*UPDATED* Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap

[douglaurent]

Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap

No 5DS II?

See attached (from NorthLight). A few thoughts:

1) The pace of camera body development appears to be slowing. You can chalk this up to the general photography market contracting due to rise of cell phone photography, a large global recession in the last 10 years limiting peoples' discretionary spending, or possibly Canon proliferating the number of brands they now carry. (Consider: 10 years ago, Canon had 5 lines of interchangeable lens digital cameras -- now there are 13).

2) Can you name a single instance in which a higher end non-gripped rig (5D / 6D / 7D) got a new body in less than three years?

3) Is anyone applying pressure to Canon on the resolution front? Does anyone have a higher res FF camera than the 5DS nearly two years since it was announced?

Canon isn't Sony. Canon doesn't spew new bodies every 6 seconds to impress people.

A 5DSR2 (or 7D3) in 2017 seems wildly, wildly improbable given all the reasons above. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it would be the exception heard round the world. I don't see it happening.

- A

In my opinion you can kick most of the experiences from former decades to the curb. Globalization, the internet and big data brought a kind of speed and super efficiency into everything that requires a different kind of acting. Canon seems to want to stop the train and acting as slow as ever, but that's not what their customers experience in their lifes of the year 2016. Logictics and workflows need to be easier, quality needs to be better, budgets are lower. Other companies seem to be more willing to give answers and products for that.

 

[douglaurent]

Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap

I don't even want to use any other system than Canon.

So despite your protestations, Canon are actually doing a lot right. You have all that gear from so many manufacturers and you still prefer to use Canon. Yet from what you write anyone would think they are on the downward slope and have been for a while.

So which is it - either Canon has problems or Canon is getting it right in 90% of the situations and what you are talking about is wanting them to produce a camera that does 100%. No manufacturer will ever do that these days which sort of puts all your comments in context.

So tell me, from your point of view let's hear what canon are doing right?

Canon is great on all points I didn't criticze in detail. Canon is like a sports world champion who is too lazy for excercising, or whose coach (in this case marketing dept) chooses to limit training, then unnecessarily ending up with ranking second, third or fourth in certain tournaments or games.

So guess which competition Canon ends up winning a lot of the time - yep, the ones that interest a vast majority of the client base. The majors.
Which ones does it end up third or fourth with not too much worry? Yep, the minor ones. The ones with small spectator numbers.

To carry your analogy further - it is not about being too lazy for exercising, but sports players enter minor tournaments to keep their hand in and keep their skills ticking over. The ones they are really interested in are the majors and all other activities (training and smaller tournaments) are timed to peak three or four times a year at the events that really matter. The trainer agrees with the player how and when they will peak and where they will concentrate their training in the areas that show best return.

Canon DSLR = Novak Djokovic. Proven competitor and winner
Sony mirrorless = Nick Kyrgios. Erratic. Some nice tricks but does not really have a package that troubles the leaders.

Neat analogy you picked up there

Novak Djokovic = player whose coach just left and said he isn't working hard enough. Instead Djokovic surrounds himself with a strange mental guru, not winning anymore and lost his number one spot. So it's a perfect analogy.

 

[douglaurent]

Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap

I herewith present you a list (inverted wish roadmap you can say) with all Canon cameras and lenses that DON'T necessarily need an upgrade the next years regarding image quality and/or stabilization, autofocus etc:

8-15/4 Fisheye
100-400/4.5-5.6 II IS
200-400/4 IS

17/4 TS
24/2.8 STM Pancake
24/3.5 II TS
35/2 IS
40/2.8 STM Pancake
65/2.8 Macro
100/2.8 IS Macro
200/2 IS
300/2.8 II IS
400/2.8 II IS
500/4 II IS
600/4 II IS
800/5.6 IS

 

[Mikehit]

Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap

See attached (from NorthLight). A few thoughts:

1) The pace of camera body development appears to be slowing. You can chalk this up to the general photography market contracting due to rise of cell phone photography, a large global recession in the last 10 years limiting peoples' discretionary spending, or possibly Canon proliferating the number of brands they now carry. (Consider: 10 years ago, Canon had 5 lines of interchangeable lens digital cameras -- now there are 13).

2) Can you name a single instance in which a higher end non-gripped rig (5D / 6D / 7D) got a new body in less than three years?

3) Is anyone applying pressure to Canon on the resolution front? Does anyone have a higher res FF camera than the 5DS nearly two years since it was announced?

Canon isn't Sony. Canon doesn't spew new bodies every 6 seconds to impress people.

