What's Not Coming in 2018?

[Deleted member 379512]

I wasn’t advocating global shutter*, I was commenting on rolling shutter as the source of blackout. With electronic shutters blackout isn’t caused by line-by-line reads, it’s caused by too slow reads.


*But incidentally I don’t think it needs be prohibitively expensive. A $3,000 sensor is expensive, but large production runs would burn down the NRE.

Oh, I see. I was also citing the rolling shutter on most mirrorless cameras (like Sony) as the source of blackouts. I've read about price and performance (image quality as it relates to stills) reasons against global shutters to put them into consumer cameras now, but it's impossible for me to distinguish between fact and fiction. I just don't think it's on anyone's roadmap, yet.

Obviously, they're in some pro CMOS sensor camcorders, so there must be at least the possibility that we'll see them in cameras at some point. I'm happy to eat crow if I'm wrong

I was under the impression that the typical backout in mirrorless cameras is purely to the readout speed of the sensor, so stacked sensors help here (only the a9 has this I think?), whereas rolling is reduced by a stacked sensor but only eliminated by a global one? Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong

As I do agree the a7 series are really more like 8fps cameras with a 'boost' mode

 

[Talys]

My bigger issue (because I enjoy birding) is with the performance of on-sensor autofocus versus dedicated AF sensor. The latter is provably faster on every camera that has both, and there are no mirrorless cameras that can autofocus as quickly as the fastest DSLRs.

Not only is this becoming less and less of an issue with each iteration of mirrorless sensor technology, mirrorless focus has the great advantage that as this technology improves the camera can interpret the scene and, in many cases, interpret what you are trying to focus on, predict movement in three dimensions for tracking and focusing in a way that makes modern systems, even with multi-focus points spread across the view, look very primitive.

Eye detection is just one part of this. Sports and wildlife are equally important.

Future cameras will be judged by the power of their AI features as much as their resolution and focus speed.

They are certainly getting better, but that is not the same as 'as good as' and certainly not 'superior'.

The end result is what matters, meaning the number of keepers. For me, it isn't even close. Will on sensor AF be better in the future? I have no idea. But basically, fast point at it and autofocus speed will determine what my main camera is for as long as I'm a birdie enthusiast.

The other stuff like tracking doesn't work well (because the subjects are so fast that if they're big enough to be keepers, they will be gone in a fraction of a second. Things like eye af just don't work.

The other issue is that on sensor AF is just much worse in low light, and works not at all/very poorly with illuminators.

So, not speaking for other people for whom dpaf or hybrid af may be a great solution, both are a much poorer solution for my use cases.

 

[Don Haines]

My bigger issue (because I enjoy birding) is with the performance of on-sensor autofocus versus dedicated AF sensor. The latter is provably faster on every camera that has both, and there are no mirrorless cameras that can autofocus as quickly as the fastest DSLRs.

Not only is this becoming less and less of an issue with each iteration of mirrorless sensor technology, mirrorless focus has the great advantage that as this technology improves the camera can interpret the scene and, in many cases, interpret what you are trying to focus on, predict movement in three dimensions for tracking and focusing in a way that makes modern systems, even with multi-focus points spread across the view, look very primitive.

Eye detection is just one part of this. Sports and wildlife are equally important.

Future cameras will be judged by the power of their AI features as much as their resolution and focus speed.

They are certainly getting better, but that is not the same as 'as good as' and certainly not 'superior'.

The end result is what matters, meaning the number of keepers. For me, it isn't even close. Will on sensor AF be better in the future? I have no idea. But basically, fast point at it and autofocus speed will determine what my main camera is for as long as I'm a birdie enthusiast.

The other stuff like tracking doesn't work well (because the subjects are so fast that if they're big enough to be keepers, they will be gone in a fraction of a second. Things like eye af just don't work.

The other issue is that on sensor AF is just much worse in low light, and works not at all/very poorly with illuminators.

So, not speaking for other people for whom dpaf or hybrid af may be a great solution, both are a much poorer solution for my use cases.

For a DSLR, you have a module that was specifically designed for AF. You have photoreceptors that are designed for AF, both with sensitivity and geometry, and on higher end cameras, with a dedicated processor. For basic AF functions, this will always be superior (given the same level of technology).

On the other hand, given decent computing power, the AF on the image sensor can do other things better, such as to track faces, birds when there is a confusing background, or tracking colors....

