Video Capabilities Will Be at the Heart of All Future Canon Prosumer Camera Bodies [CR2]

[Deleted member 378875]

Here's a free idea for you Canon ... a completely new feature which I believe would cost you little and make a huge difference to a large number of people ...

Make the diopter easy to adjust !

Many of your customers are professionals and are the only users of their cameras.

BUT many are not. Many are one of a couple of users - my wife and I share our cameras.

We are both over 50 years old - as are just about all the local camera club members ... and most have diminishing eyesight.

Every time we pass the camera we have to reset the diopter.

Its difficult on our 5D and diabolical on the M5 ...

If you really want to get into the features war then why not find a way of adjusting the diopter without the trial-and-error-and trial-and-error-and-trial-and-on-and-on method ...

Some cars allow you to get into them and they "remember" your seat settings (presets) ... how about a camera which has preset diopter settings ?

This would save me hours of frustration every year ... and I strongly suspect I'm not the only person suffering !

 

[scyrene]

Laughable or tragic ?

I can't help thinking that Canon have lost a lot of good engineers and simply no longer have the technical competence to compete even if they want to.

Any evidence for that, or is it pure supposition?

They can't compete with Sigma Art lenses on resolution and seem totally incapable of providing features such as In Body stabilization or the processing / heatsink capabilities required for high resolution images at even half-reasonable frames per second.

Has it occurred to you they might not implement certain features because either they can't infringe other companies' patents, or because they think it can be done better in a different way? It's well established that Canon thinks in-lens IS is better for many purposes. PS which company's cameras have a reputation fo overheating? Deserved or not, it ain't Canon.

It seems to me their main selling points these days are ergonomics, colour and a lot of customers with existing lenses who don't want to play leapfrog/jump-ship.

A lot of people - and I would argue professionals especially - want gear that works, reliably, in a range of conditions. Canon is as good as anyone at providing that, and better than most.

Err ... fact !

On release of the 5Div Canon did an interview and blamed their half-baked 4K implementation on the fact that their engineers were unable to overcome heat problems ... problems which other manufacturers clearly overcame a long time ago.

And if Canon are being pipped prevented from delivering engineering solutions because other company engineers are coming up with patented inventions first then again this doesn't reflect well on Canon.

So overall it looks to me like Canon are struggling from an engineering perspective ... and its just blind or naive optimism that their delivery of 2nd rate products is a bizarre but winning commercial strategy ...

Yeah... you can't just say 'fact'. We're not schoolchildren.

Regarding heat, is it better to build cameras around engineering limitations (that affect all manufacturers), or ignore them and cause problems for consumers down the line? Overheating in sealed camera bodies (especially whilst implementing 4K) is hardly a Canon-only problem.

As for patents - well each company is 'pipped' by others. That Canon doesn't implement a particular technology you want doesn't mean they don't have other innovations they have patented themselves - e.g. DPAF.

'Struggling', erm yeah, right. They're a conservative company, and that frustrates some people. But they produce devices that satisfy the needs of more people than anyone else - at least enough for people to keep buying them. Your needs may differ, in which case go and buy a rival product that suits you better. Simple!

 

[Mr1Dx]

a7 III for $2k is a "bomb" Sony dropped in FF market. I'm sure both Canon/Nikon are not appreciated.

 

[Deleted member 378875]

Laughable or tragic ?

I can't help thinking that Canon have lost a lot of good engineers and simply no longer have the technical competence to compete even if they want to.

Any evidence for that, or is it pure supposition?

They can't compete with Sigma Art lenses on resolution and seem totally incapable of providing features such as In Body stabilization or the processing / heatsink capabilities required for high resolution images at even half-reasonable frames per second.

Has it occurred to you they might not implement certain features because either they can't infringe other companies' patents, or because they think it can be done better in a different way? It's well established that Canon thinks in-lens IS is better for many purposes. PS which company's cameras have a reputation fo overheating? Deserved or not, it ain't Canon.

It seems to me their main selling points these days are ergonomics, colour and a lot of customers with existing lenses who don't want to play leapfrog/jump-ship.

