What's Next from Canon?

[Ricku]

...sensor quality plays a very BIG role too. Canon has not been doing well in this last department for the past few years. Sigh...

I just don't understand comments like that. While Canon may be a bit slow on updating its APS-C sensors, I don't know how anyone can really criticize the 1D, 5D or 6D sensors. Canon customers ripped Canon for emphasizing megapixels over ISO performance, so Canon got conservative on the megapixels and produced sensors that outshine the competition in ISO performance.

Slightly, and only on higher ISO levels.

When it comes to base ISO (where most people shoot most of their photos), SoNikon completely destroys Canon's ancient sensors in terms of pure IQ and dynamic range. Canon hasn't even gotten rid of the dreadful shadow banding yet. Wtf?

Canon is only interesting for lenses now days. My EF-glass lives a happy life on my A7R. A tiny mirrorless camera that blows the 5D and 1DX out of the water. The difference in IQ is so big that I'll most likely never use my 5D3 again.

 

[Zv]

Sounds like the rumors about the 7D II release are finally solidifying. That's good news, about time that camera was finally released.

It is also very interesting to hear the 100-400 might finally be getting it's replacement! I'd be fairly interested in that lens.

I totally agree about the G1X II price...very odd. I think whoever is managing the G line and the EOS-M lines are really not in tune with the western markets. The positioning of those models is too high up the price ladder for over here. They may sell like hotcakes in Japan, but Japan isn't the US or EU.

Canon needs to bring a full mirrorless ecosystem to the US. An -M with a couple basic lenses will never break through the established DSLR market. Too many people have Rebels, and too many have purchased additional lenses. EOS-M needs LENSES! Would be really nice to see something like EOS-M Pro released here in the US with a whole range of lenses from maybe a fisheye prime, through wide primes and zooms, to long primes, to long zooms and maybe a telephoto. That's a big handful of lenses, but I don't think the US market would be interested in EOS-M unless there are some good, dedicated lenses for it at the same time. (And an EVF, of course...I guess that one is a given.)

I agree the G1X at around $400 is an attractive second camera but the mark 2 is ¥81,000 on amazon.jp, that's $90 away from a brand new 7D! You'd have to be mad!

The EOS M isn't that popular in Japan either, but at $300 it is at least affordable. The M2 is overpriced too and selling poorly with bad reviews on amazon.jp. I don't think Japanese people want to spend over $500 for what are perceived as "digicameras" or compact cameras. Almost everyone here has an iPhone or a smartphone and I see a lot of people using them or DSLRs when it comes to events and things like cherry blossom season.

I would like to see more lenses for the M mount. And I want Canon to take mirrorless seriously and make a decent M3 worthy of forking out five hundred bucks. The M2 is a joke. Improved AF and wifi for double the price? No. They should have been in the original M to begin with.

 

[Don Haines]

I'm curious if the successor to the SX-50 will have dual-pixel technologies and what the zoom will be.

 

[Zv]

Well....I NEVER thought that I would say THIS....but I am more interested in What's Next From Sigma!!!

+1.

Tamron too. They're doing much more interesting things, these days, especially when it comes to value for money!

Now if Sigma came out with a Foveon DSLR of similar resolution to the 5D Mark II/III and the new lenses could all be bought for it... mmm...

And Samyang too! I'm looking fwd to seeing what they do with AF if rumors are true.

Sad days when a we get more excited about 3rd party gear more than Canon.

 

[preppyak]

Sad days when a we get more excited about 3rd party gear more than Canon.

I disagree; the more options the better. I own a Tokina super-wide, a Sigma kit lens, and the rest of my lenses are Canon. Other than brand loyalty, what does it matter who is making the best lens?

Imagine if Sigma was still the old Sigma, and Tamron was the old Tamron...you'd have poor AF lenses that break, weak warranties, and you'd basically only have expensive Canon gear as your option. You'd be stuck waiting for the Xmas rebates to get reasonable prices. Instead, the used market for gear has gotten much cheaper, and Canon has been forced to cut their prices a lot after release.