A 5DSR2 (or 7D3) in 2017 seems wildly, wildly improbable given all the reasons above. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it would be the exception heard round the world. I don't see it happening.

- A

In my opinion you can kick most of the experiences from former decades to the curb. Globalization, the internet and big data brought a kind of speed and super efficiency into everything that requires a different kind of acting. Canon seems to want to stop the train and acting as slow as ever, but that's not what their customers experience in their lifes of the year 2016. Logictics and workflows need to be easier, quality needs to be better, budgets are lower. Other companies seem to be more willing to give answers and products for that.
[/quote]

And be like Sony who has hacked off a lot of people by introducing models that solved design flaws in a model released barely 18months earlier?
When the 5D3 was released a lot of people said it was not enough development to make them spend their money on an upgrade. Now 5 years later people are saying the same about the release of the 5DIV. So do you want incremental developments or significant developments? I prefer the latter.
Canon are the biggest manufacturer with (probably) the biggest R&D budget. Either you agree worthwhile improvements cannot be made in less than 3-4 years or you believe Canon has the 5DIV in place 3 years ago and sat on it.

Olympus released the revolutionary E-M1 which leap frogged all competitors by a significant margin. It took them over 3 years to release a worthwhile successor. Or do you think they have deliberately slowed things down as well?

 

[Mikehit]

Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap

Novak Djokovic = player whose coach just left and said he isn't working hard enough. Instead Djokovic surrounds himself with a strange mental guru, not winning anymore and lost his number one spot. So it's a perfect analogy.

Ah, the coach who also said he knows the player will turn it around after a period of recuperation.
You seem to be taking the 'Canon has had a blip therefore the company is doomed!!' scenario.

 

[Loswr]

Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap

I herewith present you a list (inverted wish roadmap you can say) with all Canon cameras and lenses that DON'T necessarily need an upgrade the next years regarding image quality and/or stabilization, autofocus etc:

8-15/4 Fisheye
100-400/4.5-5.6 II IS
200-400/4 IS

17/4 TS
24/2.8 STM Pancake
24/3.5 II TS
35/2 IS
40/2.8 STM Pancake
65/2.8 Macro
100/2.8 IS Macro
200/2 IS
300/2.8 II IS
400/2.8 II IS
500/4 II IS
600/4 II IS
800/5.6 IS

No cameras on your list. Has your CHWAC schwag arrived yet?

Incidentally, the 800/5.6 IS should be on your other list. The 600/4L IS II + 1.4xIII has better IQ and is lighter, cheaper, and a longer FL. Plus, Nikon recently released an excellent (albeit expensive) 800/5.6 VC.

 

[ahsanford]

Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap

I herewith present you a list (inverted wish roadmap you can say) with all Canon cameras and lenses that DON'T necessarily need an upgrade the next years regarding image quality and/or stabilization, autofocus etc:

Doug, I actually agree with more than I disagree with here.

I can't speak for the longer teles as I don't shoot with them, but your list is leaving out a few lenses that are just fine right now as is:

11-24 f/4L
16-35 f/4L IS
24-70 f/2.8L II
24-70 f/4L IS
24 f/2.8 IS
28 f/2.8 IS
35 f/1.4L II (that's a glaring omission -- one of Canon's best!)

- A

 

[Loswr]

Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap

11-24 f/4L
35 f/1.4L II (that's a glaring omission -- one of Canon's best!)

No, those lenses are crap becuase they lack IS, whereas the competition offers many excellent wide f/1.4 primes and uberwide zooms with VC so Canon is clearly failing. :

 

[douglaurent]

Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap

See attached (from NorthLight). A few thoughts:

1) The pace of camera body development appears to be slowing. You can chalk this up to the general photography market contracting due to rise of cell phone photography, a large global recession in the last 10 years limiting peoples' discretionary spending, or possibly Canon proliferating the number of brands they now carry. (Consider: 10 years ago, Canon had 5 lines of interchangeable lens digital cameras -- now there are 13).

2) Can you name a single instance in which a higher end non-gripped rig (5D / 6D / 7D) got a new body in less than three years?

3) Is anyone applying pressure to Canon on the resolution front? Does anyone have a higher res FF camera than the 5DS nearly two years since it was announced?

Canon isn't Sony. Canon doesn't spew new bodies every 6 seconds to impress people.

A 5DSR2 (or 7D3) in 2017 seems wildly, wildly improbable given all the reasons above. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it would be the exception heard round the world. I don't see it happening.

