New EF 24-105 f/4L IS Replacement Coming With 5D Mark IV [CR3]

[jeffa4444]

The 5Ds is also quite clearly a rushed product and despite having the most megapixels it quite clearly suffers in overall IQ.

Really??

When I first saw the specification for the 5DS/DSR, I was very dissapointed, because it did not solve a number of requirements I had high on my list. But I still bought a 5DSR, primarily out of curiosity. And, having used it extensively for everything from portraits to landscape to events to wildlife to birds to just about any type of photography I do, I am simply very impressed with that camera.

A fun observation (or weird if you like) is that the various forums are crowded with negative remarks about this/these camera(s), of which more than 90% comes from non-users. Look at what the actual (and qualified) users are saying and you'll see a totally different story.

This is 100% correct. Somehow I killed my 5D3 on a only mildly rainy weekend in Oslo. I needed a camera for my trip to Italy in October and had a choice, either:

1. Get the 5D3 fixed, which is ridiculously expensive in Norge. And who knows how long the fix will last.
2. Buy another 5D3. Reduced price is okay, but knowing that the 5D4 was in the not-too-distant future.
3. Get a 6D. But I want crazy about AF system, lower quality weather sealing/construction, max shutter speed, different layout than my 5D3 & 7D2.
3. Buy the 5DSr. Don't "need" 50 mp... limited fps, etc. But I have the 7D3 for fast action, and this seemed like the best option for me.

I've fallen in love with this camera since I got it. No regrets not getting the 5Ds instead. The color is great, the resolution is spectacular. The ISO limitations don't bother me as I rarely shoot higher than 800. This paired with my 16-3L/4 IS us my main combo for traveling around Europe. Very few situations these cannot handle. I throw in a 135L or 70-300L and maybe the 50L for low light/ shallow DOF and have some great flexibility with minimal weight. I even find the camera shake concern to be minimal... and I'm a pixel peeper.

This 5Dsr has made me go from a position of being relatively interested in the 5D4 right at launch to being only vaguely interested. I will probably pick one up, but only after it has been out a while and when I can find a nice price break on it.

Point is, the 5Dsr is extremely versatile with fantastic IQ. It has really base me appreciate the glass I already have.

My own two cents on this is that I got a 5DSR already having a 5DIII.
I've been quite underwhelmed by the 5DSR.
I wasn't impressed with it's ISO performance (although I told downsampling in DPP would help this - I haven't tried that out yet).
I don't like the noise in it.
I find the 5DIII a better all-round camera - more practical so to speak.
File size on a 5DSR is an issue. You need really big hard drives to store the photos (at least at the rate I shoot).
On paper 50MP sounds better than 22MP but unless you are going for big prints or doing alot of cropping it's not a huge amount of use.

I think it would suit a very highly technical, very conservative shooter (takes few photos).

For the 5D IV I'd like better MP's rather than alot more of them.
If they are going to combine the new 24-105 with it, I think it will be a very good lens.
I really like the existing one. Very handy lens even though I've lots of better ones.
It's rock solid. I've never complained about it. If my pictures are bad it's not that lens fault.

Ive been more than happy with my 5DS, yes file sizes are larger but image sharpness & detail is much better than the 5D MKIII or the 6D. The ISO issue some have Ive not really found and Ive used the camera for mixed stuff (safari, landscape, portraits, birds). The 24-105mm on this make for an ideal one lens solution when wanting to travel lighter.

 

[axtstern]

The 24-105 is the strangest L lens I own. It is the lens I most often carry with me but never put on.
When I pack the 100-400 L or the 300 4.0 L I always feel this lens would make a good companion but than I never use it.
When I use the M3 with the 11-22 there is so much space left in my bag that I usually pack the 24-105 as a supplement (as even with the adapter it beats all the native options) but I rarely use it.