Neither is absolutely better. They both have strengths and weaknesses....

 

[Deleted member 379512]

My bigger issue (because I enjoy birding) is with the performance of on-sensor autofocus versus dedicated AF sensor. The latter is provably faster on every camera that has both, and there are no mirrorless cameras that can autofocus as quickly as the fastest DSLRs.

Not only is this becoming less and less of an issue with each iteration of mirrorless sensor technology, mirrorless focus has the great advantage that as this technology improves the camera can interpret the scene and, in many cases, interpret what you are trying to focus on, predict movement in three dimensions for tracking and focusing in a way that makes modern systems, even with multi-focus points spread across the view, look very primitive.

Eye detection is just one part of this. Sports and wildlife are equally important.

Future cameras will be judged by the power of their AI features as much as their resolution and focus speed.

They are certainly getting better, but that is not the same as 'as good as' and certainly not 'superior'.

The end result is what matters, meaning the number of keepers. For me, it isn't even close. Will on sensor AF be better in the future? I have no idea. But basically, fast point at it and autofocus speed will determine what my main camera is for as long as I'm a birdie enthusiast.

The other stuff like tracking doesn't work well (because the subjects are so fast that if they're big enough to be keepers, they will be gone in a fraction of a second. Things like eye af just don't work.

The other issue is that on sensor AF is just much worse in low light, and works not at all/very poorly with illuminators.

So, not speaking for other people for whom dpaf or hybrid af may be a great solution, both are a much poorer solution for my use cases.

For a DSLR, you have a module that was specifically designed for AF. You have photoreceptors that are designed for AF, both with sensitivity and geometry, and on higher end cameras, with a dedicated processor. For basic AF functions, this will always be superior (given the same level of technology).

On the other hand, given decent computing power, the AF on the image sensor can do other things better, such as to track faces, birds when there is a confusing background, or tracking colors....

Neither is absolutely better. They both have strengths and weaknesses....

I think this is the key point still; both have strengths and weaknesses and realistically for the time being, the designs mean that there will always be these distinctions in specific uses (birds, flash photography, portraits etc).

I have one of each (mirrorless and dslr), for my uses I prefer the mirrorless, but there are definitely times where the dslr is the better choice

 

[3kramd5]

Neither is absolutely better. They both have strengths and weaknesses....

^ but cameras with mirrors present the option of both methods...

 

[dak723]

My bigger issue (because I enjoy birding) is with the performance of on-sensor autofocus versus dedicated AF sensor. The latter is provably faster on every camera that has both, and there are no mirrorless cameras that can autofocus as quickly as the fastest DSLRs.

Not only is this becoming less and less of an issue with each iteration of mirrorless sensor technology, mirrorless focus has the great advantage that as this technology improves the camera can interpret the scene and, in many cases, interpret what you are trying to focus on, predict movement in three dimensions for tracking and focusing in a way that makes modern systems, even with multi-focus points spread across the view, look very primitive.

Eye detection is just one part of this. Sports and wildlife are equally important.

Future cameras will be judged by the power of their AI features as much as their resolution and focus speed.

They are certainly getting better, but that is not the same as 'as good as' and certainly not 'superior'.

The end result is what matters, meaning the number of keepers. For me, it isn't even close. Will on sensor AF be better in the future? I have no idea. But basically, fast point at it and autofocus speed will determine what my main camera is for as long as I'm a birdie enthusiast.

The other stuff like tracking doesn't work well (because the subjects are so fast that if they're big enough to be keepers, they will be gone in a fraction of a second. Things like eye af just don't work.

The other issue is that on sensor AF is just much worse in low light, and works not at all/very poorly with illuminators.

So, not speaking for other people for whom dpaf or hybrid af may be a great solution, both are a much poorer solution for my use cases.

When I bought my mirrorless Olympus E-M1 II, I searched the internet for setup tips from photographers with experience with the camera. When it came to settings for continuous shooting, every one said to avoid the tracking settings and just use the usual C-AF. The "special" tracking AF just doesn't work very well - as apparently you have also found on the Sony. Not saying that these specs won't improve with time, but once again we see that Specs and Actual Use are not necessarily the same.