- A

In my opinion you can kick most of the experiences from former decades to the curb. Globalization, the internet and big data brought a kind of speed and super efficiency into everything that requires a different kind of acting. Canon seems to want to stop the train and acting as slow as ever, but that's not what their customers experience in their lifes of the year 2016. Logictics and workflows need to be easier, quality needs to be better, budgets are lower. Other companies seem to be more willing to give answers and products for that.

And be like Sony who has hacked off a lot of people by introducing models that solved design flaws in a model released barely 18months earlier?
When the 5D3 was released a lot of people said it was not enough development to make them spend their money on an upgrade. Now 5 years later people are saying the same about the release of the 5DIV. So do you want incremental developments or significant developments? I prefer the latter.
Canon are the biggest manufacturer with (probably) the biggest R&D budget. Either you agree worthwhile improvements cannot be made in less than 3-4 years or you believe Canon has the 5DIV in place 3 years ago and sat on it.

Olympus released the revolutionary E-M1 which leap frogged all competitors by a significant margin. It took them over 3 years to release a worthwhile successor. Or do you think they have deliberately slowed things down as well?
[/quote]

It doesn't matter if Sony, Olympus, Panasonic do release a new model every month or every 4 years, as long as their models have important features that Canon doesn't have or will have only years later.

At the moment it's actually okay if you just buy a new Sony or Panasonic model every 4 years, as long as they are 2-5 years ahead of Canon in certain areas.

In spring of 2014 the GH4 with 4K 2 years before the 5D4 was a great investment, and releasing a GH5 in spring 2017 is a healthy 3 year-cycle.

A Sony A7RII or A7SII will most likely have at least a 2.5 year product cycle, and to date I haven't found any design flaw aside from the fact that I need 5 seconds longer each shooting day to switch batteries compared to a Canon DSLR.

No clue anywhere why these competitors products are not well thought through. Instead it seems that the Canon marketing people have too much time to think in their 4 year product cycles, and unnecessarily use the time to move existing technologies to camera releases in future years.

Probably the lens people at Canon say: hell, we can't sell stabilized bodies, why should anybody buy an expensive stabilized 70-200 over a cheaper non-stabilized 70-200 then?

 

[douglaurent]

Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap

Novak Djokovic = player whose coach just left and said he isn't working hard enough. Instead Djokovic surrounds himself with a strange mental guru, not winning anymore and lost his number one spot. So it's a perfect analogy.

Ah, the coach who also said he knows the player will turn it around after a period of recuperation.
You seem to be taking the 'Canon has had a blip therefore the company is doomed!!' scenario.

My only point: people with Canon cameras do pay more, have a slower workflow, carry more weight, need to buy more products as necessary, when you look at the fact that of course they could come up with the existing features of their competitors, act faster and be cheaper.

And that's because of Canon's marketing strategy, which is the right of any company. But the right of consumers is to complain and criticize it.

Whoever thinks that Canon products are perfect already and need no improvements - what are you doing on this rumors website? Are you visiting an info website 365 days a year, and hope that Canon only releases 1-3 useful new products with little improvement, instead of 10-20 with the best features available on the market? What kind of masochism is it to pay much and demand little?

 

[Loswr]

Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap

When the 5D3 was released a lot of people said it was not enough development to make them spend their money on an upgrade. Now 5 years later people are saying the same about the release of the 5DIV. So do you want incremental developments or significant developments? I prefer the latter.

'A lot of people' have opinions that don't represent the majority. Maybe to you, putting the 1-series AF into a 5-series body, adding a second card slot, and a 50% boost in frame rate were 'incremental' but given that the 5DIII was a best-selling FF dSLR, it's apparent that you're part of that minority.

CHWAC on!

 

[douglaurent]

Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap

I herewith present you a list (inverted wish roadmap you can say) with all Canon cameras and lenses that DON'T necessarily need an upgrade the next years regarding image quality and/or stabilization, autofocus etc:

8-15/4 Fisheye
100-400/4.5-5.6 II IS
200-400/4 IS

17/4 TS
24/2.8 STM Pancake
24/3.5 II TS
35/2 IS
40/2.8 STM Pancake
65/2.8 Macro
100/2.8 IS Macro
200/2 IS
300/2.8 II IS
400/2.8 II IS
500/4 II IS
600/4 II IS
800/5.6 IS

No cameras on your list. Has your CHWAC schwag arrived yet?

Incidentally, the 800/5.6 IS should be on your other list. The 600/4L IS II + 1.4xIII has better IQ and is lighter, cheaper, and a longer FL. Plus, Nikon recently released an excellent (albeit expensive) 800/5.6 VC.