Analyzing my light room catalog, then I shoot more with the Sigma 18-35, Canon 24-70 2.8, Tamron 24-70 VCD, Tamron 35-105 2.8, EFM 11-22, 70-200 2.8 or 70-300 L.
Even the Canon 85mm L and non L see more action than the 24-105 while that lens is always in my bag and the others only occasionally.
The 24-105L has nothing to really fall in love with, but it is a lightweight backup insurance policy.
So now the insurance policy get a version II
The last version II iterations from Canon ment stellar optical quality, very conservative approach to extras and a step up in price.
I do not believe that a kit lense can step up in price by a large amount. The white box dealers who pick bundles apart will make sure of that and there are plenty of the old lenses out there…
I bought my 85L 1.2, the 24-70 2.8 L, the 70-200L 2.8, the 100-400 L and finally the 400 L 2.8 all used for a laughable price when the Version II (well a little more than version II for the 400 2.8) came out and the people started to update their model.
To be honest I do not see a 24-105 become a top seller until numbers are pushed through the kit bundle. This lens can do a lot but will always be beaten by the specialists. Tamron improves their ultra versatile zooms since years but always promotes the ‘Now I can do even more’ rather than ‘I can do better’ thought even if both is the case and at least they catch me. Changing a 18-270 lens into a 16-300 lens is for me more attractive than a solid pin cussion distortion improvement in the 18-30mm area . If the 24-105 would stay mediocre in optical quality but transform into a 24-135 or into a 24-105 2.8 ….that would catch my attention.

 

[LesC]

Good news. I'll be tempted to trade in my EOS6D + 24-70 F2.8L II for a 5D MKIV with new 24-105 F4L. I've always thought my 24-70 is good but not as good as the hype surrounding it The extra reach of the 24-105 + IS would be nice.

 

[Loswr]

The zoom lock is really lacking on the 24-104L F4.

Everytime i walk around with it, the lens comes out to 105mm and hangs out from under my coat. I'm feeling like i forgot to zip my pants and my dick is out.

Thank you for the graphic that none of us want to envision...

Google creep (the informal definition) and you will get your answer.

Edited.

 

[Random Orbits]

Yeah, as I said on these very forums many months ago, a 24-105 f/4 update has been in the works for a while now, so not surprising to get confirmation that it'll be debuting with the 5D4.


The 24-70 f/4 won't be affected much as that still has the semi-macro feature which the 24-105 will never get, and it's a given that a zoom with less range is going to remain the optically superior one. I don't expect the 24-105 update will actually mean much beyond the newer IS system to get you an extra stop-or-so there, and possibly a little optical improvement to bring it at least in line with the Sigma 24-105 f/4, which currently beats it in every department.

Owning both the EF 24-105mm f4L and the EF 24-70mm f4L as well as the excellent EF 16-35mm f4L if Canon better the image quality and it gets anywhere close to the EF 16-35mm f4L then the EF 24-70mm f4L based on IQ is dead. Quality wise I would say my copy is the worst L lens I own optically Ive tested it on the CIPA High Resolution chart as well as the EF 24-105mm f4L and they are similar. The EF 24-105 f4L has move purple fringing but sharpness is similar but the EF 24-70mm f4L has bad image shift. Being spoilt with the EF 16-35mm f4L, the EF 100mm f2.8L Macro, the EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L MKII as well as for the price the EF 50mm f1.8 STM the EF 24-70mm f4L was a shock at just how bad it is.

I suspect that the new 24-105 II will be significantly better than Sigma's, just like the 35L II is better than the 35A. Otherwise, why revamp a lens that is still selling well for ~600 in kits? After the redesign, Canon will want to sell it at a premium price, so it won't be the kit lens. The 24-70 f/4 is a better kit lens option for "starters" and it has found it's value, which is much less than it's launch price. People that want better IQ will opt for better choices. The point of the kit lens is to get a person new to the EF eco-system going immediately, not to offer a top shelf lens at a discount price.

 

[scyrene]

2) Why would folks invest in Sony glass that is so often focus-by-wire? That's a step down for many users accustomed to full time (mechanical) manual focusing.

Really, who cares how it focuses, as long as it does?

I take it you've not used focus by wire lenses then? There really is no comparison. Much as I loved the 85L, manual focusing was nowhere near as responsive or pleasant as a mechanical manual focus lens.

Once again I wonder if you use cameras much at all.

Do you seriously think Canon wants to be the company that makes current model full frame digital cameras that are at the bottom of the pile when it comes to megapixels?

Well they also have the highest MP FF DSLRs on the market at present, so I don't really think it matters to them, no (and judging by the decidedly mixed responses to reports of increased MP counts, especially in the 5D mark IV, I think they would make a judgment as to which was more likely to generate sales, rather than simple 'we need more to be best!' mentality).

 

[slclick]

Good news. I'll be tempted to trade in my EOS6D + 24-70 F2.8L II for a 5D MKIV with new 24-105 F4L. I've always thought my 24-70 is good but not as good as the hype surrounding it The extra reach of the 24-105 + IS would be nice.

I agree about the 24-70 comment, too often, loose talk about that lens being 'nearly magical' is getting far too close to how we describe the 135L.

