Still waiting for high MP canon while Nikon is coming out with new 800

[NancyP]

Canon does not give any EF-S lens the "L" designation. There are excellent EF-S lenses out there with optics of "L" grade, though the build may or may not be as robust.

 

[Sella174]

You are one of the minority who bought lenses beyond the kit jobbie, including L-primes. This means it is A-OK for Canon to cater to YOUR desires, but not to mine. Again ... huh?

Quick business lesson for you:

Total profit = (profit per unit) * (number of units sold)

At the extreme ends of profitability, we have:

Mass market: (profit per unit) is small, and (number of units sold) is large

Niche: (profit per unit) is large, and (number of units sold) is small

So what is your point?

How many Canon DSLR owners actually purchase a prime lens - excluding the macro lenses, 'cause that's all the rage nowadays? Yet Canon makes them. Thus, are they mass or niche?

So when, when playing the numbers game of a 4 billion world-population, does a niche product become a mass product?

Key point: The manufacturer gets to decide where in that range is "A-OK" for their business goals and capabilities.

Quick business lesson for you: Customers decide whether or not the manufacturer's A-OK'ed range of products caters to their personal requirements: whether and they buy, not and they buy another brand.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

You might want to look up the definition of the word "aspiration." Many people aspire to own a better car, a bigger house, or even a newer tractor. The fact that they do not buy them does not indicate a lack of aspiration, but rather insufficient means.

So the majority buy "crop-frame" xxx(x)D/Rebel cameras with the aspiration of later buying a "full-frame", yet they also never purchase a second lens. Mmmmmm ... huh?

No, wow you need to take a moment and actually read. What we're saying is the majority of crop users will buy the kit and no more. Then there's few who like photography enough to take things to the next level, those are the people that buy L glass and aspire to FF - those are your hobbyists, enthusiasts and maybe future pros.

 

[Sella174]

Nice dodge.

Yeah, but I prefer Opel.

A 35mm macro would have been nice, and a fisheye. Maybe an internal-zoom 50~200mm, as well (you said crop lenses, not just primes). Perhaps a 10mm, for landscapes and interiors. All of 'em weather-sealed, to go with the 7D and the (apparently) upcoming 7DII.

 

[Loswr]

You are one of the minority who bought lenses beyond the kit jobbie, including L-primes. This means it is A-OK for Canon to cater to YOUR desires, but not to mine. Again ... huh?

Perfectly ok, yes. I have a FF body and many L-lenses, and it seems I'm in the part of the minority that Canon cares about. I don't recall if you've sold all your Canon gear, or you've just got really outdated Canon gear, but either way you're in the part of the minority about which Canon doesn't care. As I've stated – deal with it.

The point, however, is that "full-frame" is not the all and everything; with decent lenses "crop-frame" is on par with it.

Try putting decent lenses like a 24-70/2.8L II, a 135/2L, or a Sigma 35/1.4A on a 70D, then shooting moving subjects indoors in a gymnasium, theater, or even typical living room. You'll likely be at ISO 3200 or higher...and the resulting image quality will be nowhere even close to 'on par' with the same lenses on a FF camera.

 

[Loswr]

Maybe a good measure of that would be someone that still owns and uses a 20D or 30D. Do they buy a 6D today (which requires similar purchasing power today as those cameras did when they were brought to market) or do they buy a 70D?

Whilst they may be able to afford a FF camera, they may also decide that "I'm ok with shooting with APS-C, I can buy a replacement for my camera that works with all my lenses and it is cheaper than my original camera so I save money!"

Completely anecdotal, but coincidentally a colleague who has a 20D told me yesterday that he looked at the 70D and 6D, and has decided to buy the 6D. In his words, "The 6D's AF is basically the same as my 20D, but the full frame sensor is much better."

 

[Sella174]

No, wow you need to take a moment and actually read. What we're saying is the majority of crop users will buy the kit and no more. Then there's few who like photography enough to take things to the next level, those are the people that buy L glass and aspire to FF - those are your hobbyists, enthusiasts and maybe future pros.

