Why You Should Stick with Your Canon DSLR and Forget Sony FF Mirrorless

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,639
4,065
Irving, Texas
AvTvM said:
msm said:
Did you have a point you were trying to make or do you just have to parrot market share blahblah at every possible occasion?

Neuro's Canon fanboy logic is of the simple, deductive type:
1) Millions of people buy Canon mirrorslappers -> Canon Mirrorslappers are great.
2) Millions of flies eat sh*t -> sh*t is great food.
;D
 

msm

EOS RP
Jun 8, 2013
309
1
neuroanatomist said:
Or do you not see the connection between Tugela's asinine claims and the fact that they are refuted (among other ways) by ILC sales figures? If that's the case, my condolences for your poorly developed sense of logic.

Here is the problem.

I am sure an average 12 year old can explain you this. Canon is the market leader in unit shares. What does that mean?

It means that Canon sells a *larger number* of cameras than any competitor.

It does not mean:

a) That Canon sells more full frame cameras than any competition. It is not unlikely that they do, but the data just does not support the conclusion.

b) That Canon business strategy can't be improved. The data does not support the conclusion.

c) That there is a high or low demand for large cameras in a certain segment. The data does not support the conclusion.

So why do you keep mentioning this? Want a cracker?
 

msm

EOS RP
Jun 8, 2013
309
1
Larsskv said:
msm said:
Larsskv said:
3kramd5 said:
dilbert said:
Larsskv said:
...
Sony´s business model seems to be releasing new cameras instead of fixing the many issues already released models has. The many A7-series releases indicates that. Having people buy new cameras every 12-18 months seems to be their strategy. Quality and repair service are not.

If there is new technology available to build a newer and better camera every 12 to 18 months then why shouldn't consumers benefit from that?

Why do consumers need to wait 5 years for a "newer and better" camera if the technology is available in much less time?

I agree. It's always struck me as odd when people complain about the introduction rate of cameras when new tech is actually included.

I´ve noticed that with the Sony A7 releases, far superior tech seems to be released in the next model, only a few months after the latter. Sony has to know this when releasing a model, and I know I would be upset if I bought a new A7 camera, that suddenly seems like a piece of junk 3 months later.

There is something in between 6 months and 5 years. Personally I think 3-4 years is ok, if the upgrade is significant.

Yeah I know, your camera immediately stops working whenever a new version is out on the market. ::)

With a Sony, I wouldnt expect it working much longer than the warranty period.

And I just love it when a 2000+ dollar investment halves it's value every 12 months or so.

Do you invest your money in cameras? I buy cameras because I have fun using them.

If the situation is like you explain and you don't base your manhood on owning the latest release you could just take advantage of the situation. Wait 3 months and buy after a newer model is released then and get it dirt cheap. But you would rather buy a model that won't be improved for 4 years even though it did not exactly push the fore front of technology when at release time? To each his own.
 

Larsskv

EOS R
Jun 12, 2015
847
294
msm said:
Larsskv said:
msm said:
Larsskv said:
3kramd5 said:
dilbert said:
Larsskv said:
...
Sony´s business model seems to be releasing new cameras instead of fixing the many issues already released models has. The many A7-series releases indicates that. Having people buy new cameras every 12-18 months seems to be their strategy. Quality and repair service are not.

If there is new technology available to build a newer and better camera every 12 to 18 months then why shouldn't consumers benefit from that?

Why do consumers need to wait 5 years for a "newer and better" camera if the technology is available in much less time?

I agree. It's always struck me as odd when people complain about the introduction rate of cameras when new tech is actually included.

I´ve noticed that with the Sony A7 releases, far superior tech seems to be released in the next model, only a few months after the latter. Sony has to know this when releasing a model, and I know I would be upset if I bought a new A7 camera, that suddenly seems like a piece of junk 3 months later.

There is something in between 6 months and 5 years. Personally I think 3-4 years is ok, if the upgrade is significant.

Yeah I know, your camera immediately stops working whenever a new version is out on the market. ::)

With a Sony, I wouldnt expect it working much longer than the warranty period.