Alas, since people believe all they read when it comes to specs and the promotional material that comes out with each new release, Canon continually gets criticized and Sony applauded. Sony (since they are mirrorless) is heralded as the great innovator, mirrorless is given far more credit for its abilities than actual use would warrant. People can criticize Canon all they want, but they are usually pretty straight shooters when it comes to specs and in many cases, actual users are surprised at how much better the camera is than advertised. The opposite seems to be true with many mirrorless brands - many things don't work quite as well as advertised. And I speak as someone who no longer owns any DSLRs and have gone 100% mirroless. But to deny their shortcomings is just plain being biased and untruthful.

 

[transpo1]

So hilarious we’ve resorted to discussing what’s NOT coming from a camera company. Canon is not exactly the most Agile company. Still, the interest level in Canon in Canon products remains high, which means they are probably leaving a lot of money on the table at the moment. Time to come out with some exciting new product lines or within existing ones.

 

[Talys]

I think this is the key point still; both have strengths and weaknesses and realistically for the time being, the designs mean that there will always be these distinctions in specific uses (birds, flash photography, portraits etc).

I have one of each (mirrorless and dslr), for my uses I prefer the mirrorless, but there are definitely times where the dslr is the better choice

Right -- at the moment, there isn't one solution that is perfect everywhere, so it just depends on what you want to use it for. There are definitely EVF aspects that I really miss on DSLR, and vice versa.

In a lot of ways, photography is still "messy" that way -- different lenses are optimal for different tasks, different bodies are more efficient for various purposes, all sorts of light sources and modifiers produce different results, and so on and so forth. It's really no different than, "is a softbox better than an umbrella?", "is a prime better than a zoom?", or "is a c-stand better than a light stand?"

Even if you own a really wide variety of stuff, you need to pick what you're going to take with you, and then you just get used to what works for you in the types of situations you foresee.

Neither is absolutely better. They both have strengths and weaknesses....

^ but cameras with mirrors present the option of both methods...

This is very true Sometimes, it isn't quite as elegant. For example, I really value that on a Canon DSLR you can switch to live view, magnify, and manual focus so that exactly what I want to be in focus is, and then take the shot. It's slicker with an EVF, but there are tradeoffs to that, some of them significant.

Alas, since people believe all they read when it comes to specs and the promotional material that comes out with each new release, Canon continually gets criticized and Sony applauded. Sony (since they are mirrorless) is heralded as the great innovator, mirrorless is given far more credit for its abilities than actual use would warrant. People can criticize Canon all they want, but they are usually pretty straight shooters when it comes to specs and in many cases, actual users are surprised at how much better the camera is than advertised. The opposite seems to be true with many mirrorless brands - many things don't work quite as well as advertised. And I speak as someone who no longer owns any DSLRs and have gone 100% mirroless. But to deny their shortcomings is just plain being biased and untruthful.

Sometimes, I think that camera makers have turned into wizards of mind control. They're very adept at getting us to believe the hype of "new camera = new features = better photography". Sadly, for me, it is very, very rare that a new camera has actually resulted in better photography for me I haven't really learned my lesson yet though, because I still buy into the hype every time, until I disappoint myself

The biggest jumps for me in camera bodies were going digital (because it hugely cut down in cost) and then recently in full frame (because it let me shoot higher shutter speeds/higher ISOs). Other than that, most of the improvements I've had from equipment purchases is studio gear related. It's amazing what the right light modifier can do, or how I can capture a moment (often by fluke) just by having strobes that can keep up with faster fps.

 

[Deleted member 374702]

From nikonrumors:
"At least two high-end Nikon cameras and at least two lenses expected by the end of 2018".
"Nikon is developing a new mirrorless camera at a “rapid pace”, getting close to the official announcement".

From canonrumors: "What's not coming in 2018"

Because, you see, Canon are so ahead... no need to hurry.

There are rumors and there are facts.
These are the facts:
No Nikon D5s and D500s, they were due in January this year but never came.
Nikon DL (1” compact) never made it to the consumer.
Nikon 1 (1” ILC) is dead, and Nikon has no DX (APS-C) mirrorless solution.
Nikon is losing market share in a declining market despite a camera like the D850 which outperforms both the Canon 5DIV and 5DSr.

