DPAF/QPAF is one of such ways.
Technically, Canon does not need to compete with Sony on its own. It could cooperate with Samsung, for example.
New mid-level DSLR and EOS M5 Mark II the next ILC’s from Canon? [CR1]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
Technically, Canon does not need to compete with Sony on its own. It could cooperate with Samsung, for example.
The reason Canon won't merge them is purely because of price. They would rather keep them separate and have a dedicated middle-of-the-ground camera like the 77D - I agree with that strategy.
that doesn't seem to be as easy as you'd think.
https://www.canonnews.com/the-pros-and-cons-of-merging-the-80d-series-and-the-7d-series
Yes,
The basic problem of merging is as follows:
Let’s say you have two lines, one with quality/features of level 10, and the other of level 7.
Technology marches on, the next iterations will be better, say at 11 and 8. If you merge them, anything less than a 10 means that half your market stays with what they already have, or upgrades to the old model.
To get sales, you need a merged camera that is better than both the cameras you are merging, and that is not a merge, it is upgrading the 7D2 and dropping the 80D
Features at 11, price at 9. 7DII owners get a slight bump in features and a lower price, 80D owners get a big bump in features and a price increase. That parallels the 1DsIII and 1DIV merging into the 1D X.
Entirely possible. and probably something Canon should do.
Looking at where Canon is as far as global shutters and where Sony Electronics is, Sony is around two full generations ahead of even Canon's patent applications.
Going it alone may just not be a grand idea.
problem is if you do that, the 80D loses the size and weight advantage over the 7D. then you have the fact that bringing a fully articulating screen to the 7D drastically changes its ergonomics.
there's no right or easy answer. and btw, there's certainly no guarantee the price will be lower either. it's basically a 7D Mark III and you're dropping the 80D.
the problem is the articulating screen, and merging the ergonomics.
I personally don't think Canon will do this. I liked the idea that the 90D and 7D Mark III are basically the same under the hood, but with different styles and ergonomics. Shared R&D between the two, but for two different customers.
Last edited:
You only gain market share by doing one thing: selling more units (relative to your competitors, than you did previously).
Nikon's woes in the early 1990s were almost exclusively about AF performance. The invention of the USM is what killed Nikon in the pro 135 format market.
Canon made a clean break from their existing system, announced very clearly that they were doing so, and clearly explained why (to move to an all electronic connection between camera and lens). That decision is what enabled their AF performance to take off like a rocket when the UltraSonic Motor was created.
Nikon's miscalculation was their notion that pro shooters, who almost exclusively shot with Nikon cameras, would ever even be interested in AF. (Along with the assumption that compatibility with existing and legacy lenses would trump performance advantages.)
They then further shot themselves in the foot by deciding to put AF in the body, where different sized lenses with focusing elements of a very wide range of masses were being driven by the same motor. The heavier focusing elements in the larger lenses (e.g. large telephoto lenses used for sports and reportage) were hopelessly slow compared to Canon's brand spanking new USM lenses.
A lot of that 470B yen Sony spends on R&D has absolutely nothing to do with cameras or imaging sensors. A lot of the 315.8B yen Canon spends on R&D is also on things other than cameras and sensors for conventional cameras.
Please make up your mind. Are we talking about sensors only or not?
You do realize that the new RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS is an extending zoom design and is just as long as the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III when zoomed to 200mm? It's right there in the patent filing.
It was at Canon. It was not at Nikon. That's what cost Nikon the biggest part of the pro market for at least the next two decades.
Yet a lot of folks go for the Tamron with VC precisely because it works better for them if they shoot handheld almost all of the time. Your assumption that because you chose absolute lens performance when the camera is mounted on a tripod → everyone else will as well is about like Nikon's assumption that no pros were interested in AF back in 1985-90.
Until Canon decides one is ready and meets a need in the marketplace.
If Canon releases an incremental update, folks
If Canon waits until they have a significant improvement in a model line, folks
Some folks just like to complain because they can't have the latest, greatest, top of the line feature at every single point on the list in the cheapest entry level model just announced.
Well, except for cameras like the 1D X Mark II that have 750,000 pixel RGB+IR light meters that are coupled to the AF system and assist in tracking moving subjects and do, in fact, recognize things such as facial features.