There are no cameras on the list, because any existing Canon camera is missing a lot of features and needs improvements.

And yes, the 800/5.6 is less sharp than the current 300,400,500,600 models. But an update could make it a too expensive 17.000 buck lens like Nikons. And at 800mm, in many cases the atmosphere starts to avoid you get crystal clear images. Most of the subjects will have extreme bokeh anyway, so corner sharpness of the 800/5.6 is not an issue. Instead of an 800, the 600II+1.4 extender will also do it. Aside from that, for these focal lengths I would use the Sigma 200-500/2.8 with its 2x extender anyway - mainly because of its weight, which makes it much more stable outdoor situations.

 

[douglaurent]

Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap

I herewith present you a list (inverted wish roadmap you can say) with all Canon cameras and lenses that DON'T necessarily need an upgrade the next years regarding image quality and/or stabilization, autofocus etc:

Doug, I actually agree with more than I disagree with here.

I can't speak for the longer teles as I don't shoot with them, but your list is leaving out a few lenses that are just fine right now as is:

11-24 f/4L
16-35 f/4L IS
24-70 f/2.8L II
24-70 f/4L IS
24 f/2.8 IS
28 f/2.8 IS
35 f/1.4L II (that's a glaring omission -- one of Canon's best!)

- A

11-24 f/4L - could use IS and is a bit outperformend in sharpness between 12-16mm by the Sigma Art
16-35 f/4L IS - ok, that one can stay
24-70 f/2.8L II - urgently needs IS
24-70 f/4L IS - could be a bit sharper
24 f/2.8 IS - could be a bit sharper like the 35/2 and be f2
28 f/2.8 IS - could be a bit sharper like the 35/2 and be f2
35 f/1.4L II - excellent and best 35 on the planet, but no IS

 

[ahsanford]

Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap

11-24 f/4L - could use IS and is a bit outperformend in sharpness between 12-16mm by the Sigma Art
16-35 f/4L IS - ok, that one can stay
24-70 f/2.8L II - urgently needs IS
24-70 f/4L IS - could be a bit sharper
24 f/2.8 IS - could be a bit sharper like the 35/2 and be f2
28 f/2.8 IS - could be a bit sharper like the 35/2 and be f2
35 f/1.4L II - excellent and best 35 on the planet, but no IS

Surely, you recognize that Canon won't put IS on everything, or if it does, it might be two updates from now (i.e. 10-20 years depending on the lens).

Given how important IS is for you, you'll likely find more joy with an IBIS-based platform than waiting for Canon to value IS as much as you do.

- A

 

[Loswr]

Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap

But an update could make it a too expensive 17.000 buck lens like Nikons. And at 800mm, in many cases the atmosphere starts to avoid you get crystal clear images. Most of the subjects will have extreme bokeh anyway, so corner sharpness of the 800/5.6 is not an issue. Instead of an 800, the 600II+1.4 extender will also do it. Aside from that, for these focal lengths I would use the Sigma 200-500/2.8 with its 2x extender anyway - mainly because of its weight, which makes it much more stable outdoor situations.

So your rationale is that an updated Canon 800/5.6L IS II would be too expensive, but you prefer to use the $26K SigZooka instead. That makes sense, thanks.

 

[tron]

Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap

But an update could make it a too expensive 17.000 buck lens like Nikons. And at 800mm, in many cases the atmosphere starts to avoid you get crystal clear images. Most of the subjects will have extreme bokeh anyway, so corner sharpness of the 800/5.6 is not an issue. Instead of an 800, the 600II+1.4 extender will also do it. Aside from that, for these focal lengths I would use the Sigma 200-500/2.8 with its 2x extender anyway - mainly because of its weight, which makes it much more stable outdoor situations.

So your rationale is that an updated Canon 800/5.6L IS II would be too expensive, but you prefer to use the $26K SigZooka instead. That makes sense, thanks.

;D ;D ;D

 

[ahsanford]

Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap

But an update could make it a too expensive 17.000 buck lens like Nikons. And at 800mm, in many cases the atmosphere starts to avoid you get crystal clear images. Most of the subjects will have extreme bokeh anyway, so corner sharpness of the 800/5.6 is not an issue. Instead of an 800, the 600II+1.4 extender will also do it. Aside from that, for these focal lengths I would use the Sigma 200-500/2.8 with its 2x extender anyway - mainly because of its weight, which makes it much more stable outdoor situations.