I’d like to see Canon lose some market share. That will push them more, but it hasn’t happened in over a decade…

Here it comes - the drowning man's straw - the market share. Why do people care about how much profit Canon do? In what way that indicates, or suggests, the quality of the products? They've been going like that for years and yet their cameras are lagging behind in AF and IQ. Why should I care how is Canon doing when it has proven to be of no benefit to me - the payer - in any way whatsoever. You can be slow and steady, and stable financially, even on top, and still provide mediocre products at a high price. Canon are the Toyota of the photo camera business: quantity and familiarity over quality. Canon are living in a vacuum and, sooner or later, that mentality of theirs will implode if they do not make some radical changes. Similar attitude ate Blackberry, Windows Phone and Kodak.
Nikon looses share but their products are miles ahead in the most important aspects: AF and IQ. That's what I care about. It's of little interest to me how much market share a company has got due to the ignorance of the brand-slave herd. It's like Leica - higher price tag should mean quality? Nonsense! It's the stupidity of the masses.

 

[100]

From nikonrumors:
"At least two high-end Nikon cameras and at least two lenses expected by the end of 2018".
"Nikon is developing a new mirrorless camera at a “rapid pace”, getting close to the official announcement".

From canonrumors: "What's not coming in 2018"

Because, you see, Canon are so ahead... no need to hurry.

There are rumors and there are facts.
These are the facts:
No Nikon D5s and D500s, they were due in January this year but never came.
Nikon DL (1” compact) never made it to the consumer.
Nikon 1 (1” ILC) is dead, and Nikon has no DX (APS-C) mirrorless solution.
Nikon is losing market share in a declining market despite a camera like the D850 which outperforms both the Canon 5DIV and 5DSr.

I’d like to see Canon lose some market share. That will push them more, but it hasn’t happened in over a decade…

Here it comes - the drowning man's straw - the market share. Why do people care about how much profit Canon do? In what way that indicates, or suggests, the quality of the products? They've been going like that for years and yet their cameras are lagging behind in AF and IQ. Why should I care how is Canon doing when it has proven to be of no benefit to me - the payer - in any way whatsoever. You can be slow and steady, and stable financially, even on top, and still provide mediocre products at a high price. Canon are the Toyota of the photo camera business: quantity and familiarity over quality. Canon are living in a vacuum and, sooner or later, that mentality of theirs will implode if they do not make some radical changes. Similar attitude ate Blackberry, Windows Phone and Kodak.
Nikon looses share but their products are miles ahead in the most important aspects: AF and IQ. That's what I care about. It's of little interest to me how much market share a company has got due to the ignorance of the brand-slave herd. It's like Leica - higher price tag should mean quality? Nonsense! It's the stupidity of the masses.

Did you even read what I wrote? I want Canon tot push harder, I want them to be best at everything that matters to me. Why, because I have over a dozen EF-mount lenses that won’t fit on anything Nikon makes. But Canon doesn’t care about me or any individual photographer, they only care about profit. They do just enough to stay market leader because that will maximize their profit. I don’t like it, but I understand it.

Funny you mention “the drowning man's straw” and come up with “Blackberry, Windows Phone and Kodak”.
Ask yourself if Blackberry were market leader with a share between 40% and 50% for 15 years before things went south?
Ask yourself if Windows Phone was market leader with a share between 40% and 50% for 15 years before things went south?

Kodak practically invented the digital camera in 1975 but dropped it to protect their photographic film business. They started again in the nineties and had the biggest market share in digital camera’s back in 1999 (27%) it dropped to 15% in 2003, less than 10% by 2007 and just 7% in 2010. How does that compare to Canons 15 years with >40% market share? Do we know a company with leading technology like some say and dropping market share? Is that Canon? No, that’s Nikon.

Nonsense! It's the stupidity of the masses.

The masses are where the money is and both Canon and Nikon are in it for the money.
Niche markets might give you the best products, but prices will increase because R&D-costs stay the same but you have al lot less units to recover those costs with. Look at medium format to see the future of companies that ignore the masses. It could happen to all camera manufactures though, because the quality of smartphone photography is good enough for the masses these days and is still increasing.

 

[BeenThere]

For those who feel stuck for a year waiting for an upgrade, how about a poll for “what system camera would you buy today (i.e., available now) if you were starting fresh today”. Assumption is that you currently own no camera gear now. No one knows exactly what is coming down the pike next week or next year, but we do know what is available today.

 

[3kramd5]

For those who feel stuck for a year waiting for an upgrade, how about a poll for “what system camera would you buy today (i.e., available now) if you were starting fresh today”. Assumption is that you currently own no camera gear now. No one knows exactly what is coming down the pike next week or next year, but we do know what is available today.

