The Empire Strikes Back - How 5Ds fits Canon's plan for a DSLR turnaround

[mkabi]

Everyone passes around their phone to show pictures... I'm not sure passing around a DSLR w/L lens is as likely to happen, plus the screen is sub-standard for snapshot size. O.K. so you can Wi-Fi your shots to your phone and share that way.

True. And that's why its a big let down that Canon does not give their new camera at least wifi and have the ability to auto upload to your phone/ipad/whatever or your fav photosite (and should do gps also...). This is not the "interconnectivity" Canon itself says it needs to do better.

the idea of a 50mp camera also being able to directly upload to an ipad/iphone seems absurd to me. do you realize how fast you would bog down your devices storage? even if you are shooting raw + the smallest jpg and only uploading the jpgs immediately...what is the point of having the 50mp raw file at that point?

beyond just the idea of "oh wouldn't be convenient if we could do such and such.." i don't see much consideration as to WHY we would even want to. "quick and easy" seems to be justified in and of itself regardless of the pointlessness of whatever it is we want to be quick and easy.

i really don't get it...we have the instagrams of the world for quick and easy, instant publication an all that jazz. trying to meld that with massive Raw files that in their intent are designed to allow for further consideration via post production seems like trying to mix oil with water.

my forehead is raw with red marks from slapping it so many times reading threads like these.

+1

WiFi and interconnectivity is convenient but not necessary.
The problem is that most people here are somehow convincing themselves that the convenience is a necessity.
Other than the benefits of framing and focusing on a larger screen, which can be done with a field monitor, I don't see the benefit of showing it to others via phone or throwing it up on a social network.
There is no image quality in that...and you don't need 50MP to do that... a phone is more than enough for that specific purpose.

 

[greger]

Cell phones have taken the bloom away from DSL's. Why buy a bulky camera system when your cell phone takes nice
Pics that you can upload and send to family and friends. Camera companies must build the next super camera to lure
Customers back. Dynamic range is more important than mega pixels or quality vs quantity. I don't want bigger files to
Plug up my hard drives causing me to buy more. I'm sticking with what I have and sitting on my money. My wife wants a new kitchen before new cameras!

 

[Marsu42]

Cell phones have taken the bloom away from DSL's. Why buy a bulky camera system when your cell phone takes nice
Pics that you can upload and send to family and friends. Camera companies must build the next super camera to lure
Customers back.

... good point there: Canon has to have more res on their old-school dslr line to appeal to the smartphone masses. Question is if the 5ds pricetag (whatever it is) will appeal to this market, and what'll be next in the medium price segment.

Dynamic range is more important than mega pixels or quality vs quantity. I don't want bigger files

... not such a good point here as even if sounding arrogant, I'm positive a lot of casual photogs have never heard of the term "dynamic range" or it'd be higher on the feature list in mass market marketing and reviews.

And you cannot put such a nice counter on dr - 12ev sounds ok, how much better is 14ev? It's only *2* more! On the other hand, 50mp is clearly more than 18mp, it's *32* more (i.e. nearly *triple* the old value and half of 100)!

 

[Maiaibing]

beyond just the idea of "oh wouldn't be convenient if we could do such and such.." i don't see much consideration as to WHY we would even want to. "quick and easy" seems to be justified in and of itself regardless of the pointlessness of whatever it is we want to be quick and easy.

i really don't get it...

my forehead is raw with red marks from slapping it so many times reading threads like these.

Well... you obviously do not get it. And because you represent the needs of all photographers neither can anyone else in the world. Nor should they be intrigued to do so. And of course its impossible to imagine that greater interconnectivity would lead to any new uses of DSLR from the ones you currently have.

So what came first Instagram or mobile phones with cameras and wifi/cell to upload pictures?

I - for one - got a 70D to be able to shoot RAW + upload small jpg's directly to the web in almost "real" time via my cell phone. Its at least 10x as hard as it should be - but it works great. Would love to do that with the 5Ds also.

I also imagine that shooting with clients and letting them see in "real time" the first impressions of the shots on an ipad could be a great for some people.

Finally, I had hoped to be able to have the 5Ds on a tripod and shoot with it remotely with my camera or ipad while "looking" through the viewer. My drone allows that at impressive distance. I also imagine a lot of other people would find that both very cool and very useful.

All that is now not an option because Canon did not build it into the 5Ds.