I also think people forget, all the lenses that Canon has released in the last 2-3 years have been almost universally praised. The 70-200 and 24-70 are the holy grail for most pros. The non-L IS primes are really sharp (and now reasonably priced). Even the 40mm pancake was good, if a little odd. Even their kit lenses keep getting better. They just have such a successful line that they arent forced to swing for the fences like Sigma/Tamron are

 

[jrista]

...sensor quality plays a very BIG role too. Canon has not been doing well in this last department for the past few years. Sigh...

I just don't understand comments like that. While Canon may be a bit slow on updating its APS-C sensors, I don't know how anyone can really criticize the 1D, 5D or 6D sensors. Canon customers ripped Canon for emphasizing megapixels over ISO performance, so Canon got conservative on the megapixels and produced sensors that outshine the competition in ISO performance.

Slightly, and only on higher ISO levels.

When it comes to base ISO (where most people shoot most of their photos), SoNikon completely destroys Canon's ancient sensors in terms of pure IQ and dynamic range. Canon hasn't even gotten rid of the dreadful shadow banding yet. Wtf?

Canon is only interesting for lenses now days. My EF-glass lives a happy life on my A7R. A tiny mirrorless camera that blows the 5D and 1DX out of the water. The difference in IQ is so big that I'll most likely never use my 5D3 again.

I would dispute that most people shoot at base ISO. I'd be willing to bet there are a hell of a lot more people who photograph some kind of action or shooting in low light, than there are people who photograph more still scenes. Even wedding photographers shoot at higher ISO settings, many of them even shoot at very high ISOs on purpose for that grain-like aesthetic in black and white. You have all the olympics shooters, sports shooters, street photographers, wildlife and bird photographers, concert and event shooters, air show and race shooters, the paparazzi, photo journalism is at high ISO as much as lower ISO, etc.

People who shoot at lower ISO? Landscape photographers, maybe macro photographers (although if your going for extreme macro with an MP-E 65 or extension tubes, your at least at ISO 400 if not 800 or more), studio photographers (however when it comes to studio photography, you have total control over light, shadow, and scene DR, so having more stops of DR isn't a necessity...it's simply a nicety.)

Oh, and, you have amateur photographers! However, amateurs shoot at low ISO all the time out of ignorance, not because they need to. Once an amateur becomes something else, the chances they will use higher ISOs more than lower ISOs greatly increases.

So, yeah. I STRONGLY dispute the notion that "most" photographers use base ISO. Far more things in the world involve action of some kind, in which case you are either full manual and explicitly choosing a higher ISO, or your using a priority mode and choosing your shutter speed in one way or another (leaving ISO on auto, in which case it will most certainly float above ISO 100 and 200 the majority of the time.)

 

[Solar Eagle]

I don't see why the G1X II would be any less than $799 at launch. The RX100 II is still $699, and the G1X II is offers a heck of a lot more than that camera.

I paid full price for the original G1X, and I'll do the same here. To me the G1X was my dream camera, minus the 1cm macro form the G series. The Mark II offers 5cm macro, a full stop faster, wifi, 24mm, and almost same size as EOS M. Al-in-all it IS my dream camera, and in fact its MORE than I even dreamed of getting!!! I'm not one those folks that dreams outside the laws of physics, lol. BRAVO Canon. Proved to EVERYBODY (Not literally) that they are the best of the best. Sony looked good for a little while anyway. lol

Bring on the Mark II, WITHOUT the EFV, which I think is pretty dorky looking in practice. hahaha

 

[Don Haines]

...sensor quality plays a very BIG role too. Canon has not been doing well in this last department for the past few years. Sigh...

