The EOS 80D Replacement to be a Big Leap Forward [CR2]

[Keith_Reeder]

The M5 and M6 are so small that I cannot put a EF or EFS lens on it.

But isn't "small" one of the main selling-points of mirrorless?

 

[Keith_Reeder]

true. About 90% of all Canapologists worldwide are posting here.

Ah - the usual troll trick of misrepresenting "satisfied with" as "apologist for".

You'd get more credit if your trolling wasn't based purely on flat-out lies...

 

[fullstop]

i don't need "credit". I recognize a Canapologist from 10 miles away. And call them out. That's all I need. I call a spade a spade. lol

 

[Talys]

I hope so. If true, they’ve finally taken to heart what I’ve been saying on this forum for years- disrupt yourselves before the competition does it for you. (One could say they have been a little late to this party.)

One could also way "what competition?" The fact that you've been saying this "for years" and it hasn't happened rather supports the idea that the "competition" isn't, in Canon's eyes.

Just because Canon makes one cameras a big leap forward doesn't mean that every camera hereafter will be so. There will be cameras that have big leaps forward, and others that have minor improvements only.

Canon, and many other successful manufacturers, have a major update, followed by many very small update versions before another major update.

Just look at Intel, and their market share. They've driven every competitor out of business in their space except for AMD, and successfully sold vastly more units than AMD at higher prices and fewer features than AMD... for... reasons. It doesn't matter what those reasons are, but at any price point (where they both compete), AMD has a spec-sheet superior product, yet Intel's sales dwarfs AMDs, and there is no foreseeable change to that.

Look at automobile manufactures, same thing. It's more profitable and better for the company in the long run (over years and decades) to have a major update followed by successive iterations that the customer doesn't feel the urge to go run out to buy.

In any case, the Sony model is not sustainable, because at some point, the technology will mature, and they'll not be able to squeeze an upgrade out of someone every 2 years -- because their mirrorless cameras will get good enough to just keep and use. No different than iPads.

i don't need "credit". I recognize a Canapologist from 10 miles away. And call them out. That's all I need. I call a spade a spade. lol

Sok... it's easy to spot a Canon troll, too -- the people who refuse to believe that there are photographers who simply prefer Canon's products over other options, and who prefer to spend their time bashing Canon than supporting whatever company they actually like. Shocking, I know.

I have no idea what to call the folks who aren't happy with any of the excellent options that are made today by nearly a half dozen manufacturers.

 

[transpo1]

We can all be pretty sure Canon will offer only a few incremental improvements or features making it somewhere between the A6300 and A6500 in performance. Sony will release something that will be another powerhouse of a camera and offer everything they are capable of putting into a body.

We can all be pretty sure Canon will sell more 90D bodies than Sony will sell of whatever 'powerhouse' camera they release. But do enjoy that new Sony that I'm just sure you'll buy.

Why are you here, anyway?

Based on the sarcasm on this forum, Canon should realize how upset its customer base is.

This forum does not represent Canon's customer base, and except for a handful of disgruntled trolls who post here in between sojourns upstairs from the basement when their mom makes them do their chores, most people here are generally satisfied with Canon gear.

Now, if you mean sarcasm directed against the forum trolls, yes there's plenty of that.

He's obviously here because he likes Canon products and wants better ones. And while your sarcasm and condescencion is meant to show off how clever you are, this forum would do well to welcome those who voice their opinions. In the long run, it helps the company that you defend so vehemently.

Try to remember that

 

[Loswr]

He's obviously here because he likes Canon products and wants better ones. And while your sarcasm and condescencion is meant to show off how clever you are, this forum would do well to welcome those who voice their opinions. In the long run, it helps the company that you defend so vehemently.

Try to remember that

Opinions of all sorts are welcome. Lies and fabricated information are not. Ridiculous statements invite ridicule.

I’m sorry that you believe calling out lies and false statements constitutes a ‘vehement defense’ of Canon. That says more about your personal biases that perhaps you intended to reveal.

 

[Talys]

We can all be pretty sure Canon will offer only a few incremental improvements or features making it somewhere between the A6300 and A6500 in performance. Sony will release something that will be another powerhouse of a camera and offer everything they are capable of putting into a body.

...

He's obviously here because he likes Canon products and wants better ones. And while your sarcasm and condescencion is meant to show off how clever you are, this forum would do well to welcome those who voice their opinions. In the long run, it helps the company that you defend so vehemently.

Try to remember that

Actually, no, that isn't obvious at all.

The only thing that's obvious to me is that he likes Sony's update cycle of frequently putting everything they can into a camera, even half-baked features and even if they might conflict with other features -- and that he is scornful of Canon's conservative and long update cycles.