A lot of people - and I would argue professionals especially - want gear that works, reliably, in a range of conditions. Canon is as good as anyone at providing that, and better than most.

Err ... fact !

On release of the 5Div Canon did an interview and blamed their half-baked 4K implementation on the fact that their engineers were unable to overcome heat problems ... problems which other manufacturers clearly overcame a long time ago.

And if Canon are being pipped prevented from delivering engineering solutions because other company engineers are coming up with patented inventions first then again this doesn't reflect well on Canon.

So overall it looks to me like Canon are struggling from an engineering perspective ... and its just blind or naive optimism that their delivery of 2nd rate products is a bizarre but winning commercial strategy ...

Yeah... you can't just say 'fact'. We're not schoolchildren.

Regarding heat, is it better to build cameras around engineering limitations (that affect all manufacturers), or ignore them and cause problems for consumers down the line? Overheating in sealed camera bodies (especially whilst implementing 4K) is hardly a Canon-only problem.

As for patents - well each company is 'pipped' by others. That Canon doesn't implement a particular technology you want doesn't mean they don't have other innovations they have patented themselves - e.g. DPAF.

'Struggling', erm yeah, right. They're a conservative company, and that frustrates some people. But they produce devices that satisfy the needs of more people than anyone else - at least enough for people to keep buying them. Your needs may differ, in which case go and buy a rival product that suits you better. Simple!

"fact" was short for "its a fact that Canon gave an interview expressing the fact that they were "constrained" by heat problems regarding 4K performance ....

I've been reading CR for some time now and one thing is very, very clear to me : its forum contributors are an extremely bright bunch of people and woe betide anyone who treats their audience as school children.

I realize that I'm overshadowed by many here on all counts ... however I think my point stands reason : namely that Canon are currently found wanting in the technical department and its difficult to imagine that they have left large gaping holes in their product line up as a commercial "strategy" ... more likely they have fallen behind on an R&D front.

Very conservative doesn't necessarily mean very low risk !

 

[ashmadux]

. Making the best cameras should be their priority, PERIOD.

Nice sentiment but a bit naive. All camera manufacturers exist to make profits as best they can.

Note the OP refers to “perceived” feature sets. While most of canon’s cameras are not spec sheet warriors, in many ways they outperform the competition. I prefer a solid camera to one which is just a hodgepodge of features, so I hope this rumor doesn’t portend a change in canon’s development processes from a thorough balanced design to a pursuit of paper tigers.

The sentiment is not naive at all ; profit is the motivator for all business, however how much effort you actually put into your product is entirely a business decision. And we know canon has been trying it's best, eh? Well, maybe not.

There are cheap dells and then there are apple laptops. Both businesses chose what sector to be in, and how they want to be perceived and perform. It is no different for cameras.

A camera either has features or it doesn't. It works well or it doesn't. It can be quite a binary experience.

 

[mrzero]

So, why the lackluster output on servo zoom for lenses? Thus far, we have one servo controller with two fixed speeds, and it only works on one consumer-grade lens. On top of that, they just announced upgrades to two major L zoom lenses that don't include the servo connection. Imagine the video quality of a 70-200/4 or 2.8 L IS with a proper servo control. We won't have it, at least not any time soon.

I could be wrong, but I believe that servo control would require the lens to move to a manual focus by wire (FBW) design like Nano USM or STM. Just about all AF L lenses made today are Ring USM with full-time mechanical focusing. So to make a higher-end or L lens with Nano USM for video would be considered a downgrade by the stills photography camp, and so far we haven't seen one.

That said, we should never say never. There are some rare exceptions -- I want to say the 85 f/1.2L II is both FBW and Ring USM, but that one AF'd like molasses.

Who knows? Maybe we get one of these (below) on a future lens.

- A

That would be a fair reason not to hook the servo into the high end L lenses, but Canon has come out with at least one non-L lens that uses Nano USM that they could have put the servo connection on, the new 70-300 4-5.6 IS II. I see now that Dustin Abbott also noted this omission in his review of that lens https://dustinabbott.net/2017/02/canon-ef-70-300mm-f4-5-6-ii-usm-review/.

