New EOS-1 in 2014 [CR1]

[tat3406]

For those who want better sensor from Nikon and Sony, Please go and buy Nikon/Sony. Then the sales for Canon will going down and force them to produce better camera.

 

[RGomezPhotos]

When did this turn into a marketing thread?

Everything that Canon is doing right now leads me to believe that this big MP is going to be one bad-ass camera ;D New lenses to support it, CFast, big MP, competing with the Nikon D4X. Amazing camera!

I can't even think about this camera until 2015... But the best is worth waiting for ;D

 

[sanj]

Of course I care about the camera as a whole but that does not take away from the FACT that that Canon sensors are lagging behind. Perhaps other brands do not have things that are going for Canon but this does not change the fact that Canon sensors need and a bit of a fix. How can anyone argue with that? I use 5d3 and will use it but how am I wrong in wishing it's sensor gets better?

Sure, Canon could improve their sensors. Nikon could improve their lenses, their ergonomics, etc. Both of them could lower prices, too. There's no such thing as a perfect system - you pick your compromises and make your choice. Maybe you use both. Maybe you get a Fuji. There's no right or wrong answer for an individual.

Earlier, Canon was referred to as a tech company. How many tech companies have held the top spot in their market for 10 years? Not that you're doing this, Sanj, but some are crying doom for Canon because they don't see Canon addressing their specific, individual needs. Those folks aren't seeing the forest for the trees...Canon continues to meet the needs of a majority of customers.

Yes Neuro, even mine! My needs are completely taken care of especially by the 1dx.
My one and only point: We Canon users cannot hide behind the great things that Canon has and the flaws that others have and refuse to admit that Canon sensors need fixing. Thats all.

 

[sanj]

For those who want better sensor from Nikon and Sony, Please go and buy Nikon/Sony. Then the sales for Canon will going down and force them to produce better camera.

Yes, people are doing this already. I have spent last few weeks doing EXTENSIVE research for my next camera which is small, has high IQ at high ISO and zeroed down to Fuji XE2 with a 1.4 lens. There is nothing from Canon or Nikon which comes c l o s e. Sad but true.

 

[sanj]

I use 5d3 and will use it but how am I wrong in wishing it's sensor gets better?

Your portfolio is stunning. It appears your Canon gear is serving you very well

Hahahaha. Thx! Yes it sure does! I love my 1dx for speed and responsiveness. 5d3 is great too but I do not get to use it much as it is perpetually rented out.

 

[DaveMiko]

Good! I just bought a 1DX. Next year I'm gonna sell it and, then, get the new flagship model.

 

[AvTvM]

Those folks aren't seeing the forest for the trees...Canon continues to meet the needs of a majority of customers.

Don't worry, Neuro. I see the forest: it's called "classical duopoly". And to make things worse, a classical duopoly of two japanese comanis. CaNikon combined hold around 75% of the global interchangeable lens camera market [feel free to post exact numbers ].

This is "the forest" ... the sole reason for the blatant lack of innovation.

Unless one really believes it is "a mere coincidence", that Canikon both have not brought the 7D and D300/s successors to market after 4+ years. Both have brought D4 / 1Dx at the same time and will bring 1D Xs / D4s only later ... but again around the same time ... both have 3 levels of consumer-crop bodies in the market ... and 3 levels of FF-cameras ... both only have zoom lenses with at best f/2.8 ... and no, this is NOT because we, the custtomers want it that way.

The most obvious and likely explanation is ... "collusion". Anti-competitive market manipulation.

Occasional "accidents" may cause "unplanned for innovation" like 5D2 video capabilitis [see recent interview with Mr. Onda of Canon!] but other than that, innovation is only allowed to trickle .. .and is only dished out in very small and carefully controlled doses.

Real innovation cames independent sources, whose life is made as bloody difficult as possible by th 2 duopolists. Magic Lantern. Independent thirs-party lens makers.

Why is it that Sigma brings the first 1.8 zoom-lens to market? Why not Canon or Nikon with their vastly superior R&D resources and much better access to market due to huge installed base of camera bodies? Exactly, because Canon wants to continue to sell their cr*ppy 16-35 "L" II ... at nearly twice the price of a Sigma 18-35/1.8. And once Canon decides to come up with a 16-35/2.0 L it will cost a nifty USD/Euro 4500 or so ... and Nikon's future 14-35/2.8 will then as well ... give me a break!

