z today briefly.
It is gorgeous, it is a monster.
I do think it's hand holdable.
It's so massive and conspicuous I think it's just too outre for casual carry.
Studio, weddings, planned shooting of any type, yes, casual use, nope.
I'm still wanting one, 6D and 40 will remain my carry around unit though.

 

[candc]

No, Dslr's are dinasaurs with roots in the film days. The design made sense then but it doesn't now. Mirrorless is the way to go. It's good enough for everything except sports and wildlife now. I expect the 7dii is the last dslr I am going to buy.

 

[jrista]

No, Dslr's are dinasaurs with roots in the film days. The design made sense then but it doesn't now. Mirrorless is the way to go. It's good enough for everything except sports and wildlife now. I expect the 7dii is the last dslr I am going to buy.

This is entirely a matter of preference.


It's always been curious to me how mirrorless lovers just assume that everyone wants something uber-tiny, or to give up their OVF for an EVF, or what an electronic shutter, or anything like that. Personally, I think the DSLR form factor...it's size, shape, and ergonomics, are IDEAL for photography. Doesn't matter if I'm using a giant 600mm f/4 lens, or a tiny 50mm f/1.4 lens, either way, a larger DSLR fits my hands WAY better than a tiny mirrorless. And I speak from first hand experience, I spent the greater part of a week with the A7r recently. I love the IQ, however I really don't' like the body. It is just too compact. If I was casually shooting things on a vacation, the smaller form factor could be nice, especially with a compact lens, but the darn thing just does not fit my hands.


I may eventually warm up to EVFs for some things, however even with the best of them on the market, they are still, IMHO, radically inferior to OVFs as far as responsiveness and detail and all that goes, and really need to come a LOOONG way before I think they could possibly be ready to actually, en-mass, replace OVFs.


For me, I'm part of the group that will stick with DSLR to the utter end. You can basically pry it from my cold dead hands...right along with my optical view finder...which is what die-hard "eliminate DSLRs, mirrorless for everything!" guys like you are literally going to have to do in your crusade to expunge the universe of what you personally, and IMO incorrectly, believe is an inferior camera design. I refuse to give up my DSLR, and I personally hope they stick around for the next, oh, forty years or so (depending on how long I live. )

 

[candc]

I hear what your saying and I agree with a lot of it. I just think the deisign is over complicated for what it needs to do and will be replaced by mirrorless designs. Right now I am using a 6d and 70d I have a 7dii on order. When it comes time to replace the 6d I will likely get an a7 type camera, hopefully from canon if they get on the mirrorless ball. In a few years when I switch out the 7dii I reckon mirrorless will have progressed to the point where dslr's are obsolete.

I don't think mirrorless is better because it can be smaller, I think its better because its simpler, it's got a ways to go but its coming.

P.s. I was reading an article which about the new panosonic lumix which really got me thinking. It does 4k video grabs which are 8mp stills at 30fps I can see where that is going. Not that I want video but just think of full resolution bursts at that rate or higher.

 

[jrista]

I hear what your saying and I agree with a lot of it. I just think the deisign is over complicated for what it needs to do and will be replaced by mirrorless designs. Right now I am using a 6d and 70d I have a 7dii on order. When it comes time to replace the 6d I will likely get an a7 type camera, hopefully from canon if they get on the mirrorless ball. In a few years when I switch out the 7dii I reckon mirrorless will have progressed to the point where dslr's are obsolete.

I don't think mirrorless is better because it can be smaller, I think its better because its simpler, it's got a ways to go but its coming.

How are you defining simpler, though? I've used the A7r, and while mechanically it lacks the mirror, outside of that it really isn't that much "simpler" of a camera to operate than a regular old DSLR. There are also some significant problems with the EVF that often present at the most inopportune times (such as severe EVF or LCD stutter).


There is significant value to be had with an OVF. I honestly do not believe that, regardless of how responsive EVFs get, that they will ever be as responsive as an OVF, and for some types of photography, that kind of instantaneous response is critical.


I see mirrorless and DSLR as different options, not one that will replace the other or one being better than the other (in the long run...mirrorless designs still have a lot of growing to do.) The other "complexity" of DSLRs, such as all the buttons and configurability, are IMHO their greatest STRENGTH. For the kind of action-centric photography I do most of the time, having as many buttons as possible to instantly access the majority of the critical camera functionality is HUGE to being able to effectively use the camera in difficult situations. There is some programmability to the A7r, however it's smaller body size (which is pretty endemic to mirrorless designs so far) doesn't leave much room for having lots of buttons that give instant access to important functionality. The larger, more "complex" bodies of DSLRs offer plenty of room for buttons and dials...it's their strength, not their weakness.