 

[scyrene]

"fact" was short for "its a fact that Canon gave an interview expressing the fact that they were "constrained" by heat problems regarding 4K performance ....

Oh, I see. Fair enough. But I think your assertion that all the other manufacturers have figured out how to implement 4K in FF bodies ("problems which other manufacturers clearly overcame a long time ago") with no compromises is unfounded.

I realize that I'm overshadowed by many here on all counts ... however I think my point stands reason : namely that Canon are currently found wanting in the technical department and its difficult to imagine that they have left large gaping holes in their product line up as a commercial "strategy" ... more likely they have fallen behind on an R&D front.

Well, we are all gazing into a crystal ball because we don't have access to Canon's internal strategy or a detailed breakdown of sales. Some people assume (perhaps too readily) that they always know what they're doing. Others lean too far the other way. Perhaps they saw the success of the 5D2 and decided the cinema line was where they would shift that market, as some have asserted. Maybe they were complacent about DSLR video. Maybe (as others have said) the DSLR isn't really suitable for professional video work (whatever those pioneers did with the 5D2) and people are asking for unrealistic things, or maybe the amount it would shift sales is just too little. The problem is we only see what they do, and occasionally hear garbled messages like this 'rumour', none of which allows us to form a clear idea of what Canon really thinks about DSLR video (or mirrorless for that matter).

As for 'gaping holes' though, I don't really know what you mean. Can you be more specific? Do you mean they lack a diect competitor with a rival's product? Different companies' lineups will never exactly match, of course...

 

[Kit.]

There are cheap dells and then there are apple laptops. Both businesses chose what sector to be in, and how they want to be perceived and perform. It is no different for cameras.

What sectors to be in. There are quite expensive Dells as well (I use one to write these lines).

And then there is Sony, that used to have a nice VAIO S line of laptops (I still own one), but decided that it is no longer interested in the whole PC business.

A camera either has features or it doesn't. It works well or it doesn't. It can be quite a binary experience.

Unfortunately, there are (a lot of) cameras that have features that don't work well. And no, features that don't work well are not something from which Canon brand is magically protected.

 

[ahsanford]

That would be a fair reason not to hook the servo into the high end L lenses, but Canon has come out with at least one non-L lens that uses Nano USM that they could have put the servo connection on, the new 70-300 4-5.6 IS II.

Canon has only put out two Nano USM lenses to date if I'm not mistaken -- the 18-135 and the 70-300. I expect more, but Canon seems to have abandoned the premium non-L price point in favor of 'budget' / 'cheap L' / 'pricey L' offerings. (This kills me, of course, because my future 50 prime is in that premium non-L bucket.)

Upon checking the power zoom adaptor, it is formally listed as just being compatible with the 18-135 -- but that compatibility list could surely grow. I see that adaptor being a key component for the 80D soccer mom / hockey dad crowd -- one little $149 doo-dad and your SLR drives more like a camcorder. Perhaps we see another compatible lens come out it with the 90D next year, or possibly the next Rebel 18-55 lens is made to be compatible.

- A

 

[Talys]

That would be a fair reason not to hook the servo into the high end L lenses, but Canon has come out with at least one non-L lens that uses Nano USM that they could have put the servo connection on, the new 70-300 4-5.6 IS II.

Canon has only put out two Nano USM lenses to date if I'm not mistaken -- the 18-135 and the 70-300. I expect more, but Canon seems to have abandoned the premium non-L price point in favor of 'budget' / 'cheap L' / 'pricey L' offerings. (This kills me, of course, because my future 50 prime is in that premium non-L bucket.)

Upon checking the power zoom adaptor, it is formally listed as just being compatible with the 18-135 -- but that compatibility list could surely grow. I see that adaptor being a key component for the 80D soccer mom / hockey dad crowd -- one little $149 doo-dad and your SLR drives more like a camcorder. Perhaps we see another compatible lens come out it with the 90D next year, or possibly the next Rebel 18-55 lens is made to be compatible.

- A

I own both the 18-135 and the 70-300 -- even though they're both "nano USM", they're quite different in the implementation.