 

[Marsu42]

Well... you obviously do not get it. And because you represent the needs of all photographers neither can anyone else in the world.

Are we already at the flamewar stage - it's only been one page :->

All that is now not an option because Canon did not build it into the 5Ds.

There'll be an wifi addon you can screw under your camera, probably having more range than the built-in version and hopefully better features than the in-camera version. On the upside, this means the camera will have a sturdy metal body you can use as a self-defense weapon when in a pinch.

If you aren't set upon using a grip or having a small camera body for travel, Canon will be ready to accept a couple of hundred €€€ more

 

[Maiaibing]

If you aren't set upon using a grip or having a small camera body for travel, Canon will be ready to accept a couple of hundred €€€ more

This I am sure is the true reason. Having wifi & gps would probably not have cost more than a handful of €€€. But it would have made life so much easier for those who can live with a little less than top-notch wifi/gps.

I do not know how many add-ons Canon will sell compared to 5Ds sales "lost" due to this. But as a consumer I always hate to pay a lot for extras that in reality cost very little.

 

[Loswr]

Cell phones have taken the bloom away from DSL's. Why buy a bulky camera system when your cell phone takes nice
Pics that you can upload and send to family and friends. Camera companies must build the next super camera to lure
Customers back. Dynamic range Hoozleblatness is more important than mega pixels or quality vs quantity.

Fixed that for you, with a new term that will make just as much sense to most consumers.

I agree that 'luring' customers away from cell phones would be good (not that anyone would give up a phone for a dSLR), but doing so with something people neither know nor care about is a poor strategy. Canon has had less low ISO DR for years and remains the dSLR market leader.

 

[RLPhoto]

I'll be waiting for 5D4. I just don't have a need for this many MP and not enough body improvements for me to drop 5D3.

 

[tculotta]

I believe that for many buyers, the DSLR is simply not in their sights. Making a better one to lure them is akin to the better buggy whip being the answer to the automobile. I use a DSLR to take photos that can't be captured with a phone. Most people don't care about that. Their phones provide all the resolution they need with features not in a DSLR and if they were, would not be compelling enough to lure them away from the convenience of the phone. The DSLR camera, in whatever iteration it takes or becomes, will be the province of the pro and enthusiast in the not too distant future. I would love to know how many Rebels there are out there sitting unused because people just use their phones. I'm serious about photography yet I use my phone to take almost all of my family photos. It has advantages that a DSLR can't touch.

 

[dawgfanjeff]

The main reason most people take the billions of pictures every day is to share them, and most of the time they take the pictures because something sharing-worthy just happened, you had your phone to capture it, and you can share it immediately. This is why the vast majority of those pictures get taken on the camera and little computer you always have with you. The quality (usually) sux, but that's not the point. It's not art. A cat fail video, a picture of a newborn, the shaky video of a demonstration, or your selfie from your front row seats is not improved by a half stop in DR, or that extra frame per second. That image matters because you captured it and can share it-now. We all know this. Canon execs must know this. They have smartphones and social media accounts, right??

IMO, if the DSLR makers continue to try to drive sales by only incremental improvements in NR and pushing features other than portability and ease of use, they may as well embrace their position right next to jazz, manual transmissions, classical music, and high end audio gear.

I have a 5DIII. I love it. I haven't seen anything from Canon that compels me to buy another body. But if they added Wifi, (or BT or NFC), and included some sharing options from the android universe...

 

[agierke]

I also imagine that shooting with clients and letting them see in "real time" the first impressions of the shots on an ipad could be a great for some people.

i already do that with capture one, with any camera i want.

Well... you obviously do not get it. And because you represent the needs of all photographers neither can anyone else in the world. Nor should they be intrigued to do so. And of course its impossible to imagine that greater interconnectivity would lead to any new uses of DSLR from the ones you currently have.

here's what i dont get. you immediately share a small jpg with the world via wifi out of camera, everybody says "great thats cool!"....and then what? you have the 50mp raw file that you then edit, prepare and output to then share with the world...again. you have basically stolen away a certain level of impact a final image would have by prematurely releasing a photo. once released...the need for the higher resolution raw file is somewhat dissipated. what i don't get is the (in my opinion) the overvaluing of the immediacy. why the need to show an image in real time? what benefit comes from that as opposed to waiting a day or two to post the raw file?