PhaseOne XF. Going along with the assumption that I currently own no camera gear is the assumption I can therefore justify spending $100,000 on camera gear.

 

[quiquae]

Hard work being a Canon fan...

Oh, stop complaining. Not like we’re overburdened with studying new models.

 

[Talys]

For those who feel stuck for a year waiting for an upgrade, how about a poll for “what system camera would you buy today (i.e., available now) if you were starting fresh today”. Assumption is that you currently own no camera gear now. No one knows exactly what is coming down the pike next week or next year, but we do know what is available today.

I know what you're trying to get at, but it's kind of a silly assumption, because realistically, virtually nobody who is a photography enthusiast goes from zero to flagship -- it's a terrible idea on any level, because what you buy with zero experience won't be the same as what you buy with at least a few years of experience. There are many non-camera-body/lens investments too, like lighting and accessories.

So I'll do you a solid and ask it in a way that makes more sense. If you all your gear were replaced by insurance for whatever reason, and you could buy all new stuff, what would you buy today, only for camera and lenses?

A) Scenario A - Insurance gives you $5,000
B) Scenario B - Insurance gives you $10,000
C) Scenario C - Insurance gives you $25,000
D) Scenario D - Go crazy.

My picks:

Scenario A - Canon 6D2 + 100-400L2
Scenario B - Canon 6D2, Canon 5DIV, 100-400L2, 70-200/2.8, 24-70/4
Scenario C - Canon 6D2, Canon 5DIV, 100-400L2, 70-200/2.8, 24-70/4, 200-400+TC

I'd have to shell out extra to get the 85/1.4. I couldn't be without it, but it doesn't really fit the arbitrary round-number budgets I made up I mean, realistically, no matter the budget, I'd end up with, in short order, 24-70, 70-200, 100-400, 85/1.4, and 100 macro. I just use all of those way too much to be without them, and frankly, it makes the price of one body kind of irrelevant (except 1DXII).

Scenario D -
Canon 1DXII, 5DIV x 2, 80D + a boatload of EF lenses
Canon M5 + most of the EF-M lenses
Sony A7R3 + trinity 2.8's + 85/1.4 + 90 macro

See? Sony would make my list. I don't think it would be at "C", because even at $25,000, it's not enough money to own two systems of lenses. Plus, it's pretty important for me to own two similar or identical bodies.

I'm actually really happy with my kit though. The only thing I'm missing are:
1. A 200-400+TC. I would absolutely love this.
2. A 5DIV with a flippy screen.

I would be in bliss.

 

[CANONisOK]

I still have my trusty 7D and really thought I'd jump for the 7D mark III when the time came. After buying an M5, I'm having second thoughts. I have the 5D Mark IV and 5DS for FF along with way too many EF lenses and a few crop body lenses. I may wind up giving my son the 7D and some lenses for it- that will please him to no end. He got into photography when I gave him my first DSLR- a 40D.
So, my thoughts for now are sticking with FF bodies and using the M5 for either a second body or the everyday personal fun stuff. The little M5 is surprisingly good. The 11-22mm on the M5 is killer.
The 7D Mark III would have to be "over the top" stunning for me to reconsider. Throw in a flippy screen and 10+ fps and I'll take notice.

Keith - this could have almost been written by me. I have a 5DsR, a 5D4, a 7D2 and a M5 + a few too many L lenses (35L1.4ii, 50L1.2, 85L1.2ii, 100L2.8m, 135L2.0, 200L2.8, 300L2.8ISii, 8-15Lfe, 16-35Lis, 24-70Lii, 24-105Lii, 70-200L2.8ii, 70-300L) and a most of the EF-M lenses.
I love the 5D4 for its performance, picture quality (although there was something about the 5D3 i liked a bit better), and reliability. The 5DsR has impressed me in numerous situations with the IQ and surprising flexibility.

My M5 has (for better or worse) become my most-used camera though. Solid all-around performer. When I travel the M5 + 22mm + 11-22mm + 18-150mm give me 90% of what I need at <50% of the size of my other equipment. It's almost too good and makes me want to shed more equipment than I have already.

The 7D2 has been a total disappointment to me. IQ & performance have been underwhelming. I am scared to find out how few shutter actuations I have on the thing as I've been consistently let down by it. I don't think there's much that could get me back into a 7D3.