The 18-135 is a technological marvel, the Secretariat of autofocus lenses. It's super-duper blazing fast and makes almost no sound at all, faster than any other lens I've seen, and so quick and sure that I often don't realize It has re-focused. Also, as you've mentioned, it has the servo control adapter mount on the bottom.

The 70-300 is a great lens, but while the autofocus is great for a consumer lens, it is not a standout in comparison with professional lenses. My copy isn't as consistent, either. The little LCD screen on the top is something new, but I think it's kind of pointless.

In both cases, I really dislike the focus by wire. There is an acceleration thing going, such that if you turn the ring faster, it moves the manual focus faster, and if you twist it slowly, it is more accurate. That sounds great, but in practice, it prevents someone who manually focuses a lot from know that x twist = y travel.

The difference is that on the 18-135, the AF performance almost makes it worth the loss of ring USM (it certainly makes a good case for it), while the 70-300 doesn't hit that mark, at least not for me.

 

[3kramd5]

. Making the best cameras should be their priority, PERIOD.

Nice sentiment but a bit naive. All camera manufacturers exist to make profits as best they can.

Note the OP refers to “perceived” feature sets. While most of canon’s cameras are not spec sheet warriors, in many ways they outperform the competition. I prefer a solid camera to one which is just a hodgepodge of features, so I hope this rumor doesn’t portend a change in canon’s development processes from a thorough balanced design to a pursuit of paper tigers.

The sentiment is not naive at all ; profit is the motivator for all business, however how much effort you actually put into your product is entirely a business decision. And we know canon has been trying it's best, eh? Well, maybe not.

Sure they are, within whatever cost constraints their market and business analyses allow.

A camera either has features or it doesn't. It works well or it doesn't. It can be quite a binary experience.

Work or doesn’t work is a binary situation, sure. “The best cameras PERIOD” is not, rather, it’s open ended. Is the 1dxii good? Yes. Is it the best? Well no, it doesn’t have a phase one 100MP feature, a red 8k prores feature, a global shutter feature, etc.

Product design without cost constraint can be fun, but it’s niche. Bugatti does it. I can’t think of anyone else who does.

 

[Durf]

That would be a fair reason not to hook the servo into the high end L lenses, but Canon has come out with at least one non-L lens that uses Nano USM that they could have put the servo connection on, the new 70-300 4-5.6 IS II.

Canon has only put out two Nano USM lenses to date if I'm not mistaken -- the 18-135 and the 70-300. I expect more, but Canon seems to have abandoned the premium non-L price point in favor of 'budget' / 'cheap L' / 'pricey L' offerings. (This kills me, of course, because my future 50 prime is in that premium non-L bucket.)

Upon checking the power zoom adaptor, it is formally listed as just being compatible with the 18-135 -- but that compatibility list could surely grow. I see that adaptor being a key component for the 80D soccer mom / hockey dad crowd -- one little $149 doo-dad and your SLR drives more like a camcorder. Perhaps we see another compatible lens come out it with the 90D next year, or possibly the next Rebel 18-55 lens is made to be compatible.

- A

I own both the 18-135 and the 70-300 -- even though they're both "nano USM", they're quite different in the implementation.

The 18-135 is a technological marvel, the Secretariat of autofocus lenses. It's super-duper blazing fast and makes almost no sound at all, faster than any other lens I've seen, and so quick and sure that I often don't realize It has re-focused. Also, as you've mentioned, it has the servo control adapter mount on the bottom.

The 70-300 is a great lens, but while the autofocus is great for a consumer lens, it is not a standout in comparison with professional lenses. My copy isn't as consistent, either. The little LCD screen on the top is something new, but I think it's kind of pointless.

In both cases, I really dislike the focus by wire. There is an acceleration thing going, such that if you turn the ring faster, it moves the manual focus faster, and if you twist it slowly, it is more accurate. That sounds great, but in practice, it prevents someone who manually focuses a lot from know that x twist = y travel.

The difference is that on the 18-135, the AF performance almost makes it worth the loss of ring USM (it certainly makes a good case for it), while the 70-300 doesn't hit that mark, at least not for me.