I just don't understand comments like that. While Canon may be a bit slow on updating its APS-C sensors, I don't know how anyone can really criticize the 1D, 5D or 6D sensors. Canon customers ripped Canon for emphasizing megapixels over ISO performance, so Canon got conservative on the megapixels and produced sensors that outshine the competition in ISO performance.

Slightly, and only on higher ISO levels.

When it comes to base ISO (where most people shoot most of their photos), SoNikon completely destroys Canon's ancient sensors in terms of pure IQ and dynamic range. Canon hasn't even gotten rid of the dreadful shadow banding yet. Wtf?

Canon is only interesting for lenses now days. My EF-glass lives a happy life on my A7R. A tiny mirrorless camera that blows the 5D and 1DX out of the water. The difference in IQ is so big that I'll most likely never use my 5D3 again.

I would dispute that most people shoot at base ISO. I'd be willing to bet there are a hell of a lot more people who photograph some kind of action or shooting in low light, than there are people who photograph more still scenes. Even wedding photographers shoot at higher ISO settings, many of them even shoot at very high ISOs on purpose for that grain-like aesthetic in black and white. You have all the olympics shooters, sports shooters, street photographers, wildlife and bird photographers, concert and event shooters, air show and race shooters, the paparazzi, photo journalism is at high ISO as much as lower ISO, etc.

People who shoot at lower ISO? Landscape photographers, maybe macro photographers (although if your going for extreme macro with an MP-E 65 or extension tubes, your at least at ISO 400 if not 800 or more), studio photographers (however when it comes to studio photography, you have total control over light, shadow, and scene DR, so having more stops of DR isn't a necessity...it's simply a nicety.)

Oh, and, you have amateur photographers! However, amateurs shoot at low ISO all the time out of ignorance, not because they need to. Once an amateur becomes something else, the chances they will use higher ISOs more than lower ISOs greatly increases.

So, yeah. I STRONGLY dispute the notion that "most" photographers use base ISO. Far more things in the world involve action of some kind, in which case you are either full manual and explicitly choosing a higher ISO, or your using a priority mode and choosing your shutter speed in one way or another (leaving ISO on auto, in which case it will most certainly float above ISO 100 and 200 the majority of the time.)

I tend to shoot around ISO320 in sunlight or cloudy days, 640 on darker days and early mornings/late evenings, and 3200 and above indoors, unless using the flash where I tend towards 160...

 

[Woody]

The EOS M isn't that popular in Japan either, but at $300 it is at least affordable.

That is entirely FALSE.

After its price cut, the EOS-M is the SECOND most popular mirrorless camera in Japan in 2013 (see http://bcnranking.jp/news/1312/131227_27056.html) and this enabled Canon to capture 9.3% of the mirrorless camera market share (see http://bcnranking.jp/news/1401/140110_27101.html). In contrast, Panasonic and Nikon with their MULTIPLE camera models only managed to capture 14.2 and 9.2% market shares.

Please get your facts straight before you post rubbish on the web.

 

[Zv]

The EOS M isn't that popular in Japan either, but at $300 it is at least affordable.

That is entirely FALSE.

After its price cut, the EOS-M is the SECOND most popular mirrorless camera in Japan in 2013 (see http://bcnranking.jp/news/1312/131227_27056.html) and this enabled Canon to capture 9.3% of the mirrorless camera market share (see http://bcnranking.jp/news/1401/140110_27101.html). In contrast, Panasonic and Nikon with their MULTIPLE camera models only managed to capture 14.2 and 9.2% market shares.

Please get your facts straight before you post rubbish on the web.

Fair enough, I stand corrected. 9.2% of the Mirrorless market is hardly anything to have a song and dance about. And second place is still second place, as in there is another camera that is more popular.

Still hardly ever see them out in the wild. No one I know owns one.

You could have been a bit more tactful with your put down. I hardly stated any numbers or facts to begin with, and yeah I should have researched it and added that it was my opinion that it seems a less popular option.

 

[jrista]

The EOS M isn't that popular in Japan either, but at $300 it is at least affordable.