And next you know, Nikon - as Canon has done before many times - clandestinely changes their lens mount protocol [starting with D5300], so Sigma lenses stop functioning properly on that camera, but not Nikon lenses.
You may call it a mere coincidence. I call it ... just another tree in the huge forest of anti-competitive behaviour, collusion and market manipulation.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

The perception that Canon's sensors lacking in DR (I would challenge the ISO noise comments though) hasn't effected their sales. The 1Dx is selling astonishingly well considering it's high ticket price. The 5DIII is also selling extreamly well. So one has to wonder about the high DR arguments in the commercial context.
While I'm sure Canon are working hard to improve their sensor tech to bring it in line with the competition...the rest of the camera (1DX and 5DIII models) are more advanced than anything else in their sector and I personally this is the reason they are selling so well.
The other side to it is that the Nikon D4, their version of the 1Dx, has been pagued with lockups and issues from it's launch. I know of a number of pro wildlife guys who jumped into the Nikon D3 / D700 combo only to be really dissapointed with the D4 issues. The D800 isn't really a replacement for the D700 and many felt abandonded by Nikon when the D800 came out. While this has been addressed with the D600, it's been a long time coming and it's still not a direct D700 replacement.
Canon's full frame line up is so strong it's hard to compete with it. The 1Dx is the best there is, the 5DIII is so versatile and offers so much, the 6D is very effective while being cost / feature conscious. It's no wonder it's all selling so well. Add to one of the finest pro lens portfolios currently available...it's no wonder Canon are number 1. I have a number of unique to Canon lenses in my collection (8-15L fish eye, TS-e17L) and a number of top/excellent performers (35mm f1.4, 85mm f1.2, 135mm f2, 70-200 f2.8 LIS II, 400mm f2.8 LIS).
When I look at other brands, their camera bodies or lens porfolio don't come close to what Canon offers.

 

[Synkka]

A common misconception with tech companies is that the first to the market with a new technology is the one who benefits most. This is actually rarely true it's normal the first company to use a new technology well.

This is where I believe canon is with the higher megapixel body they won't release until they have a solution that will sell well without large amounts of negative press. Further more I think canon is a company that plays it very safe, whether this stifles creativity is another question but it tends to please shareholders.

Sanj I have an x100s which I believe is a similar sensor or same to the xe2 it's a very good sensor.

Is there a good source to compare DR between cameras on actual shots rather than charts, I haven't found an easy source to compare.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Of course I care about the camera as a whole but that does not take away from the FACT that that Canon sensors are lagging behind. Perhaps other brands do not have things that are going for Canon but this does not change the fact that Canon sensors need and a bit of a fix. How can anyone argue with that? I use 5d3 and will use it but how am I wrong in wishing it's sensor gets better?

Sure, Canon could improve their sensors. Nikon could improve their lenses, their ergonomics, etc. Both of them could lower prices, too. There's no such thing as a perfect system - you pick your compromises and make your choice. Maybe you use both. Maybe you get a Fuji. There's no right or wrong answer for an individual.

Earlier, Canon was referred to as a tech company. How many tech companies have held the top spot in their market for 10 years? Not that you're doing this, Sanj, but some are crying doom for Canon because they don't see Canon addressing their specific, individual needs. Those folks aren't seeing the forest for the trees...Canon continues to meet the needs of a majority of customers.

Yes Neuro, even mine! My needs are completely taken care of especially by the 1dx.
My one and only point: We Canon users cannot hide behind the great things that Canon has and the flows that others have and refuse to admit that Canon sensors need fixing. Thats all.

The 1Dx is a great camera and very versatile. I feel the same about my 5DIII...it serves all my needs and I don't have much need for 12fps! I enjoy the 5DIII's slightly higher resolution (although that's not a deal breaker), enjoy the lighter weight and near silent shutter (a serious plus for me).

 

[CarlTN]

I very much look forward to the 2014 camera, and suspect the DR issue will finally equal if not exceed the competition. Wasn't one of the rumors, that it would (or could) record 16 bit RAW files? Why do that if the sensor can only record 14 bits...or as Nikon lovers claim (of Canon)...only 9 or 10 bits of DR?

I hope they go for the lowest MP possible. Nobody really needs over 40 MP. Especially not 60. The only way to make use of an uncropped image that large, is to make sure most of the image's subject matter is in very sharp focus (a deep focus, wide angle landscape), and then do a very large print of it. How often do most of us do this? Do many of you make prints larger than 20x30 on a weekly basis, let alone 40x60? I've gotten decent 20x30 prints from only a 15MP camera (I knew how to shoot a sharp image, and scale it). My 6D could surely do 30x40 without flinching...