And I just love it when a 2000+ dollar investment halves it's value every 12 months or so.

Do you invest your money in cameras? I buy cameras because I have fun using them.

If the situation is like you explain and you don't base your manhood on owning the latest release you could just take advantage of the situation. Wait 3 months and buy after a newer model is released then and get it dirt cheap. But you would rather buy a model that won't be improved for 4 years even though it did not exactly push the fore front of technology when at release time? To each his own.

Or, like we Canon users can do, sell the old camera for a noticable amount, making the upgrade affordable.
 

Apop

EOS 90D
Jan 26, 2013
165
0
neuroanatomist said:
msm said:
So why do you keep mentioning this? Want a cracker?

Well, I was hoping you'd understand reality. Guess not.

Your perception of reality is flawed , hence you have a hard time convincing others of YOUR version of reality.

It's like the (partial) 'fraud' once stated; Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."

QM
distinction between particles and the space surrounding them loses its original sharpness and the void is recognized as a dynamic quantity of paramount importance.

Luckily for the person you insulted (msn) at this time no one (really) understands reality yet, we have some decent approximations ( but they aren't really understandable ;x )
 

Apop

EOS 90D
Jan 26, 2013
165
0
Larsskv said:
msm said:
Larsskv said:
3kramd5 said:
dilbert said:
Larsskv said:
...
Sony´s business model seems to be releasing new cameras instead of fixing the many issues already released models has. The many A7-series releases indicates that. Having people buy new cameras every 12-18 months seems to be their strategy. Quality and repair service are not.

If there is new technology available to build a newer and better camera every 12 to 18 months then why shouldn't consumers benefit from that?

Why do consumers need to wait 5 years for a "newer and better" camera if the technology is available in much less time?

I agree. It's always struck me as odd when people complain about the introduction rate of cameras when new tech is actually included.

I´ve noticed that with the Sony A7 releases, far superior tech seems to be released in the next model, only a few months after the latter. Sony has to know this when releasing a model, and I know I would be upset if I bought a new A7 camera, that suddenly seems like a piece of junk 3 months later.

There is something in between 6 months and 5 years. Personally I think 3-4 years is ok, if the upgrade is significant.

Yeah I know, your camera immediately stops working whenever a new version is out on the market. ::)

With a Sony, I wouldnt expect it working much longer than the warranty period.

And I just love it when a 2000+ dollar investment halves it's value every 12 months or so.

They seem pretty fun cameras those sony's , but for me this is also the biggest issue...
A new model 12 months later and price on the current fell harder than a crashing stock market.

From an investment point of few one could approach sony cameras like cars :x
Just buy an really old model (like the a7/a7II at this point, or a6000 and accept you don't have the latest and greatest), or buy second hand
 

Apop

EOS 90D
Jan 26, 2013
165
0
AvTvM said:
msm said:
Did you have a point you were trying to make or do you just have to parrot market share blahblah at every possible occasion?

Neuro's Canon fanboy logic is of the simple, deductive type:
1) Millions of people buy Canon mirrorslappers -> Canon Mirrorslappers are great.
2) Millions of flies eat sh*t -> sh*t is great food.
;D

LoL :), well he seems often detached from reality ;), but in this case his logic is sound...
Due the inefficiency of many digestive systems feces/excrement (can)actually contains a lot of nutrients !

for example ; Elephant dung is extremely rich in minerals(and has lots of fibres) , because only about half of what they eat is actually digested!. The dung is extremely important in nutrient cycling, as it provides rich nutrients to soils, acting as a great fertiliser ,it also provides an important food source for other species( ground hornbills, banded mongooses, velvet monkeys, baboons and many insect species)

So yeah , some s**t is great food indeed :)

although autocoprophagy is not something I'd recommend ;p
 

Eldar

EOS R6
Jan 14, 2013
3,250
7
www.flickr.com
Apop said:
AvTvM said:
msm said:
Did you have a point you were trying to make or do you just have to parrot market share blahblah at every possible occasion?