 

[scyrene]

Emphasis on "today".

Well it's always about today, right? Companies leapfrog each other as new products come out. Nobody can be on top in all areas all the time.

The 5Ds is also quite clearly a rushed product and despite having the most megapixels it quite clearly suffers in overall IQ.

A big fat CITATION NEEDED on this one. Suffers in what ways (compared to which other bodies)? It resolves more detail, and the consensus seems to be that noise levels are about the same as the 5D3 - which is no small achievement given the massive increase in MP. Normalised to the same size IQ is clearly better, as the images are no noisier (and given you can apply noise reduction before downsizing, they'll clean up better) and certainly sharper (the extra resolution giving better sharpness downsized). Not to mention the lack of banding... Once again, where are you getting these impressions from? Not first hand experience, but surely not from other people's reviews and images either.

 

[unfocused]

...
I don't see that the 6D II really "needs" a quick refresh. It is the entry level full frame body and is filling that niche very well. I suspect that in some ways it could be the T3i of the full frame world – a relatively low-cost product that just keeps selling and selling.

Both the 6D and 5D3 represent the lowest megapixel count full frame cameras on offer today.

Do you seriously think Canon wants to be the company that makes current model full frame digital cameras that are at the bottom of the pile when it comes to megapixels?

Bottom of the pile maybe for megapixels, but top of the pile for popularity.
...

I guess the Nikon D5 and Canon 1DX II must really be at the bottom of the pile. I'm surprised they can even sell those low-megapixel bodies.

 

[scyrene]

My own two cents on this is that I got a 5DSR already having a 5DIII.
I've been quite underwhelmed by the 5DSR.
I wasn't impressed with it's ISO performance (although I told downsampling in DPP would help this - I haven't tried that out yet).
I don't like the noise in it.
I find the 5DIII a better all-round camera - more practical so to speak.
File size on a 5DSR is an issue. You need really big hard drives to store the photos (at least at the rate I shoot).
On paper 50MP sounds better than 22MP but unless you are going for big prints or doing alot of cropping it's not a huge amount of use.

I think it would suit a very highly technical, very conservative shooter (takes few photos).

For the 5D IV I'd like better MP's rather than alot more of them.
If they are going to combine the new 24-105 with it, I think it will be a very good lens.
I really like the existing one. Very handy lens even though I've lots of better ones.
It's rock solid. I've never complained about it. If my pictures are bad it's not that lens fault.

We're getting way off topic, but... It's interesting to have a different view. I agree file size is an issue, but we all knew about it in advance. It's not a surprise - you can hardly fault a camera for doing something you knew from the specs before buying.

As for noise... well people differ in what they want. Talking about downsampling - surely every time you view the full image on screen or in print, you've done precisely that. And that huge bump in resolution makes for sharper images and lower apparent noise (or at least no more noise than the 5D3). I'm using the 5Ds as an all-round camera, but I agree that's not for most people, nor is it the purpose of this model. But I think you're being a bit limited in your vision, if I may say, to claim it's only good for "highly conservative" people who take few photos (I'm neither).

What surprises me is, for a camera that is so similar to the 5D3 in so many ways (only 1fps lower, same ergonomics, etc) *except* for the extra resolution, why some people see there is no real downside to upgrading to this if you don't feel limited by the 5D3 in the first place (barring computer problems with the big file size, which is unavoidable and not too difficult to fix). Except money, of course - but I'd have wanted to replace the 5D3 after four years anyway, mine is reaching the end of its life (and the computer issue is similar - I find a new computer is necessary more frequently than a new camera).

 

[Eldar]

To *me* it looks like Canon realized it needed a high megapixel camera (because of the A7R/D810) and pushed out existing APS-C tech into a FF sensor. It quite clearly doesn't solve the overall noise problems that Canon has had so in that regard, it doesn't represent "new" or "latest" either.

Sorry Dilbert, you clearly never used a 5DSR. Read less rubbish on the web and spend more time shooting

 

[Ian_of_glos]

The 24-105 is the strangest L lens I own. It is the lens I most often carry with me but never put on.
When I pack the 100-400 L or the 300 4.0 L I always feel this lens would make a good companion but than I never use it.
When I use the M3 with the 11-22 there is so much space left in my bag that I usually pack the 24-105 as a supplement (as even with the adapter it beats all the native options) but I rarely use it.