Alas I won't be able to afford 9 to $10,000, though...

I fiddled with a D7100 in Best Buy last night...my GOSHHHHH...what horrible ergonomics...menus...grip feel...I mean I would rather go Fuji rangefinder or something, than a Nikon DSLR. How can anyone use those things? Obviously they just set everything one time, and always shoot on that setting from then on. If you want to change something, look out!

 

[Woody]

The most obvious and likely explanation is ... "collusion". Anti-competitive market manipulation.

I've been pondering that too and I suspect you may be right.

Why is it that Sigma brings the first 1.8 zoom-lens to market? Why not Canon or Nikon with their vastly superior R&D resources and much better access to market due to huge installed base of camera bodies? Exactly, because Canon wants to continue to sell their cr*ppy 16-35 "L" II ... at nearly twice the price of a Sigma 18-35/1.8.

This is incorrect for many reasons: (a) Olympus produced the world's first f/2 zoom lenses for interchangeable lens cameras with their 14-35 f/2 and 35-100 f/2 (b) Canon 16-35 f/2.8 is for FF sensor while Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 is for crop sensor

 

[AvTvM]

Why is it that Sigma brings the first 1.8 zoom-lens to market? Why not Canon or Nikon with their vastly superior R&D resources and much better access to market due to huge installed base of camera bodies? Exactly, because Canon wants to continue to sell their cr*ppy 16-35 "L" II ... at nearly twice the price of a Sigma 18-35/1.8.

This is incorrect for many reasons: (a) Olympus produced the world's first f/2 zoom lenses for interchangeable lens cameras with their 14-35 f/2 and 35-100 f/2 (b) Canon 16-35 f/2.8 is for FF sensor while Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 is for crop sensor

It is not incorrect. The Sigma is the first f/1.8 zoom lens. I did not say it was an FF lens. All I'm saying, is Canon should be more innovative and charge less for products that are not neither innovative nor even fully competitive in all aspects ... if they want me to buy it.

 

[J.R.]

All I'm saying, is Canon should be more innovative and charge less for products that are not even fully competitive in all aspects.

That's the whole issue isn't it ... Canon is more loyal to its shareholders than its customers, which is exactly the same way all successful business corporations are run.

Customers aren't loyal to Canon either and buy products other than Canon because such products meet their needs better.

It's just business at the end of the day, Canon makes a product, you pay, it's that simple. If you don't like Canon's offerings, take your money elsewhere, get the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8, get a Sony A7 or whatever else you find best. What is the point in continuously moaning?

 

[AvTvM]

If you don't like Canon's offerings, take your money elsewhere, get the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8, get a Sony A7 or whatever else you find best. What is the point in continuously moaning?

Don't worry, I'll do just that, as soon as "my next camera system" becomes available.
Until then I am not moaning, but just stating my opinion. Like you and everybody else.

 

[Woody]

All I'm saying, is Canon should be more innovative and charge less for products that are not neither innovative nor even fully competitive in all aspects ... if they want me to buy it.

To each his own. I will never touch Sigma f/1.8 zoom lens for APS-C for the following reasons: (a) too heavy and big (b) inprecise AF (personal experience with multiple Sigma lenses incl. their recent releases... supported by DPReview's review of said lens). I'm sure there are many folks like me, and that's why Canikon never bother to release such a lens even if they can.

Incidentally, the Olympus f/2 zoom lenses were major flops too... optically fantastic, but very very few buyers. On the other hand, f/2 zoom lenses designed for FF cameras and sold at monster prices will probably attract enough buyers to offset the R&D expenditure. Sigma should have thought through their plan more carefully before releasing the APS-C f/1.8 zoom lens. If they are really good, they would have released a f/2 zoom lens for FF...

 

[J.R.]

All I'm saying, is Canon should be more innovative and charge less for products that are not neither innovative nor even fully competitive in all aspects ... if they want me to buy it.

To each his own. I will never touch Sigma f/1.8 zoom lens for APS-C for the following reasons: (a) too heavy and big (b) inprecise AF (personal experience with multiple Sigma lenses incl. their recent releases... supported by DPReview's review of said lens). I'm sure there are many folks like me, and that's why Canikon never bother to release such a lens even if they can.