 

[sdsr]

It's always been curious to me how mirrorless lovers just assume that everyone wants something uber-tiny, or to give up their OVF for an EVF, or what an electronic shutter, or anything like that.

I think you forgot to put "some" before "mirrorless." Most of that doesn't apply to me, and it presumably doesn't apply to those who buy near-dslr-size mirrorless bodies made by Olympus & Panasonic; and more than a few of us prefer EVFs to OVFs (esp. those of us who like using manual lenses). If my preferences put me in a tiny minority, that's fine with me!

 

[candc]

I like the canon dslr form factor for its ergonomics and usability. You have to have a digital sensor so I am all for doing all the work there and eliminating the mirror and mechanical shutter curtains in favor of electronic. When you look at a diagram of how a dslr functions it is amazing that they work as well as they do. Its he culmimaion of decades of engineering and refinement but it can only go so far. It is limited by mechanical physics.

I rhink we will see a dslr form factor camera with mirrorless guts that provides the best of both before too long.

 

[ppix]

As a working pro that makes a living off my tools (currently 1DX's), there are a couple of features that I'd spend a lot of money for. ..
#2: Digital crop that would allow cropping into the sensor on the fly, similar or better than the Nikon D3/D4 can do.

Interesting. May I ask why? It's a nice to have, maybe, but if that (software) functionality adds "a lot of money" to the cost of a body, I'd prefer to put that money into memory and crop in post.

For most of my work there is no time for post processing. My images go straight from the camera to viewing stations where my customers can view and purchase the images. Selected images also go straight to slideshows running on multiple 50" screens. If a parent sees a good shot on the 50" screens, chances are they are going to head to the viewing stations to look and hopefully make a purchase. A my larger venues my selected shots are projected on 20'x30' screens. Again no time for post processing.

The crop on the fly ability allows me to put a more tightly cropped image in front of the customer, whether it be on my viewing stations, 50" monitors or 20'x30' screen. For me this increases sales.

-John

 

[3kramd5]

As a working pro that makes a living off my tools (currently 1DX's), there are a couple of features that I'd spend a lot of money for. ..
#2: Digital crop that would allow cropping into the sensor on the fly, similar or better than the Nikon D3/D4 can do.

Interesting. May I ask why? It's a nice to have, maybe, but if that (software) functionality adds "a lot of money" to the cost of a body, I'd prefer to put that money into memory and crop in post.

For most of my work there is no time for post processing. My images go straight from the camera to viewing stations where my customers can view and purchase the images. Selected images also go straight to slideshows running on multiple 50" screens. If a parent sees a good shot on the 50" screens, chances are they are going to head to the viewing stations to look and hopefully make a purchase. A my larger venues my selected shots are projected on 20'x30' screens. Again no time for post processing.

The crop on the fly ability allows me to put a more tightly cropped image in front of the customer, whether it be on my viewing stations, 50" monitors or 20'x30' screen. For me this increases sales.

-John

Fair 'nuff. Thanks John!

 

[Richard8971]

10 grand for a body? No way. Glass? Yes.

 

[Larry]

For me, I'm part of the group that will stick with DSLR to the utter end. You can basically pry it from my cold dead hands...right along with my optical view finder...which is what die-hard "eliminate DSLRs, mirrorless for everything!" guys like you are literally going to have to do in your crusade to expunge the universe of what you personally, and IMO incorrectly, believe is an inferior camera design. I refuse to give up my DSLR, and I personally hope they stick around for the next, oh, forty years or so (depending on how long I live. )

I'm with you!

 

[Larry]

... if God would create woman with three tits, I would marry two of them at the same time!!!

Hmmm. depends on the configuration - one up front, two in back, or 3 abreast (so to speak) ;D

Wouldn't be an early adopter, though, ...don't want pay the full rib-and-a-half msrp!

 

[candc]

this is what i am talking about.

http://petapixel.com/2014/10/31/sony-rumored-working-8k-mirrorless-full-frame-camera/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PetaPixel+%28PetaPixel%29

8k video means you are shooting 33mp stills at 30fps continuous.