Analyzing my light room catalog, then I shoot more with the Sigma 18-35, Canon 24-70 2.8, Tamron 24-70 VCD, Tamron 35-105 2.8, EFM 11-22, 70-200 2.8 or 70-300 L.
Even the Canon 85mm L and non L see more action than the 24-105 while that lens is always in my bag and the others only occasionally.
The 24-105L has nothing to really fall in love with, but it is a lightweight backup insurance policy.
So now the insurance policy get a version II
The last version II iterations from Canon ment stellar optical quality, very conservative approach to extras and a step up in price.
I do not believe that a kit lense can step up in price by a large amount. The white box dealers who pick bundles apart will make sure of that and there are plenty of the old lenses out there…
I bought my 85L 1.2, the 24-70 2.8 L, the 70-200L 2.8, the 100-400 L and finally the 400 L 2.8 all used for a laughable price when the Version II (well a little more than version II for the 400 2.8) came out and the people started to update their model.
To be honest I do not see a 24-105 become a top seller until numbers are pushed through the kit bundle. This lens can do a lot but will always be beaten by the specialists. Tamron improves their ultra versatile zooms since years but always promotes the ‘Now I can do even more’ rather than ‘I can do better’ thought even if both is the case and at least they catch me. Changing a 18-270 lens into a 16-300 lens is for me more attractive than a solid pin cussion distortion improvement in the 18-30mm area . If the 24-105 would stay mediocre in optical quality but transform into a 24-135 or into a 24-105 2.8 ….that would catch my attention.

I am really surprised you say that. The 24-105 is my most used lens, with only the 100-400 coming anywhere near it - and then only if you combine the totals for the mk 1 and mk 2. The simple reason is that it does most things fairly well, it is very versatile and generally speaking I find the results are acceptable. When I go on holiday or even just on a day trip it is often the only lens I take. It is true that it does not excel at anything, and if i know what I am going to be shooting then I will take a more specialised lens. However, on the days when I am taking my camera just in case I stumble upon something interesting then the lens I choose is always the 24-105.

 

[j-nord]

The 24-105 is the strangest L lens I own. It is the lens I most often carry with me but never put on.
When I pack the 100-400 L or the 300 4.0 L I always feel this lens would make a good companion but than I never use it.
When I use the M3 with the 11-22 there is so much space left in my bag that I usually pack the 24-105 as a supplement (as even with the adapter it beats all the native options) but I rarely use it.

Analyzing my light room catalog, then I shoot more with the Sigma 18-35, Canon 24-70 2.8, Tamron 24-70 VCD, Tamron 35-105 2.8, EFM 11-22, 70-200 2.8 or 70-300 L.
Even the Canon 85mm L and non L see more action than the 24-105 while that lens is always in my bag and the others only occasionally.
The 24-105L has nothing to really fall in love with, but it is a lightweight backup insurance policy.
So now the insurance policy get a version II
The last version II iterations from Canon ment stellar optical quality, very conservative approach to extras and a step up in price.
I do not believe that a kit lense can step up in price by a large amount. The white box dealers who pick bundles apart will make sure of that and there are plenty of the old lenses out there…
I bought my 85L 1.2, the 24-70 2.8 L, the 70-200L 2.8, the 100-400 L and finally the 400 L 2.8 all used for a laughable price when the Version II (well a little more than version II for the 400 2.8) came out and the people started to update their model.
To be honest I do not see a 24-105 become a top seller until numbers are pushed through the kit bundle. This lens can do a lot but will always be beaten by the specialists. Tamron improves their ultra versatile zooms since years but always promotes the ‘Now I can do even more’ rather than ‘I can do better’ thought even if both is the case and at least they catch me. Changing a 18-270 lens into a 16-300 lens is for me more attractive than a solid pin cussion distortion improvement in the 18-30mm area . If the 24-105 would stay mediocre in optical quality but transform into a 24-135 or into a 24-105 2.8 ….that would catch my attention.

I am really surprised you say that. The 24-105 is my most used lens, with only the 100-400 coming anywhere near it - and then only if you combine the totals for the mk 1 and mk 2. The simple reason is that it does most things fairly well, it is very versatile and generally speaking I find the results are acceptable. When I go on holiday or even just on a day trip it is often the only lens I take. It is true that it does not excel at anything, and if i know what I am going to be shooting then I will take a more specialised lens. However, on the days when I am taking my camera just in case I stumble upon something interesting then the lens I choose is always the 24-105.