That is entirely FALSE.

After its price cut, the EOS-M is the SECOND most popular mirrorless camera in Japan in 2013 (see http://bcnranking.jp/news/1312/131227_27056.html) and this enabled Canon to capture 9.3% of the mirrorless camera market share (see http://bcnranking.jp/news/1401/140110_27101.html). In contrast, Panasonic and Nikon with their MULTIPLE camera models only managed to capture 14.2 and 9.2% market shares.

Please get your facts straight before you post rubbish on the web.

Fair enough, I stand corrected. 9.2% of the Mirrorless market is hardly anything to have a song and dance about. And second place is still second place, as in there is another camera that is more popular.

Still hardly ever see them out in the wild. No one I know owns one.

You could have been a bit more tactful with your put down. I hardly stated any numbers or facts to begin with, and yeah I should have researched it and added that it was my opinion that it seems a less popular option.

Your ignoring the fact that Canon gained 9.2% of the market share in a year. All other mirrorless contendors, including Nikon and Panasonic, were there years ahead of Canon. To gain as much market share as Nikon in a fraction of the time is very telling.

As I've said before, EOS-M seems to be selling like hotcakes in Japan, and sells relatively well in the Asian markets overall. If the current rate is sustained, Canon could easily rise to second largest mirrorless manufacturer in Japan and possibly all of the asian markets within another year or two. THAT is the point.

 

[CanoSony]

I don't see why the G1X II would be any less than $799 at launch. The RX100 II is still $699, and the G1X II is offers a heck of a lot more than that camera.

I paid full price for the original G1X, and I'll do the same here. To me the G1X was my dream camera, minus the 1cm macro form the G series. The Mark II offers 5cm macro, a full stop faster, wifi, 24mm, and almost same size as EOS M. Al-in-all it IS my dream camera, and in fact its MORE than I even dreamed of getting!!! I'm not one those folks that dreams outside the laws of physics, lol. BRAVO Canon. Proved to EVERYBODY (Not literally) that they are the best of the best. Sony looked good for a little while anyway. lol

Bring on the Mark II, WITHOUT the EFV, which I think is pretty dorky looking in practice. hahaha

You can get a Sony a6000 for $800 with faster AF, better DR, better lowlight, more AF points, 90% AF coverage, AND EVF.

FOR $800!


http://camerasize.com/compact/#535,534,ha,f


yeah...

 

[RGomezPhotos]

Somehow I bumped into a rumor of the Nikon D4s and though "This is my perfect camera!" FF, 24MP, 10FPS. Well, only in specs because Nikon ergos and UI don't work for me. But that's a sweet camera in specs. The D4 is a nice camera too.

I wish Canon would come out with something that exciting. The 1Dx last did it for me. The 5D MKIII just missed the boat a bit. If you don't need the much improved AF, you don't need an upgrade. And the older version is already 3 or so years old. It's sad.

The G1x MKII is a $400 - $450 camera. I hope no one has their career riding on sales of that camera. Give me the EOS-M anytime.

 

[9VIII]

Well....I NEVER thought that I would say THIS....but I am more interested in What's Next From Sigma!!!

Yup, I'm pretty much sold on the new 50mm, and If Sigma comes out with a solid supertelephoto prime it's going to make justifying the price of a Big White that much harder.
If only they could produce a decent body that puts AF with Sigma lenses at the same level as the established systems.

The 100-400 MkII could be interesting, but the SX50 IS successor actually is holding more interest than anything else at the moment.

 

[Woody]

And second place is still second place, as in there is another camera that is more popular.

Firstly, there are more than 30 models of mirrorless cameras out there and to be ranked in second place is nothing to snort at.

Secondly, the most popular model, NEX-5R, only managed to capture 11.9% market shares, a smidge more than the EOS-M at 9.2%. If the most popular model is commanding 20 to 30% market share, then you may have a point here. But that's clearly not the case here.