i can see how some outlets would benefit from immediacy. journalism being one. but in that industry there is zero need for high res 50 mp raw files. you cannot convince me that it is reasonably necessary to have both the immediacy AND the image quality of 50mp raw file. i think there is more reason in withholding the images release til the next day after you have had a chance to take advantage of opportunities afforded to you by having a 50mp raw file.

to me the benefits of having wifi for immediacy and 50mp raw files serve opposite ends of the need spectrum. to have both in one camera isn't going to pan out to be some great benefit that will actually produce real world advantages. the perception may be that it seems great...but i fail to see the necessity of needing both.

i used to shoot alot of corporate and collegiate events. there was a great deal of pressure for immediacy. myself and many of my associates resisted as we preferred to work the raw files over before releasing them. many of those jobs in my area have disappeared in favor of getting student volunteers to shoot with their phones and upload via instagram immediately. those clients just didnt care about the quality afforded by higher resolution raw capabilities.

i also shoot alot of weddings. i saw a brief attempt by some in that industry to present same day slide shows of the images shot. a notion i despised myself....but i saw it attempted. the impact was underwhelming...and wasted effort considering the lack of real world benefit.

i realize that in today's culture immediacy is highly valued. i am challenging the notion that it is necessary and i challenge the notion that it is better all the time. i think the most pervasive result of prioritizing immediacy is a sharp decline in quality. quality always benefits from extra time and consideration...always. this is what hi resolution Raw files afford us. so if you need immediacy, why burden yourself with a bunch of hi resolution files. if you need the quality from hi resolution files, why cut your legs out from under you by releasing an image immediately?

so yes...in the end, i don't get it. why the need for both?

 

[Rahul]

I also imagine that shooting with clients and letting them see in "real time" the first impressions of the shots on an ipad could be a great for some people.

i already do that with capture one, with any camera i want.

Well... you obviously do not get it. And because you represent the needs of all photographers neither can anyone else in the world. Nor should they be intrigued to do so. And of course its impossible to imagine that greater interconnectivity would lead to any new uses of DSLR from the ones you currently have.

here's what i dont get. you immediately share a small jpg with the world via wifi out of camera, everybody says "great thats cool!"....and then what? you have the 50mp raw file that you then edit, prepare and output to then share with the world...again. you have basically stolen away a certain level of impact a final image would have by prematurely releasing a photo. once released...the need for the higher resolution raw file is somewhat dissipated. what i don't get is the (in my opinion) the overvaluing of the immediacy. why the need to show an image in real time? what benefit comes from that as opposed to waiting a day or two to post the raw file?

i can see how some outlets would benefit from immediacy. journalism being one. but in that industry there is zero need for high res 50 mp raw files. you cannot convince me that it is reasonably necessary to have both the immediacy AND the image quality of 50mp raw file. i think there is more reason in withholding the images release til the next day after you have had a chance to take advantage of opportunities afforded to you by having a 50mp raw file.

to me the benefits of having wifi for immediacy and 50mp raw files serve opposite ends of the need spectrum. to have both in one camera isn't going to pan out to be some great benefit that will actually produce real world advantages. the perception may be that it seems great...but i fail to see the necessity of needing both.

i used to shoot alot of corporate and collegiate events. there was a great deal of pressure for immediacy. myself and many of my associates resisted as we preferred to work the raw files over before releasing them. many of those jobs in my area have disappeared in favor of getting student volunteers to shoot with their phones and upload via instagram immediately. those clients just didnt care about the quality afforded by higher resolution raw capabilities.

i also shoot alot of weddings. i saw a brief attempt by some in that industry to present same day slide shows of the images shot. a notion i despised myself....but i saw it attempted. the impact was underwhelming...and wasted effort considering the lack of real world benefit.

i realize that in today's culture immediacy is highly valued. i am challenging the notion that it is necessary and i challenge the notion that it is better all the time. i think the most pervasive result of prioritizing immediacy is a sharp decline in quality. quality always benefits from extra time and consideration...always. this is what hi resolution Raw files afford us. so if you need immediacy, why burden yourself with a bunch of hi resolution files. if you need the quality from hi resolution files, why cut your legs out from under you by releasing an image immediately?

so yes...in the end, i don't get it. why the need for both?

+1

Regardless, transferring photos instantaneously to the net can be done with an eye-fi card which can be purchased for $ 100. If it is not in the camera, how (much) does it matter?