I tend to agree with axtstern , those standard focal ranges are kinda boring especially at f4. However, its the type of lens that if you could only have 1 lens, it's one that a lot of people would grab. It's a safe lens with safe focal ranges but if you are going out to shoot something specific, there is almost always a better lens for the job. I live in the mountains where 24-105 is an incredibly useful range for landscapes, if it wasn't for that, I probably wouldn't carry a 24-105/24-70 (I didn't carry one of these lenses prior to moving to the mountains). Theres actually a good chance I'll get the 16-35iii over the 24-105ii to pair with the 100-400ii I have on order.

 

[ishdakuteb]

The 5Ds is also quite clearly a rushed product and despite having the most megapixels it quite clearly suffers in overall IQ.

Let me rephrase this one: "Dilbert has been quite clearly finding ways, by reading extensive number of online articles talking about specs' of cameras, to capture a decent photograph for over 10 years, and despite lacking of understanding as well as choosing light. He quite clearly suffers at every single time when trying to pull a decent image out of a scene." <-- Sound better?

 

[mb66energy]

This is very good news. Would be my first FF compatible stabilized lens and welcome for general use. If it gives per pixel IQ just for the 5D for all focal lengths wide open straight to the edges and has low distortion - maybe my next lens. Combine it with the 100-400 on the second 5D body and I have a good compact high IQ package from 24 to 400mm!
Add a 70mm IS macro lens for special occasions ... and it is near to complete for allround shooters.

 

[FramerMCB]

As a 5DSR owner, who has stopped using his Canon 24-70 F2.8 II, and who sold his 50L, 85L II, his 135L all because they don't have IS, and then purchased the Sigma 24-105 F4 OS, Tamron 45 VC & 85 VC, I can pretty much predict that this lens is a must release for the big megapixel cameras that are coming in 2017 - i.e. it looks like we are jumping to 75Mpix. I wonder if this disproves the recent 24Mpix, which made no sense, 5D4 sensor size, and that we will instead be seeing the earlier rumoured 28-30 and thus a new IS lens can get marketed well. I still think there is something to Tony Northrupt's rumor that we are going to see the 6D_II first - and that the 5D4 is next year at 75Mpix.

We can talk MP all day and I'll skip that topic. BUT, if you consider:

1) In the last 5 years, Canon has never released two FF rigs simultaneously* (unless it's a AA filter related like the 5DS/5DSR) that could steal business from one another. They announce / build-buzz / take pre-orders / ship / get reviews published / etc. for just one FF rig and then they slide over to a similar cycle for another brand. This protects the sales of higher priced items as the only 'new' thing on the market at that time.

(*Yes, 1DX and 5D3 slightly overlapped, but that was not by design -- that was earthquake related)

2) We've heard 10x more about the 5D4 this year (rumor-wise) than the 6D2.

3) The 5D4 is 4+ years old now and is falling behind prior 5D refresh timing

4) An announcement of a 6D2 before a 5D4 will undoubtedly steal units to the 6D2 from the more expensive 5D4.

...all conventional wisdom would imply that we won't hear a thing from the 6D2 until the 5D4 is fully released.

- A

A+
I suspect the Canon 6D II sometime in early November of 2016 or early in 2017...just after Christmas/New Year's. Just to clarify, the announcement for it.

 

[Dantana]

I think it's great that Canon is updating the 25-105L. I'm also very glad I own the original. It has served me very well. The pricing of the 6D with the 24-105L kit allowed me to move to full frame from EF-S and hit the ground running with a good, solid, full frame capable zoom. It's not perfect, and there are a few places that could see improvement, but I've used it a lot and gotten some great images out of it. It's a great all around zoom range, relatively small for what it does, and a nice step up in quality from the kit lens that I had from my Rebel.
I doubt I will upgrade to a new version, at least not now. But I wouldn't discount buying it in a kit if I upgrade my body to something with a higher MP count where a sharper lens would really show.

 

[Sporgon]

...
I don't see that the 6D II really "needs" a quick refresh. It is the entry level full frame body and is filling that niche very well. I suspect that in some ways it could be the T3i of the full frame world – a relatively low-cost product that just keeps selling and selling.

Both the 6D and 5D3 represent the lowest megapixel count full frame cameras on offer today.

Do you seriously think Canon wants to be the company that makes current model full frame digital cameras that are at the bottom of the pile when it comes to megapixels?

Bottom of the pile maybe for megapixels, but top of the pile for popularity.
...

I guess the Nikon D5 and Canon 1DX II must really be at the bottom of the pile. I'm surprised they can even sell those low-megapixel bodies.