And I am also saying that you should take a moment and read (...). The "next level" and "buy L glass" does not per definition also include "aspire to FF". I know that that is how Canon has been marketing their DSLR system for years now, and that that is how nearly everyone on this forum understands it, but it is simply not written in stone.

Think about this: if all/most hobbyists, enthusiasts and maybe future pros are only shooting for "full-frame", then why are "crop-frame" systems like micro-4/3 and X even selling? Granted, sales are not anywhere near that of Canon's Rebel jobbies, but that is not their intended target market. Look at how good those systems sell and some of the lenses aren't exactly cheap, e.g. the D.ZUIKO 75mm and the FUJIFILM 56mm? It simply means that "full-frame" is not as important as Canon has led you to believe; but that quality is important, irrespective of the form-factor of the sensor/system.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

... L lenses are desired not only due to their IQ but also because of their more rugged build quality - one of the reasons why you buy L you own and use it for quite a few years.

Exactly why I wanted Canon to make EF-S L-primes.

That's I think the key you are missing - you buy a body to get you through, but you buy lenses to last. IMO, buying an L prime for a rebel is like making a downpayment on an upgraded body at some point in the future...

Not everybody aspires to "full-frame" ... in fact, I'd say that the majority of Canon users don't really care for "full-frame", as indicated by sales.

Your just going in circles now. Basically you want a crop 1dx in a rebel body with a rebel price and EF-S primes to go along with that????

Yes, the majority of canon users may not want to move to full frame - those are your soccer moms, casual shooters, the ones who would stare at you blankly like your speaking a foreign language when you say crop vs FF. For most who know more than the basics and take photography even a tiny bit seriously, they stay on crop for the reach factor with tele's - or, they stay on crop for budget reasons. If your the Later, you probably don't really care if there's an ef-s prime cause your rocking long lens with a 1.4 TC to get the most range you can. Of those who stay for budget reasons, then its a game of compromise - you get the best body and lens combo your budget can afford and rock it (and the combinations there are still pretty endless).

Either way, canon is selling a lot of rebels to that first group of soccer moms, enough that that drives the entry level market. You want more than that, there are options.

 

[Sella174]

Try putting decent lenses like a 24-70/2.8L II, a 135/2L, or a Sigma 35/1.4A on a 70D, then shooting moving subjects indoors in a gymnasium, theater, or even typical living room. You'll likely be at ISO 3200 or higher...and the resulting image quality will be nowhere even close to 'on par' with the same lenses on a FF camera.

Wrong, because you are using the characteristics of the sensors in order to draw a conclusion about the size of the sensors. Question: would your comparison still hold true if Canon placed a cropped version of the 1DX sensor in the (eventually) upcoming 7DII camera; or the inverse, if Canon placed an upscaled version of the 70D sensor into a (hypothetical) 1DXs camera?

 

[Sella174]

... but coincidentally a colleague who has a 20D told me yesterday that he looked at the 70D and 6D, and has decided to buy the 6D. In his words, "The 6D's AF is basically the same as my 20D, but the full frame sensor is much better."

This is too good to pass up on ... Consumer opinion: the AF-system of the 6D is basically the same as ancient technology.

 

[Sella174]

Your just going in circles now.

No, it only looks like it because you are standing still.

Basically you want a crop 1dx in a rebel body with a rebel price and EF-S primes to go along with that????

No and I have never said this.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

No, wow you need to take a moment and actually read. What we're saying is the majority of crop users will buy the kit and no more. Then there's few who like photography enough to take things to the next level, those are the people that buy L glass and aspire to FF - those are your hobbyists, enthusiasts and maybe future pros.

And I am also saying that you should take a moment and read (...). The "next level" and "buy L glass" does not per definition also include "aspire to FF". I know that that is how Canon has been marketing their DSLR system for years now, and that that is how nearly everyone on this forum understands it, but it is simply not written in stone.