So your rationale is that an updated Canon 800/5.6L IS II would be too expensive, but you prefer to use the $26K SigZooka instead. That makes sense, thanks.

When subtlety fails, choose SigZooka.

- A

 

[Mikehit]

Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap

It doesn't matter if Sony, Olympus, Panasonic do release a new model every month or every 4 years, as long as their models have important features [1] that Canon doesn't have or will have only years later.

At the moment it's actually okay if you just buy a new Sony or Panasonic model every 4 years, as long as they are 2-5 years ahead of Canon in certain areas.

In spring of 2014 the GH4 with 4K 2 years before the 5D4 was a great investment, and releasing a GH5 in spring 2017 is a healthy 3 year-cycle.

A Sony A7RII or A7SII will most likely have at least a 2.5 year product cycle [2], and to date I haven't found any design flaw aside from the fact that I need 5 seconds longer each shooting day to switch batteries compared to a Canon DSLR.

No clue anywhere why these competitors products are not well thought through. Instead it seems that the Canon marketing people have too much time to think in their 4 year product cycles, and unnecessarily use the time to move existing technologies to camera releases in future years [3].

Probably the lens people at Canon say: hell, we can't sell stabilized bodies, why should anybody buy an expensive stabilized 70-200 over a cheaper non-stabilized 70-200 then?

[1] - and we keep coming back to what you mean by 'important updates'. My guess is your definitions bear little resemblance to the definitions used by a vast majority of Canon purchasers.

[2] so again you are criticising Canon based on an assumption you have no idea is true or not. The key thing about the Olympus E-M1 and the Panasonic GH4 is that, yes, they came out with products that leapt ahead. But the reason they leapt ahead is because they were far advanced in specific ways and the new models are not significant upgrades in practical terms. In other words no different to Canon's upgrades really and that 'great leap forward' is being eroded while still maintaining Canon's product range.

[3] - alternative interpretation is that Canon have different priorities based on their knowledge of the market. You seem totally unable to gasp this point.

 

[ahsanford]

Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap

No clue anywhere why these competitors products are not well thought through. Instead it seems that the Canon marketing people have too much time to think in their 4 year product cycles, and unnecessarily use the time to move existing technologies to camera releases in future years [3].

[3] - alternative interpretation is that Canon have different priorities based on their knowledge of the market. You seem totally unable to gasp this point.

I see it very simply. Canon has turned the crank on endless permutations of their business plans and determined they make the most money on a (depends on the brand/level) ~ 4 year update cycle. They've endlessly run the numbers, and:

1) If they refresh too soon (say 2-3 years), they'd make less profit. They would fire up the base Canon faithful into thinking 'lots of new' is coming, Canon is really responsive and listening to us, etc. and get a slight bump in sales from that approach. But, huge capital costs get involved in component fabrication, sensor build, assembly of camera bodies, testing, etc. and if you are turning the crank more often, that equipment is churning out less units over its lifespan. In other words: refresh too quickly and the burden of front-end capital investment is not recouped to the same degree and profits suffer.

2) If they refresh too slowly (say 5-6 years), they'd also make less profit. Sure, for the opposite reasons as above, they'd be completely maximizing the return on their capital investment by getting significantly more units out than with a 4 year cycle, but there comes a point the product is no longer competitive or the Canon faithful leave the fold for other companies' gear because they've given up on waiting for a refresh.

I'm not saying 4 years is the categorical magic number. In some cases -- let's say a Rebel -- there's 'less new' to make breakthroughs on as the line is often the recipient of pricier products' innovations trickling down to them. In other cases, the photography market is contracting due to cell phones, which has a global gravitational effect to slow everything down. In other cases (the 7D immediately comes to mind), the niche status of a 'pro APS-C' camera (with, at the time, no direct Nikon rival) led Canon to push a mid-cycle refresh via firmware to extend the service life of the camera to 5+ years. The right time depends on the brand.

But Canon -- much like Nikon -- have been at this forever, they know the market like none other, and they are planning, planning, planning their pants off. There will come a point that such a conservative business model will end up seeing people leave the fold. But guess what? That's in their plan, too, and they'll make adjustments to that plan before that happens.

- A

 

[vscd]

Re: Here's an Updated 2017 Canon Roadmap

11-24 f/4L - could use IS and is a bit outperformend in sharpness between 12-16mm by the Sigma Art

Did you read the same reviews as I did? The Sigma Art is not up to the canon. And who need IS @11mm? landscape photographers use tripods, the rest can easily hold 1/10 s.