And the A7s. What can you shoot with that ? :

 

[j-nord]

As a 5DSR owner, who has stopped using his Canon 24-70 F2.8 II, and who sold his 50L, 85L II, his 135L all because they don't have IS, and then purchased the Sigma 24-105 F4 OS, Tamron 45 VC & 85 VC, I can pretty much predict that this lens is a must release for the big megapixel cameras that are coming in 2017 - i.e. it looks like we are jumping to 75Mpix. I wonder if this disproves the recent 24Mpix, which made no sense, 5D4 sensor size, and that we will instead be seeing the earlier rumoured 28-30 and thus a new IS lens can get marketed well. I still think there is something to Tony Northrupt's rumor that we are going to see the 6D_II first - and that the 5D4 is next year at 75Mpix.

We can talk MP all day and I'll skip that topic. BUT, if you consider:

1) In the last 5 years, Canon has never released two FF rigs simultaneously* (unless it's a AA filter related like the 5DS/5DSR) that could steal business from one another. They announce / build-buzz / take pre-orders / ship / get reviews published / etc. for just one FF rig and then they slide over to a similar cycle for another brand. This protects the sales of higher priced items as the only 'new' thing on the market at that time.

(*Yes, 1DX and 5D3 slightly overlapped, but that was not by design -- that was earthquake related)

2) We've heard 10x more about the 5D4 this year (rumor-wise) than the 6D2.

3) The 5D4 is 4+ years old now and is falling behind prior 5D refresh timing

4) An announcement of a 6D2 before a 5D4 will undoubtedly steal units to the 6D2 from the more expensive 5D4.

...all conventional wisdom would imply that we won't hear a thing from the 6D2 until the 5D4 is fully released.

- A

A+
I suspect the Canon 6D II sometime in early November of 2016 or early in 2017...just after Christmas/New Year's. Just to clarify, the announcement for it.

Almost no chance of 2016 for the 6Dii, early 2017 at the earliest. Canon spaces out their camera releases as much as possible. Makes no sense to release the 6Dii so close to the 5DIV.

 

[jeffa4444]

...
I don't see that the 6D II really "needs" a quick refresh. It is the entry level full frame body and is filling that niche very well. I suspect that in some ways it could be the T3i of the full frame world – a relatively low-cost product that just keeps selling and selling.

Both the 6D and 5D3 represent the lowest megapixel count full frame cameras on offer today.

The A7S II has 12 MP.

The Nikon Df has 16 MP.

These are quite clearly niche products. The 6D and 5D series are not. Entry level Nikon FF DSLR has 24MP. The Sony A7II has 24. Unless you are saying that the A7S and Df are "competitor" products for the 6D? I would not be surprised if the Df never sees a successor and is regarded as a failed product.

And both Canon and Nikon's flagship gripped sports/wildlife rigs were sitting at 18MP and 16 MP until very, very recently, and few were complaining about it.

Effectively a niche product for a specialized group where the target print is never likely to be more than an A4 spread. With lenses to fill the frame as required, professionals using Canon 1-series and Nikon's single digit cameras don't need extra megapixels. The majority of camera owners are not in this group.

Do you seriously think Canon wants to be the company that makes current model full frame digital cameras that are at the bottom of the pile when it comes to megapixels?

If they keep selling well, hell yes. Megapixels don't define an imaging company. I think they'd rather be known as the #1 imaging company, the company that delights photographers, etc.

I would love to have seen you (or anyone) say that back when Canon was top of the megapixel pile.

And by the way, Canon also sells other cameras with different specs. The 5DS puts Canon in a unique position in that they offer the 'lowest' (to your definition) and the highest resolution of FF cameras on offer today -- I'd say they've got their bases covered.

Emphasis on "today". Canon also used to have the highest megapixel DSLRs (the 1DsIII was the first to cross the 20MP point) but when Sony & Nikon started delivering 24 & 36MP cameras, Canon was nowhere to be seen. The 5Ds is also quite clearly a rushed product and despite having the most megapixels it quite clearly suffers in overall IQ. It also quite clearly shows that Canon does care about megapixels - regardless of what you wrote above.

Dilbert sometimes your a complete plank having owned the 5DS for 10 months and using it in all conditions I can assure you it is not a rushed product. The IQ is better than the 5D MKIII or the 6D in terms of resolution, colour imagery, and lack of banding. It has a better metering system and a better mirror lock up system but retains nearly all the features of the 5D MKIII (it has lower frame rate). Those that bitch about file sizes forget you can use mRaw and it has a cropping function. If you want to be critical at least try a product first or reserve your uneducated comments to yourself.