I also own the 70-300mm IS USM ii Lens and use it a lot as it's an awesome lens. My copy of it is extremely sharp all throughout the focal range; slightly better looking images on the 6D2 but super good on the 80D. It's almost always on my 80D.

It's hard to believe the 18-135mm is faster. My 70-300mm is amazingly fast (but not always 100% accurate, it sometimes hunts in low contrast or low light situations). It is also quite good for video too.

A friend of mine has the 18-135mm for his 80D and uses it almost only for video with the auto zoom thing and loves it.

 

[ahsanford]

The 70-300 Nano USM has been reviewed to be crazy fast with the AF:

https://www.lenstip.com/503.10-Lens_review-Canon_EF_70-300_mm_f_4-5.6_IS_II_USM_Autofocus.html

"the autofocus performance is sensationally fast. Running through the whole distance scale and confirming the focus at the shorter end of the focal lengths spectrum takes 0.1-0.2 of a second; for the longer focal lengths the process is by 0.1-0.2 of a second longer.

To be honest I am a bit surprised that, for the first time, such technology appears in completely amateur constructions. The working culture of the autofocus, its noiselessness, 100% accuracy, and superior speed put to shame even some professional lenses. A round of applause for Canon!"

For perspective, those are similar focus speed numbers to the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, which seemingly instantaneously teleports the elements to the right position for me.

- A

 

[Talys]

The next time you guys are at a camera store, just ask them to throw a efs 18-135 usm on an 80D and try it for yourself. I promise you will be impressed.

There is no part of the AF travel that takes anywhere close to 0.4 seconds. It is more like the human eye, when you glance from a newspaper to the horizon.

The 70-300 is definitely slower than both its EFS nano cousin, and the 70-200 II. However, the 70-200 is probably one of the fastest lenses I've used, and certainly the fastest lens use with any frequency. Of course, to be fair, the 70-300 has a greater travel distance for the focusing elements than the 18-135.

Optically, neither of the consumer lenses are anywhere close to L lens performance. The 18-135 is pretty cruddy at both ends of the focal range compared to L's and has pretty lousy corners, though I am surprised at how good it is with CA. The 70-300, my to main issues are corner sharpness and poor AF consistency. It is essentially not worth bothering to set AFMA because it fluctuates by more than 10 points.

When birding with it, some shots of bird portraits are very clear while others are not tack sharp, and you're just at the mercy of chance. Outside the center 50%, I do not think the lens is acceptable for enthusiast bird crops. For example, a heron that is an eighth of the frame horizontally in flight near either edge will be partially blurry, even when it's a panning shot and there is no reason for it to be.

 

[SkynetTX]

What if sensors with better noise performance, faster image processors and lenses would be in the heart of Camera development? Let video capabilities to be in the heart of camcorder and Cinema line camera development.

 

[Durf]

The next time you guys are at a camera store, just ask them to throw a efs 18-135 usm on an 80D and try it for yourself. I promise you will be impressed.

There is no part of the AF travel that takes anywhere close to 0.4 seconds. It is more like the human eye, when you glance from a newspaper to the horizon.

The 70-300 is definitely slower than both its EFS nano cousin, and the 70-200 II. However, the 70-200 is probably one of the fastest lenses I've used, and certainly the fastest lens use with any frequency. Of course, to be fair, the 70-300 has a greater travel distance for the focusing elements than the 18-135.

Optically, neither of the consumer lenses are anywhere close to L lens performance. The 18-135 is pretty cruddy at both ends of the focal range compared to L's and has pretty lousy corners, though I am surprised at how good it is with CA. The 70-300, my to main issues are corner sharpness and poor AF consistency. It is essentially not worth bothering to set AFMA because it fluctuates by more than 10 points.

When birding with it, some shots of bird portraits are very clear while others are not tack sharp, and you're just at the mercy of chance. Outside the center 50%, I do not think the lens is acceptable for enthusiast bird crops. For example, a heron that is an eighth of the frame horizontally in flight near either edge will be partially blurry, even when it's a panning shot and there is no reason for it to be.