Which is fine, but it's not obvious that he likes Canon products at all

Personally, I think there is a happy medium between Canon and Sony for update cycles, but given a choice of the two philosophies, I will pick Canon, because as a photographer, I prefer to put my hobby savings towards lenses and lighting rather than frequent, expensive bodies. I have no desire to spend $2,000-$4,000 on a camera body every year and half or two, just to fix features that I like but weren't quite working right, and that introduces other features that are cool, but also are not quite there. It's like, each camera is a preview of what will work great in the next.

In the end, 99% of the reason of whether my photograph is something I'm happy with or not has nothing to do with which modern camera body I was using anyways.

 

[Maximilian]

In the end, 99% of the reason of whether my photograph is something I'm happy with or not has nothing to do with which modern camera body I was using anyways.

Great bottom line! Really!

Maybe one bashing at <put in any cam company> should leave the keyboard, take his/her equipment and go out taking photos.
And if the doing of that or the results are not pleasing one should start thinking if it's the equipment or the personal skills that are the limiting factor. And if there's some money to spend put it where the output is the best

 

[fullstop]

In the end, 99% of the reason of whether my photograph is something I'm happy with or not has nothing to do with which modern camera body I was using anyways.

Great bottom line! Really!

Maybe one bashing at <put in any cam company> should leave the keyboard, take his/her equipment and go out taking photos.
And if the doing of that or the results are not pleasing one should start thinking if it's the equipment or the personal skills that are the limiting factor. And if there's some money to spend put it where the output is the best

Yes, all fine and dandy. BUT my bottom line is more along the lines of: "I am definitely nowhere near perfect. But my Canon tools are even less so."

When for instance the AF field marking in viewfinder or on LCD is SMALLER than the actual AF field really is, then it is REALLY NOT MY FAULT as photographer, when images are misfocused on the distant background rather than on the intended subject/s in the foreground. Yes I can work around it. But it is "working around", and "fighting against my tools", rather than my Canon tools delivering what I paid for: images perfectly focused exactly where i point a single AF point to ... just as an example.

[not an 80D complaint though]

 

[Maximilian]

Yes, all fine and dandy. BUT my bottom line is more along the lines of: "I am definitely nowhere near perfect. But my Canon tools are even less so."

Is this really so? ???
Is your gear the more limiting factor than your skills?

Wow! Hats up! I am definitely on the opposite side.

I suspect you're here in the minority as well as with your opinion about the quality of Canon gear.

 

[Durf]

In the end, 99% of the reason of whether my photograph is something I'm happy with or not has nothing to do with which modern camera body I was using anyways.

Great bottom line! Really!

Maybe one bashing at <put in any cam company> should leave the keyboard, take his/her equipment and go out taking photos.
And if the doing of that or the results are not pleasing one should start thinking if it's the equipment or the personal skills that are the limiting factor. And if there's some money to spend put it where the output is the best

Yes, all fine and dandy. BUT my bottom line is more along the lines of: "I am definitely nowhere near perfect. But my Canon tools are even less so."

When for instance the AF field marking in viewfinder or on LCD is SMALLER than the actual AF field really is, then it is REALLY NOT MY FAULT as photographer, when images are misfocused on the distant background rather than on the intended subject/s in the foreground. Yes I can work around it. But it is "working around", and "fighting against my tools", rather than my Canon tools delivering what I paid for: images perfectly focused exactly where i point a single AF point to ... just as an example.

[not an 80D complaint though]

Wow, a rather revealing post......

 

[Ian_of_glos]

In the end, 99% of the reason of whether my photograph is something I'm happy with or not has nothing to do with which modern camera body I was using anyways.

Great bottom line! Really!

Maybe one bashing at <put in any cam company> should leave the keyboard, take his/her equipment and go out taking photos.
And if the doing of that or the results are not pleasing one should start thinking if it's the equipment or the personal skills that are the limiting factor. And if there's some money to spend put it where the output is the best

Yes, all fine and dandy. BUT my bottom line is more along the lines of: "I am definitely nowhere near perfect. But my Canon tools are even less so."

When for instance the AF field marking in viewfinder or on LCD is SMALLER than the actual AF field really is, then it is REALLY NOT MY FAULT as photographer, when images are misfocused on the distant background rather than on the intended subject/s in the foreground. Yes I can work around it. But it is "working around", and "fighting against my tools", rather than my Canon tools delivering what I paid for: images perfectly focused exactly where i point a single AF point to ... just as an example.

[not an 80D complaint though]

Have you tried using Single Point Spot AF rather than Single Point AF?
With Single Point Spot AF the autofocus system will use a much smaller area to search for decent contrast and this makes the focussing much more accurate. The negative side is that it might not be able to find any contrast in such a small area and so it might not be able to focus at all.
However, even with Single Point AF I have never known the camera to focus on the distant background rather than on my model. What it sometimes does is to focus on something near the eye such as the eye lid or the eye brow rather than the iris or the pupil. When that happens it is usually because I have moved or the model has moved after focus has been achieved. It is not a fault with the autofocus system.

