The thing with rumours forums is that I would say IMO most of the users are more interested in the tech than actually getting out into the field. Discussing tech is what the forum is for, agonising over the tech. Unfortunately some take it personally that Canon doesn't make a camera specifically for them, whereas with Sony, they are trying to pull as much market share as possible, so are being more daring with products that are for niche markets, but completely ignoring their main SLR customer base! The need for better lenses! Do the sales of the A series cover the cost of R&D and then enough to create more dedicated lenses?
Canon users complain about DR and are envious of Sonys sensors, but go over to Sonyalpharumors and there are more upset people over there envious of Canons vast lenses! Also the poor AF speed with adapters meaning they can't swap their system for pro use. Sony are doing very little with native lenses and also in their DSLR range where Canon trounce them in every aspect bar DR and resolution.
Nikon and Canon are always leapfrogging themselves. First MP, then low light, then DR, now a combination of the 3. Nikon have IMO shot themselves in the foot by taking the Sony tech, positive in the short term not so much in the long term. By ignoring their own R&D if anything happens to Sony where are they going to get their sensors from? Can Nikon afford to buy the sensor tech and facilities if Sony decided to cut the photo sector of the business like they did with the computer sector? Especially when Nikon are struggling with profit compared to Canon. Whats to say Canon won't outbid them just to put the nail in the coffin for Nikon? Although Sony is now making more money by selling sensors they are selling less cameras because the Nikon DSLRs are far better than the Sony equivalent… its all a pretty unstable equation if you ask me.
Mirrorless is where Sony are innovating but IMO its just bodies the lenses aren't up to scratch. The 24-70mm F4 doesn't deserve to be warring a Zeiss badge. The 50mm and 35mm ok great performers, but slow again for primes and the 70-200mm is expensive looks redic, is slow and is a tiny range, the average photographer needs more than 200mm. The 70-200mm is perfect for events but not so much for a do it all tele like a 70-300mm. If it had been a 2.8 it would have made more sense releasing it first.
Maybe Canon are just biding their time a little, see how these products are received and see what the actual figures are.
There are thousands of users on this site. There are a group of people that always post images and a large percentage that don't and won't get anywhere near the cameras shutter life. Many buy the best cameras on the market designed for professionals to brag and have the best, thats fine, if these people didn't exist the prosumer market wouldn't exist and it would be difficult to run a company just on sales from pros. Pros don't generally swap a whole system for small gains. The amateurs are the target and they are the ones that spend the serious money as a whole group, lower cost but huge numbers. Not the pro who spends 10-15k on a kit because pro numbers are dwindled compared to amateurs upgrading the camera every 2-3 years.
I don't know if you people know many pros? But the pros I know are tight, they only spend money on gear when they absolutely have to because buying a lens for 1-4k it takes a lot of profit to justify. Bodies are justifiable as they are much cheaper and do actively improve. There are very few pros who would be willing to swap a system for small gains, they like their gear and swear by it, acknowledge flaws and deal with them through skill.
Its like many items, cars for example, 90% of cars today are made to break the law in terms of speed all will do over 70mph, but people agonise about hp, 0-60, mid range torque etc and these things in general driving make no difference in how you get from a-b unless you break the law, but are nice to have. Im a self confessed car bloke and have a high performance car that is too quick for the road but I love it, I don't need it but I wanted it, and its the same for cameras some people NEED and others WANT.
These cars are expensive so they are babied and left in the garage and become garage queens, they aren't used then they get a mediocre price for them when they trade in and feel worse because it was never used to its potential. Some people use them to track instead, used and abused and as long as it performs and the smiles are there they generally don't care. Same with cameras, I use my gear and through use and event situations it gets banged and scratched but to me its a tool and I bought it to earn money and don't expect to sell it to fund another, my skill does that. I actually prefer the used look to my cameras, detours theirs. Whereas some may buy a camera and use it very sparingly for certain occasions and clean and care for it and enjoy having it. Thats fine too.
Thats the way the world works and it would be a boring place if we were all the same.
Many of posts I read quoting that the Canon sensors can't recover shadows of 5 stops, well no it cant. Frankly its a big ask to expect, 5 stops is the difference between day and complete darkness. IMO it is interesting to see, but is it useful? For many pros no, because you would never shoot like that or ever rely on pushing the tech to its absolute limits. The limit is there IMO for a last resort and not to be relied on because you are a poor photographer, if that is the case and people are paying for your services it is unethical and it gives the rest of us a bad name.
If there is a high contrast situation then bracketing is a simple solution it adds 30 seconds to your workflow by creating 32bit TIFF files camera raw can read. Simple. Of corse not all situations lend themselves to HDR, moving subjects, portraits etc but there is enough latitude to sort these problems, if there isn't then the only option is move yourself into a place where there is better light, front lit another angle etc or if it is a portrait then add light with flash and diffusion.
That is the skill of photography controlling the light. What you are doing in post by pulling shadows and reducing highlights is the same thing but relying on the camera to be able to simulate.
Yes its easier from one raw file and what the Sony cameras can do is incredible, but for most good photographers its not a deal breaker. Now would I be complaining if I had that latitude? Certainly not and pushing the boundaries is what I expect from a successful company. Do I expect more? Yes its nearly 3 years so I expect the next iteration to be better. But at the same time I'm not looking at other systems enviously, thinking of swapping my pro gear for it! I have said many times that I'm constantly impressed with my 5DMKIII, I shoot demanding event situations and it never ever fails me. What does fail me every once and a while is my mistakes but I am human therefore I AM ALLOUD TO!!
In fact I'm about to go traveling on a photo tour for 5 months across south, central and north America. I was tempted to buy the A7 for its size and IQ as its as good as my 5DMKIII with a little better latitude half the size and 1/3 the weight. Again full of compromise the glass is slow, there is nothing past 200mm no wide angle and the cost for the body 24-70 F4 and 70-200mm F4 was £3000!! Im shooting everything from wildlife in the amazon, portraits and landscape and generally documenting the trip and the A series it just doesn't cut it for a camera that can do everything, its ok as a run and gun documentary camera but its not suited to most situations like the 5D. Really disappointing as the size would be perfect. Yes even more disappointing that Canon doesn't have an equivalent mirrorless option. I have said for ages stick the 20.2 or 23mp sensor of the 5 or 6D in a small body and it will sell like hot cakes. So it is frustrating, and i love the 5DMKIII but carrying 4kgs of camera equipment not including any of my supplies 14,000 miles isn't exactly ideal, but the compromise is worth it because I know it will serve me well for every situation, weight is something I will just have to deal with.
There are a few people that require the extremes of the scale. But the aim of any camera is to give useable quality across a range of moonlight -3EV and bright sunlight. There is always a compromise and there are always ways around problems. This is where your skill comes in to solve the problem and be able to work quickly under pressure.
The difference between a pro and an amateur, needs and wants its a complex equation.