Think about this: if all/most hobbyists, enthusiasts and maybe future pros are only shooting for "full-frame", then why are "crop-frame" systems like micro-4/3 and X even selling? Granted, sales are not anywhere near that of Canon's Rebel jobbies, but that is not their intended target market. Look at how good those systems sell and some of the lenses aren't exactly cheap, e.g. the D.ZUIKO 75mm and the FUJIFILM 56mm? It simply means that "full-frame" is not as important as Canon has led you to believe; but that quality is important, irrespective of the form-factor of the sensor/system.

I'm not the one declaring that EF primes can't be used on a crop camera mind you (ok, you said wasted, not can't be used in fairness...) And I am not saying that everyone that buys a rebel will want to go to FF one day. What I am saying is that enough do follow that path to make that upgrade route viable, lucrative, and profitable for canon.

You seem to be a niche within a niche within a niche, within a niche, and no canon isn't going to tailor make a custom rebel with 7d AF, AFMA, and EF-S primes just for you.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

... but coincidentally a colleague who has a 20D told me yesterday that he looked at the 70D and 6D, and has decided to buy the 6D. In his words, "The 6D's AF is basically the same as my 20D, but the full frame sensor is much better."

This is too good to pass up on ... Consumer opinion: the AF-system of the 6D is basically the same as ancient technology.

Yeah it's old, but it is trusted and true. If your not shooting action the 6d is a fine camera.

 

[Orangutan]

You are one of the minority who bought lenses beyond the kit jobbie, including L-primes. This means it is A-OK for Canon to cater to YOUR desires, but not to mine. Again ... huh?

Quick business lesson for you:

Total profit = (profit per unit) * (number of units sold)

At the extreme ends of profitability, we have:

Mass market: (profit per unit) is small, and (number of units sold) is large

Niche: (profit per unit) is large, and (number of units sold) is small

So what is your point?

How many Canon DSLR owners actually purchase a prime lens - excluding the macro lenses, 'cause that's all the rage nowadays? Yet Canon makes them. Thus, are they mass or niche?

So when, when playing the numbers game of a 4 billion world-population, does a niche product become a mass product?

Key point: The manufacturer gets to decide where in that range is "A-OK" for their business goals and capabilities.

Quick business lesson for you: Customers decide whether or not the manufacturer's A-OK'ed range of products caters to their personal requirements: whether and they buy, not and they buy another brand.

And, as many of us have been trying to tell you, Canon's market success shows that, over all, they've been doing better at this than any competitor.

(you're becoming predictable, you walked right into that one)

 

[3kramd5]

Out of curiosity, what do you expect to get from an EF-S L prime that you can't get from an EF prime? Lighter? Probably. Maybe it will be cheaper to manufacture, but if they brand it as Luxury it's anyone's guess how much if any of that savings will be passed to the consumer.

I have found that L-lenses generally have better colour and more pleasing image rendition than non-L-lenses (made by Canon). But I suspect you don't view lenses in this light.

Um, okay, but that's not what I asked. At least, that's not what I intended to ask. Let me add the missing letter to my question:

What do you expect to get from an EF-S L prime that you can't get from an EF L prime?

 

[Orangutan]

Out of curiosity, what do you expect to get from an EF-S L prime that you can't get from an EF prime? Lighter? Probably. Maybe it will be cheaper to manufacture, but if they brand it as Luxury it's anyone's guess how much if any of that savings will be passed to the consumer.

I have found that L-lenses generally have better colour and more pleasing image rendition than non-L-lenses (made by Canon). But I suspect you don't view lenses in this light.

Um, okay, but that's not what I asked. At least, that's not what I intended to ask. Let me add the missing letter to my question:

What do you expect to get from an EF-S L prime that you can't get from an EF L prime?

I think he already answered that: smaller, lighter and cheaper.

What he hasn't addressed is the question of why Canon would incur the costs of engineering a new set of L lenses for a market segment so small (that being people who will buy EF-S L but not EF L)

I'm sure he'll move the goalposts again, though.