I would agree with the AF struggles on the Sigma lenses having tried many when I was using the APS-C format. Finally, I sent the lenses for repair and rather unsurprisingly, found the Sigma's customer support to be terrible. The lens has to be shipped back 3000 miles away (they have only a single service center in India as far as I know) and the lenses came back with the "within spec" response.

No such trouble with Canon except for the 135L. I sent in the bodies with the 135L and Canon calibrated the lens perfectly - A 0 on the AFMA on both bodies.

 

[AvTvM]

All I'm saying, is Canon should be more innovative and charge less for products that are not neither innovative nor even fully competitive in all aspects ... if they want me to buy it.

To each his own. I will never touch Sigma f/1.8 zoom lens for APS-C for the following reasons: (a) too heavy and big (b) inprecise AF (personal experience with multiple Sigma lenses incl. their recent releases... supported by DPReview's review of said lens). I'm sure there are many folks like me, and that's why Canikon never bother to release such a lens even if they can.

Incidentally, the Olympus f/2 zoom lenses were major flops too... optically fantastic, but very very few buyers. On the other hand, f/2 zoom lenses designed for FF cameras and sold at monster prices will probably attract enough buyers to offset the R&D expenditure. Sigma should have thought through their plan more carefully before releasing the APS-C f/1.8 zoom lens. If they are really good, they would have released a f/2 zoom lens for FF...

I agree with you in not buying third-party lenses too. However, I consider it mainly CaNikon's fault, since they make it as difficult as possible for third party makers to produce fully functional lenses by changing their proprietary lens mounts all the time. This should really be open standards, then we would really see who makes the best lesnes at the bst price and would have full lens choice from any maker. that would bring an incredible amount of innovation, since it would attraact a lot of R&D efforts if the resukting products could be used on the entire installed base of CaNikon cameras without issues.

I also consider it "too late" by Sigma to come up with a 1k f/1.8 APS-C zoom. Majority of potentially interested users have or are moving towards FF since they have been neglected by CaNikon. But who knows, maybe Sigma comes out with an FF version of a f/2.0 or F/1.8 WA zoom any time soon?

Oly 2.0 Zooms flopped for other reasons. Way too big, heavy and expensive considering the small sensor size. Anybody willing to lug those around and able to afford them was not shooting FT but FF-sensored cameras. No target group really for those zooms.

BUT ... for FF ... a 16-35/2.0 L or a 24-70/2.0 L IS ... enough people would pay the 4.5k Canon (or Nikon) would undoubtedly charge for such a lens. But CaNikon are not able to make one. Or have agreed to not make one for the time being.

 

[RLPhoto]

If you don't like Canon's offerings, take your money elsewhere, get the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8, get a Sony A7 or whatever else you find best. What is the point in continuously moaning?

Don't worry, I'll do just that, as soon as "my next camera system" becomes available.
Until then I am not moaning, but just stating my opinion. Like you and everybody else.

That'd be the best thing because I noticed you haven't actually posted photos on CR.

 

[docsmith]

I upgraded from the 7D to the 5DIII last February. I had spent most of the previous 9 months considering the upgrade to FF and comparing the D800 to the 5DIII. A switch over to Nikon wouldn't have been that big a deal as I was selling all my EFS glass. I read every article I could find, and I watched more videos than I care to remember.

At the end of the day, I concluded that the 5DIII was a better camera for my needs. I have a general understanding of the pros and cons of each system and am very happy with my choice.

I've always assumed other people made similar evaluations. But a couple of threads like this are beginning to make me think otherwise.....

Back to the topic of the thread, a potential new EOS-1 body, and potentially Canon's first foray into the "high Megapixel bodies" I wonder how high? I view high megapixel bodies as a pretty limited niche. Theoretically, it is great, but in practice, I think the market will be more of a niche. Landscape photographers, those shooting billboards, some select studio work and enthusiast that just have to have it. ;D But if Canon is going to do it, I bet they go pretty high. I am going to guess more MP than the D800...Right now I'd guess 48 MP. That should sufficiently cement Canon as a "high megapixel" leader and provide room for a 1Dx II to come out in 2015 at ~24 MP. If true, looks like the 1D line is going to be split again.

Regarding the rumor of lenses with the release...those are something I might actually buy (I won't be buying the high megapixel body). As landscape and billboard type studio work could go hand in hand with a high MP body, I could see the long awaited 12-24 f/2.8 and 35 f/1.4 II. Lenses like that with superb optics would well compliment a high MP body.