My 70-300 copy in no way fluctuates by 10 pt's, I've shot a few thousand pics or more with it at least and surely would of noticed that type of focusing inconsistency. i'm wondering if you got a glitched copy or I just got lucky with my copy?
My copy is a tad bit soft in the corners but not too bad and sharpness is very usable most of the time unless I screw up taking the photo.
Mines not as good as a L-Lens of course, but my copy seems to work quite a bit better than you describe your copies performance.

 

[Talys]

The next time you guys are at a camera store, just ask them to throw a efs 18-135 usm on an 80D and try it for yourself. I promise you will be impressed.

There is no part of the AF travel that takes anywhere close to 0.4 seconds. It is more like the human eye, when you glance from a newspaper to the horizon.

The 70-300 is definitely slower than both its EFS nano cousin, and the 70-200 II. However, the 70-200 is probably one of the fastest lenses I've used, and certainly the fastest lens use with any frequency. Of course, to be fair, the 70-300 has a greater travel distance for the focusing elements than the 18-135.

Optically, neither of the consumer lenses are anywhere close to L lens performance. The 18-135 is pretty cruddy at both ends of the focal range compared to L's and has pretty lousy corners, though I am surprised at how good it is with CA. The 70-300, my to main issues are corner sharpness and poor AF consistency. It is essentially not worth bothering to set AFMA because it fluctuates by more than 10 points.

When birding with it, some shots of bird portraits are very clear while others are not tack sharp, and you're just at the mercy of chance. Outside the center 50%, I do not think the lens is acceptable for enthusiast bird crops. For example, a heron that is an eighth of the frame horizontally in flight near either edge will be partially blurry, even when it's a panning shot and there is no reason for it to be.

My 70-300 copy in no way fluctuates by 10 pt's, I've shot a few thousand pics or more with it at least and surely would of noticed that type of focusing inconsistency. i'm wondering if you got a glitched copy or I just got lucky with my copy?
My copy is a tad bit soft in the corners but not too bad and sharpness is very usable most of the time unless I screw up taking the photo.
Mines not as good as a L-Lens of course, but my copy seems to work quite a bit better than you describe your copies performance.

It is totally possible that my 70-300 isn't a great copy. It surely is not that every photo is off by 10 points; however, when I use FoCal with either my 80D or 6D2, the variance for AFMA is very high. I can't recall the exact numbers, but running it 10 times will yield 5 different AFMA values from -x to +x, low confidence scores each time, and a curve that doesn't look like a nice bell.

I mean, don't get me wrong: it's a nice lens; I like to keep it paired with my older T6s, and the 70-300 is something I'll take when I want reach and don't want to take expensive gear because of where I am -- for example, some hikes, where camera equipment has a higher chance of getting damaged, or at least, nicked. However, it is a far, far cry from the 100-400LII, its "pro" equivalent -- and also five times as expensive, or something like that, and obviously, it's not a comparison to the 70-200II for the things that the much more expensive lens excels at, for all sorts of reasons, not the least of which is f/2.8.

To put it in perspective, my copy has a lower consistency of autofocus than the Sigma 150-600 (but it's way, way faster, of course).

 

[Durf]

The next time you guys are at a camera store, just ask them to throw a efs 18-135 usm on an 80D and try it for yourself. I promise you will be impressed.

There is no part of the AF travel that takes anywhere close to 0.4 seconds. It is more like the human eye, when you glance from a newspaper to the horizon.

The 70-300 is definitely slower than both its EFS nano cousin, and the 70-200 II. However, the 70-200 is probably one of the fastest lenses I've used, and certainly the fastest lens use with any frequency. Of course, to be fair, the 70-300 has a greater travel distance for the focusing elements than the 18-135.

Optically, neither of the consumer lenses are anywhere close to L lens performance. The 18-135 is pretty cruddy at both ends of the focal range compared to L's and has pretty lousy corners, though I am surprised at how good it is with CA. The 70-300, my to main issues are corner sharpness and poor AF consistency. It is essentially not worth bothering to set AFMA because it fluctuates by more than 10 points.