Does Canon need to more effectively exploit the capabilities of high resolution, full color light meters? Certainly.
Do they need to market those capabilities better? Surely they do.
But that does not mean that such capabilities simply can not be rolled out for the SLRs when some SLRs already have such capabilities.
Last edited:
Right. If you're a White House reporter or do sports or what have you--you don't move around much--then the size doesn't matter. If you're a travel photographer or wedding photographer, especially a petite one, then having a smaller, somewhat lighter bag is going to be a win though. Even if it's as long at 200mm, it's not going to be at 200mm in your bag or backpack.
Just because it is shorter at 70mm (and is the same length at 200mm), it's highly unlikely to be any lighter. Extending designs have an extra barrel that fixed length lenses do not require.
actually, I wasn't talking to you at all. So "we" weren't talking anything.
not to mention you clipped out what I was replying to, which certainly didn't state R&D on sensors, which of course, no one knows. but If I had to hazard a guess, since they have more patents, they most likely spend more on sensor R&D than Canon does. It only makes sense. what drives Sony is smartphone sensors, and the tech in those has to be top-notch, including design rules that would never be necessary for larger sensors.
An extending f/4 version would be better. Along with an RF 1.4x TC.
The ‘Really Right’TM version would be a very high resolution sensor using a lens with a wide focal length (prime) paired with a fixed narrow aperture.
No need to focus; most everything is within DOF.
No need to zoom, just crop digitally.
Solid statist’s fantasy.
Last edited:
How about you learn how to take a joke?
What good does that do if the body leaks like a submarine with a screen door?
Where did I make that assumption? I clearly was talking about my decision and acknowledged that it was a close call, i.e. other people's decisions would be different.
Choosing between them rests on whether or not you can keep shutter speeds sufficiently high in your common use scenarios. For my common use scenarios with this zoom range that's not a problem.
No, it is a contracting market. You can gain market share while your sales continue to go down.
I won't be a fan of global shutters until a rolling shutter sensor can reach native ISO 25 or lower with the same color filters and without loss of quantum efficiency. For reasonable money.
The main reason that I promote as far as backup protection is concerned is the ability to use a wireless format to copy the captures in real time to a backup device. I can't see it being too difficult to have a simple Bluetooth or Wi-Fi connection to a compatible wireless thumbdrive or wireless dongle that can easily be written to just by being in the vicinity of the camera body. That would solve the problem of having to add the bulk and extra room necessary to make the camera capable of a trusted backup, without having the extra card slot. A confirmation window in the display would allow the user to see if the backup connection is working or not, and you could easily take extra precautionary steps to make sure that the copying is successful in real time. I don't want to contradict myself, and be hypocritical as to the next part of my reply by simply assuming this wireless feature would be easily accomplished by the engineers, as I know for a fact that it can, and has been done already. They just need to perfect the technology and make it a universal feature with the ISO community.
As far as the first part of your reply, I am with you on that example. There is a group of folks who act as though the engineers can just snap their fingers to get certain features added to a camera body without knowing anything at all about the background of the process involved in that addition. It just seems that everyone has a penchant for "Off the cuff" engineering solutions with absolutely no knowledge of what's involved in adding these most wanted features. I see it all the time with trusted reviewers even. Some are more consistent than others, but when a reviewer starts to demote a new camera body's overall score because they figure that the manufacturer left out "Something so simple".
A lot of fuss has been made about 4K technology (mostly the lack thereof) in the modern DSLR discussions, and I see that being a problem that Canon made for themselves with the advent of the video capabilities in the 5D MkII. It was a great feature, there's no doubt about it, but the sudden craze to expect top notch video codecs to be implemented into ALL of the new models sullied the pool of comments for every single camera that didn't offer some kind of cutting edge video capabilities with every single model. Some people are to the point where they will literally destroy the review of a new DSLR, just because it doesn't have bleeding edge 4K video capabilities. I am of the school that believes in buying a DSLR to take still captures, and I am not invested in the video capabilities. I would like to see a "Stills only" model where I don't have to pay for technology that I am not interested in at all, as that is what a DSLR is supposed to be for.
I'm sure the f/4 lenses will be coming. Heck I'm wondering when the 24-240 will come and how good it will be in daylight...
Similar threads
- Contains 2 staff post(s)