 

[jeffa4444]

I can see the resource constraints that Canon face and their desire to claw back the maximum potential revenue from each product line. Nevertheless, there is a perception that Canon is lagging a bit at the top end. They seem to have gone a bit out of sync with Nikon and Sony's high end releases, perhaps partly due to the D800 sensor oil debacle and partly because of the rapid update cycles of the A7 (and now A9) series.

At the moment, both the 7D2 and the 5DS(R) are a sensor generation behind Canon's latest, which combined with the superior D500 AF system and huge buffer depth makes the 7D2 seem a bit behind the times. 5D series users also face a dilemma: the 5D4 is clearly a superior camera in every way, except resolution: this isn't a choice that we should have to make. Now the D850 and A7rIII are on the scene, Canon needs to up their game to new levels with the 5DS Mark II and not just put a full frame version of the 80D sensor in a modified 5D4 body (the 5DS(R) is effectively a full frame 7D2 sensor in a modified 5D3 body).

Don't know what cameras you use but I have the 5DS (among other Canon cameras) which I use for portraits mainly and I use it in Mraw which is around 30MP and it has plenty of resolution and room for cropping.
If a Red Weapon can use an approx. 30MP sensor that can fill the largest screens in London theatres with crystal clear, high resolution images why do we need more than 50MP for DSLRs?
What we need is a wider colour space, better spread of autofocus points, better subject tracking and higher flash sync speed. Canon need to improve the EF 50mm f1.4 and provide a faster 100mm (like Nikon).

Both Sony and Nikon have issues Canon do not have (we rent both as well as Canon). I know if I was in Iceland, the middle of Dartmoor or the Gobe dessert what camera I would want and they don't begin with S or N.

 

[stevelee]

My picks:

Scenario A - Canon 6D2 + 100-400L2

I bought the 6D2 last fall, and I got the 100-400L2 last Thursday. Excellent choice.

 

[ethanz]

The only thing I'm missing are:
1. A 200-400+TC. I would absolutely love this.

Come visit me or let me have free stay where you are and I'll let you try mine out

 

[dak723]

Here it comes - the drowning man's straw - the market share. Why do people care about how much profit Canon do? In what way that indicates, or suggests, the quality of the products? They've been going like that for years and yet their cameras are lagging behind in AF and IQ. Why should I care how is Canon doing when it has proven to be of no benefit to me - the payer - in any way whatsoever. You can be slow and steady, and stable financially, even on top, and still provide mediocre products at a high price. Canon are the Toyota of the photo camera business: quantity and familiarity over quality. Canon are living in a vacuum and, sooner or later, that mentality of theirs will implode if they do not make some radical changes. Similar attitude ate Blackberry, Windows Phone and Kodak.
Nikon looses share but their products are miles ahead in the most important aspects: AF and IQ. That's what I care about. It's of little interest to me how much market share a company has got due to the ignorance of the brand-slave herd. It's like Leica - higher price tag should mean quality? Nonsense! It's the stupidity of the masses.

Stupidity can be in the eye of the beholder. If you really believe "Nikon loses share but their products are miles ahead in the most important aspects: AF and IQ" then I would question your judgment. Miles ahead? Or maybe not ahead at all? I strongly prefer Canon color to Nikon, so for me, Canon is ahead in IQ (not miles ahead, that is ridiculous). How about reliability, is that not important? How about tech that actually works well rather than looks good on a spec sheet?

It's actually funny - people who have used different brand cameras come to realize how little difference their is between them. Those that only look at spec sheets seem to have these totally exaggerated opinions of who's ahead or who's behind. Guess what. No one is.

And every time someone mentions Kodak, that is almost sure fire proof that they have no idea what they are talking about. Kodak failed because their core products (film and all the chemicals, papers involved with printing photos and slides) were no longer needed. As mentioned, Kodak was initially one of the top selling brands - and the top selling digital camera maker in the US for many years. If they sold every digital camera ever made, they still couldn't have recouped the losses they had from the loss of film, film processing, and disposable film camera sales. Their digital camera sales began to drop because Canon and Nikon began making digital camera. And Kodak made primarily point and shoots. And, perhaps most importantly, they made no lenses.

 

[Talys]

The only thing I'm missing are:
1. A 200-400+TC. I would absolutely love this.

Come visit me or let me have free stay where you are and I'll let you try mine out

Thanks