When birding with it, some shots of bird portraits are very clear while others are not tack sharp, and you're just at the mercy of chance. Outside the center 50%, I do not think the lens is acceptable for enthusiast bird crops. For example, a heron that is an eighth of the frame horizontally in flight near either edge will be partially blurry, even when it's a panning shot and there is no reason for it to be.

My 70-300 copy in no way fluctuates by 10 pt's, I've shot a few thousand pics or more with it at least and surely would of noticed that type of focusing inconsistency. i'm wondering if you got a glitched copy or I just got lucky with my copy?
My copy is a tad bit soft in the corners but not too bad and sharpness is very usable most of the time unless I screw up taking the photo.
Mines not as good as a L-Lens of course, but my copy seems to work quite a bit better than you describe your copies performance.

It is totally possible that my 70-300 isn't a great copy. It surely is not that every photo is off by 10 points; however, when I use FoCal with either my 80D or 6D2, the variance for AFMA is very high. I can't recall the exact numbers, but running it 10 times will yield 5 different AFMA values from -x to +x, low confidence scores each time, and a curve that doesn't look like a nice bell.

I mean, don't get me wrong: it's a nice lens; I like to keep it paired with my older T6s, and the 70-300 is something I'll take when I want reach and don't want to take expensive gear because of where I am -- for example, some hikes, where camera equipment has a higher chance of getting damaged, or at least, nicked. However, it is a far, far cry from the 100-400LII, its "pro" equivalent -- and also five times as expensive, or something like that, and obviously, it's not a comparison to the 70-200II for the things that the much more expensive lens excels at, for all sorts of reasons, not the least of which is f/2.8.

To put it in perspective, my copy has a lower consistency of autofocus than the Sigma 150-600 (but it's way, way faster, of course).

Just curious; have you ever used the 70-300mm IS USM L series lens?

If I was to upgrade I think this is the one I'd like to get.

 

[Jack Douglas]

The source claims that Canon no longer wants to lose the “spec war” with their future camera releases. This way of thinking is trickling down to various Canon subsidiaries around the globe to prepare for the changes coming.

That is laughable, they could reverse that perception overnight with a couple of firmware upgrades. There is no reason on earth why the 1DX MkII couldn't be the first and only camera to output 4K 60P to ProRes RAW over HDMI, that would make it the forum darling overnight. Or they could open it up for C-Log, or maybe even just output 4K through the HDMI port. Etc etc... Oh, they could open up the touchscreen for anything instead of only focusing in video!

And we wait ... without holding our breath.

Jack

 

[pj1974]

The next time you guys are at a camera store, just ask them to throw a efs 18-135 usm on an 80D and try it for yourself. I promise you will be impressed.
There is no part of the AF travel that takes anywhere close to 0.4 seconds. It is more like the human eye, when you glance from a newspaper to the horizon.

- SNIP -

My 70-300 copy in no way fluctuates by 10 pt's....

- SNIP -

It is totally possible that my 70-300 isn't a great copy.

- SNIP -

Just curious; have you ever used the 70-300mm IS USM L series lens?

If I was to upgrade I think this is the one I'd like to get.

I have the 80D and have used the 18-135mm nano USM, which is indeed blazingly fast, particularly in optical AF, but also very quick in Live View / DPAF! (As I wrote in another post a few weeks ago, I concur that the AF speed is impressive in terms of speed & accuracy). I do not own the 18-135mm nano USM, but my go to / general purpose lens is the 15-85mm USM, but I also have the 18-135mm STM, handy for video & when I require a bit of extra reach. I do not plan to get the 18-135mm nano USM as it does not offer enough (in terms of its quicker AF) benefit over my existing 'general purpose' (15-85mm & 18-135mm STM).

I own the 70-300mm L - which is a lens I love... great image quality, very versatile, and good AF (fast and accurate, particularly in good light, with decent contrast). From what I have heard of the 70-300mm II nano USM doesn't quite have the IQ that I would need. I do hope that Canon continues to moves forward with the marrying of its DPAF and nano USM technology, which I can see will benefit both videographers and still photographers. At this stage, I plan to keep my existing lenses, but the future is interesting...

Paul