 

[fullstop]

@Ian_of_glos

thx for your hint. I am aware of Spot AF and use it when needed on my 5D3. The described problem is with my EOS M (1st gen). It does not have Spot AF, regrettably. Actually I could even do without Spot AF, if at least the AF field markings would match *exactly* size and location of the actual AF-fields.

So, as I wrote: not an issue on 80D / xxD DSLRs.

 

[Ian_of_glos]

@Ian_of_glos

thx for your hint. I am aware of Spot AF and use it when needed on my 5D3. The described problem is with my EOS M (1st gen). It does not have Spot AF, regrettably. Actually I could even do without Spot AF, if at least the AF field markings would match *exactly* size and location of the actual AF-fields.

So, as I wrote: not an issue on 80D / xxD DSLRs.

Does the EOS M have Single Point AF? Even with the larger area included in Single Point AF I have never know the camera to focus on something in the background. It can be slightly off from what I wanted it to focus on but usually not by much.
The only time I have problems with the AF latching on to something in the background is when I am shooting fast action and my tired old limbs are unable to keep up with the players.

 

[fullstop]

yes it does have single point AF. But the markings on the LCD are considerably smaller than the AF sensitive fields really are. It is not always a problem, but I've had a number of misfocused images, where the entire white AF field border was on a person's face in the foreground and the camera still focused on some [good contrast] structure ion the background. ofc I could have switched to Face Recognition AF mode, which I also sometimes use in this situation - if the capture is "planned" and I can take the time to fiddle around in the menu before. So it really is just another "workaround" that should not be needed.

 

[3kramd5]

In the end, 99% of the reason of whether my photograph is something I'm happy with or not has nothing to do with which modern camera body I was using anyways.

Great bottom line! Really!

Maybe one bashing at <put in any cam company> should leave the keyboard, take his/her equipment and go out taking photos.
And if the doing of that or the results are not pleasing one should start thinking if it's the equipment or the personal skills that are the limiting factor. And if there's some money to spend put it where the output is the best

Yes, all fine and dandy. BUT my bottom line is more along the lines of: "I am definitely nowhere near perfect. But my Canon tools are even less so."

When for instance the AF field marking in viewfinder or on LCD is SMALLER than the actual AF field really is, then it is REALLY NOT MY FAULT as photographer, when images are misfocused on the distant background rather than on the intended subject/s in the foreground. Yes I can work around it. But it is "working around", and "fighting against my tools", rather than my Canon tools delivering what I paid for: images perfectly focused exactly where i point a single AF point to... just as an example.

[not an 80D complaint though]

Can you suggest a camera whose AF indicators in the VF are size proportional to the actual sensors? If you made the indicators proportional, a camera with a significant number of points would have a very cluttered display. If you made them bigger, than proportional, you’d have clutter and people would try to focus where there is no AF sensitivity. Smaller seems like the best option with modern cameras containing dozens or more AF locations.

 

[fullstop]

can't follow your logic. To me "really right" would be exactly same size as actual AF field.

With 49 AF fields only on the EOS M there would not be much "clutter" anyways.

Generally - less clutter? Yes please. A.) Make the white frames a bit thinner. B) Just show the currently active selected AF point/s ... changing to red when locked. It's invented, even at Canon. ;-)

 

[3kramd5]

can't follow your logic. To me "really right" would be exactly same size as actual AF field.

With 49 AF fields only on the EOS M there would not be much "clutter" anyways.

Generally - less clutter? Yes please. A.) Make the white frames a bit thinner. B) Just show the currently active selected AF point/s ... changing to red when locked. It's invented, even at Canon. ;-)

It’s not logic as much as opinion. I think if they were the proportional (meaning the indicator’s displayed size is of equal proportion to the VF as the actual AF sensor is to the image sensor) it would be too big.

I agree a better way would be to show them all (or whichever ones you have active), in easily navigable size, and then hide all except what is active. Then that one could be proportional in size (which is what I expect you mean when you say “same size”).

 

[3kramd5]

no, f*ck, no. 100% exact size. Everything else is sh*t.

This is a typical example for "excusing Canon mistakes that should not be excused." [See how I avoided the word "apologize"] ;-)

Your paranoia is acting up again. I’m talking about all cameras. I’ll reword original question: are there any cameras whose display of the AF points are the “100% exact size” as the AF sensors?

 

[fullstop]

no, f*ck, no. 100% exact size. Everything else is sh*t.

This is a typical example for "excusing Canon mistakes that should not be excused." [See how I avoided the word "apologize"] ;-)

Your paranoia is acting up again. I’m talking about all cameras. I’ll reword original question: are there any cameras whose display of the AF points are the “100% exact size” as the AF sensors?

my answer is: how would I know? But i never had any were it was so bad as on the Canon EOS M.