 

[Antono Refa]

I agree that 'luring' customers away from cell phones would be good (not that anyone would give up a phone for a dSLR), but doing so with something people neither know nor care about is a poor strategy. Canon has had less low ISO DR for years and remains the dSLR market leader.

If Canon wants to fight on that front, it would have to do it with a PowerShot.

One of my cousins like snorkeling, so she has a PowerShot D series camera. That point doesn't apply to most people, but the principle does - offer a P&S that does something their smartphone doesn't, and they might buy it.

An idea: camera with fast aperture & larger sensor than a smartphone to get better IQ in low light scenarios, transfer all photos over wireless to the smartphone (screen resolution JPEGs are good enough and small enough for a quick transfer), and let people continue from there.

 

[Rahul]

offer a P&S that does something their smartphone doesn't, and they might buy it.

Let's look at this in reverse. The smartphone already does a hell lot many things that a camera does not. For most people, photos with a phone are sufficient and they don't want the extra IQ of a powershot at the expense of carrying a second (larger) device in their pockets.

 

[Antono Refa]

offer a P&S that does something their smartphone doesn't, and they might buy it.

Let's look at this in reverse. The smartphone already does a hell lot many things that a camera does not. For most people, photos with a phone are sufficient and they don't want the extra IQ of a powershot at the expense of carrying a second (larger) device in their pockets.

Yes, most smartphone owners wouldn't buy a P&S.

My point *some* of them would due to smartphone limitations, e.g. weather resistance. As for pockets, that is not an absolute limitation. E.g. in Israel most adult women carry a bag, and they might not object to put a P&S in it if it offers something their phone doesn't, such as zoom to shoot a kid.

 

[agierke]

I'll be waiting for 5D4. I just don't have a need for this many MP and not enough body improvements for me to drop 5D3.

i find this take interesting coming from you RLPhoto given that you have had a recent foray into the medium format world.

can you offer your opinion in a more detailed fashion about the place of a 50mp 35mm form factor camera versus a medium format system in a studio environment?

i would be very interested in any insight you may have.

thx in advance.

 

[Loswr]

My point *some* of them would due to smartphone limitations, e.g. weather resistance.

Samsung's Galaxy S5 is waterproof.

The little placard next to it at the AT&T store also said it has a "professional level camera" so I guess it can replace my 1D X.

 

[mkabi]

An idea: camera with fast aperture & larger sensor than a smartphone to get better IQ in low light scenarios, transfer all photos over wireless to the smartphone (screen resolution JPEGs are good enough and small enough for a quick transfer), and let people continue from there.

Too late.
http://www.panasonic.com/uk/consumer/cameras-camcorders/lumix-digital-cameras---point-and-shoot/compact-cameras/dmc-cm1.html

And, the large sensor P&S has been around for a while now. You just haven't noticed it, cause its amongst the more expensive side of the P&S market.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/cameras/sony/rx100-iii/vs/canon/g7x/

 

[Stu_bert]

I agree about smartphones being used for sideshows, again they are now good enough alternatives...

DR, megapixels and the like - I personally can't see this is what will lure them to buy something in addition to their smartphone.

I agree that anyone who has a smartphone and might want to get into photography will get frustrated by the workflow. Will that be a barrier? Probably. For most people on this forum, probably not. My extended family loves using my dslr stuff from time to time. Do they want to "develop" the raw? He'll no, Uncle / Brother does that....

I just don't see those people who want to capture & share quickly as being the ILC / dslr brigade. They're a slimmed down p&s user with better connectivity and workflow to their smartphone, with better features. But they still want to snap & share.... A few will indeed get into the creative side and want a proper camera, but for the majority, the smartphone does enough....

 

[RLPhoto]

I'll be waiting for 5D4. I just don't have a need for this many MP and not enough body improvements for me to drop 5D3.

i find this take interesting coming from you RLPhoto given that you have had a recent foray into the medium format world.

can you offer your opinion in a more detailed fashion about the place of a 50mp 35mm form factor camera versus a medium format system in a studio environment?

i would be very interested in any insight you may have.

thx in advance.

Well I bought a MF system to get a 1/800th sync and a large awesome 645 sensor, superb lenses and it's ease to adapt the Back to a 4x5 system later on in life. MPs were not really on that list but we're an additional thing at the time. I use it when I have a idea set in mind and work hard to make a few photos. It's like a big rig.

My 35mm system needs to be fast, fast and more fast. Quick lighting setups, speedlites, and superb AF. It's more of a sports car.