 

[Loswr]

Try putting decent lenses like a 24-70/2.8L II, a 135/2L, or a Sigma 35/1.4A on a 70D, then shooting moving subjects indoors in a gymnasium, theater, or even typical living room. You'll likely be at ISO 3200 or higher...and the resulting image quality will be nowhere even close to 'on par' with the same lenses on a FF camera.

Wrong, because you are using the characteristics of the sensors in order to draw a conclusion about the size of the sensors. Question: would your comparison still hold true if Canon placed a cropped version of the 1DX sensor in the (eventually) upcoming 7DII camera; or the inverse, if Canon placed an upscaled version of the 70D sensor into a (hypothetical) 1DXs camera?

Larger sensors collect more total light, meaning better IQ. Feel free to argue the point, but you'll only succeed in making yourself look more foolish.

 

[Orangutan]

Try putting decent lenses like a 24-70/2.8L II, a 135/2L, or a Sigma 35/1.4A on a 70D, then shooting moving subjects indoors in a gymnasium, theater, or even typical living room. You'll likely be at ISO 3200 or higher...and the resulting image quality will be nowhere even close to 'on par' with the same lenses on a FF camera.

Wrong, because you are using the characteristics of the sensors in order to draw a conclusion about the size of the sensors. Question: would your comparison still hold true if Canon placed a cropped version of the 1DX sensor in the (eventually) upcoming 7DII camera; or the inverse, if Canon placed an upscaled version of the 70D sensor into a (hypothetical) 1DXs camera?

Larger sensors collect more total light, meaning better IQ. Feel free to argue the point, but you'll only succeed in making yourself look more foolish.

He's going to tap-dance around this as well: he'll say sure, a bigger sensor captures more light, but if Canon put Sony-quality sensors in their APS-C cameras that would be almost as good as Canon's FF (other than 1DX).

I think he's moved the goal posts all the way to Antarctica already, let's see if how long it takes to hit the next continent.

 

[unfocused]

Maybe a good measure of that would be someone that still owns and uses a 20D or 30D. Do they buy a 6D today (which requires similar purchasing power today as those cameras did when they were brought to market) or do they buy a 70D?

Whilst they may be able to afford a FF camera, they may also decide that "I'm ok with shooting with APS-C, I can buy a replacement for my camera that works with all my lenses and it is cheaper than my original camera so I save money!"

Completely anecdotal, but coincidentally a colleague who has a 20D told me yesterday that he looked at the 70D and 6D, and has decided to buy the 6D. In his words, "The 6D's AF is basically the same as my 20D, but the full frame sensor is much better."

This is a really bad example on everyone's part. Someone still using a 20D or a 30D probably hasn't been doing a lot of lens purchases either. So, the cost of entry into the world of full frame is going to be less because they are likely to only need to replace some very old and outdated and optically poor EF-S lenses.

The cost of entry for a 60D or 7D owner might be much greater, because they could well have some fairly good EF-S lenses. Even the basic kit lens of today is a vast improvement over what it was in the days of the 20D and 30D.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

Out of curiosity, what do you expect to get from an EF-S L prime that you can't get from an EF prime? Lighter? Probably. Maybe it will be cheaper to manufacture, but if they brand it as Luxury it's anyone's guess how much if any of that savings will be passed to the consumer.

I have found that L-lenses generally have better colour and more pleasing image rendition than non-L-lenses (made by Canon). But I suspect you don't view lenses in this light.

Um, okay, but that's not what I asked. At least, that's not what I intended to ask. Let me add the missing letter to my question:

What do you expect to get from an EF-S L prime that you can't get from an EF L prime?

I think he already answered that: smaller, lighter and cheaper.

What he hasn't addressed is the question of why Canon would incur the costs of engineering a new set of L lenses for a market segment so small (that being people who will buy EF-S L but not EF L)

I'm sure he'll move the goalposts again, though.

don't forget that these ef-s primes will be priced like ef primes if they did exist. So a market of folks that won't spend more than $800 on a body will obviously be more than willing to spend $1500 on one lens.