Still hardly ever see them out in the wild. No one I know owns one.

You could have been a bit more tactful with your put down. I hardly stated any numbers or facts to begin with, and yeah I should have researched it and added that it was my opinion that it seems a less popular option.

To extend your personal observations based on a small circle of people you know to the entire population of camera users in Japan is to spread falsehood with no basis.

 

[ajndesign]

I don't see why the G1X II would be any less than $799 at launch. The RX100 II is still $699, and the G1X II is offers a heck of a lot more than that camera.

I paid full price for the original G1X, and I'll do the same here. To me the G1X was my dream camera, minus the 1cm macro form the G series. The Mark II offers 5cm macro, a full stop faster, wifi, 24mm, and almost same size as EOS M. Al-in-all it IS my dream camera, and in fact its MORE than I even dreamed of getting!!! I'm not one those folks that dreams outside the laws of physics, lol. BRAVO Canon. Proved to EVERYBODY (Not literally) that they are the best of the best. Sony looked good for a little while anyway. lol

Bring on the Mark II, WITHOUT the EFV, which I think is pretty dorky looking in practice. hahaha

You can get a Sony a6000 for $800 with faster AF, better DR, better lowlight, more AF points, 90% AF coverage, AND EVF.

FOR $800!


http://camerasize.com/compact/#535,534,ha,f


yeah...

I know eactly who the G1X mark II is marketed for.... ME!
I think what people don't get is that people like me just don't want a camera with separate lenses! but still want decent image quality. If I could buy a good m43 camera with a lens that did macro, zoom, wide appature etc, then maybe I'd think about it, but what would be the point? as I would never take off that lens!
Ok so the price is a bit steep, but it would be the only thing I'd ever need in my kit bag!
Yes you can buy the new sony with a lens for about the same price, but then you'd need extra lens for the other shooting conditions.
I have pre-ordered the new G1x and I can't wait to get out there with it!

 

[Einstein333]

"Things haven’t been too exciting for Canon since the introduction of the very good EOS 6D".
Are you kidding me? I was really disappointed with the introduction of that camera as it has only one usable AF point (way behind the competition)

 

[Zv]

And second place is still second place, as in there is another camera that is more popular.

Firstly, there are more than 30 models of mirrorless cameras out there and to be ranked in second place is nothing to snort at.

Secondly, the most popular model, NEX-5R, only managed to capture 11.9% market shares, a smidge more than the EOS-M at 9.2%. If the most popular model is commanding 20 to 30% market share, then you may have a point here. But that's clearly not the case here.

Still hardly ever see them out in the wild. No one I know owns one.

You could have been a bit more tactful with your put down. I hardly stated any numbers or facts to begin with, and yeah I should have researched it and added that it was my opinion that it seems a less popular option.

To extend your personal observations based on a small circle of people you know to the entire population of camera users in Japan is to spread falsehood with no basis.

What exactly are we trying to achieve here?

As you can see I have an EOS M. I Like the EOS M. I want to see more lenses for the EOS M. I wish the camera had more notoriety and market share so that Canon might create more for the EOS M.

Which part do you disagree upon?

No one listens to my observations or opinions anyway. Sorry if I have tainted the web with my deceit!

 

[eLroberto]

The EOS 7D Mark II will finally be unveiled and should be in your eager hands by the fall of 2014. It will set a new benchmark in the APS-C segment.

Lets take a look on the upgrade cycle:

xxxxD Series - every three years

xxxD Series - quite every year

xxD Series - up to two years

xD Series - 7D and the 1DsIII on top with up to six years. All the others between two and four years.

Why does it take forever for the 7D? This makes just no sense to me. I'm just quite sick of waiting... I even start thinking about buying a used 1DIV or a new 5DIII. Come on Canon, hurry up!

 

[lw]

THAT is the point.

But surely the point is - only in Japan...

There's no guarantee right now that Canon will sell any further M series products in the US or EU.