Neuro's Canon fanboy logic is of the simple, deductive type:
1) Millions of people buy Canon mirrorslappers -> Canon Mirrorslappers are great.
2) Millions of flies eat sh*t -> sh*t is great food.
;D

LoL :), well he seems often detached from reality ;), but in this case his logic is sound...
Due the inefficiency of many digestive systems feces/excrement (can)actually contains a lot of nutrients !

for example ; Elephant dung is extremely rich in minerals(and has lots of fibres) , because only about half of what they eat is actually digested!. The dung is extremely important in nutrient cycling, as it provides rich nutrients to soils, acting as a great fertiliser ,it also provides an important food source for other species( ground hornbills, banded mongooses, velvet monkeys, baboons and many insect species)

So yeah , some s**t is great food indeed :)

although autocoprophagy is not something I'd recommend ;p
Delicious :)
 

Attachments

  • baboon.jpg
    baboon.jpg
    67.9 KB · Views: 152

Larsskv

EOS R
Jun 12, 2015
847
294
dilbert said:
Larsskv said:
...
Or, like we Canon users can do, sell the old camera for a noticable amount, making the upgrade affordable.

It is an attempt to "trade in" an old camera for a new except that the camera dealer doesn't want your old camera (or would offer very little for it.)

The only reason you sell the old camera for a reasonable amount is that people perceive the old one to still be worth something.

This "selling the old camera" is a large part of the reason behind everyone wanting features to not increase too much from camera to camera: the newer one being not too different means the older one seems like it is worth more. Hence lots of people wanting "8fps/22MP" - it isn't just the "8fps" people want but they also want the number of megapixels to be close to the same as their 5D2/5D3.

The main problem is people who purchase second hand cameras pay way too much for them (in general.)

The Canons are worth something used because they are good at taking pictures, ergonomic, user friendly, and people expect them to be working even if the warranty period is out.

With your reasoning, I would assume you would like to migrate to Sony for the sake of loosing a lot of money every time you want to increase shadow pulling abilities at ISO 100.
 

Larsskv

EOS R
Jun 12, 2015
847
294
dilbert said:
Larsskv said:
dilbert said:
Larsskv said:
...
Or, like we Canon users can do, sell the old camera for a noticable amount, making the upgrade affordable.

It is an attempt to "trade in" an old camera for a new except that the camera dealer doesn't want your old camera (or would offer very little for it.)

The only reason you sell the old camera for a reasonable amount is that people perceive the old one to still be worth something.

This "selling the old camera" is a large part of the reason behind everyone wanting features to not increase too much from camera to camera: the newer one being not too different means the older one seems like it is worth more. Hence lots of people wanting "8fps/22MP" - it isn't just the "8fps" people want but they also want the number of megapixels to be close to the same as their 5D2/5D3.

The main problem is people who purchase second hand cameras pay way too much for them (in general.)
...
The Canons are worth something used because they are good at taking pictures, ergonomic, user friendly, and people expect them to be working even if the warranty period is out.
...

But they're old technology.

A used camera that is 2 years old is a very old piece of technology. Would you pay top dollar for a 2 year old computer? It still runs Windows, it still lets you surf the web, etc.

Rinse and repeat with cars, TV, etc. To me, a 5 year old digital HD TV is something that I give away, not sell.

Personally, I don't buy a camera based on what I expect to sell it for. I buy a camera to use. My challenge is to make sure that I get $1000 or $2000 or $3000 worth of value out of it before I buy the next one.

How much does a used car cost (proportionally) after being used for 1 year?
How much does a used car cost (proportionally) after being used for 2 years?

Does anyone buy a new car based on what they'll sell it for when they're done?

The market for used Canon gear disagree with you. Here in Norway, a 4 year old 5D3 sells for more than twice as much as a 1 1/2 year old A7.

If money is a concern, which I guess it is for most of us, resale value matters, and I find it foolish to state otherwise.
 

Sharlin

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 26, 2015
1,369
1,306
Turku, Finland
dilbert said:
But they're old technology.
A used camera that is 2 years old is a very old piece of technology. Would you pay top dollar for a 2 year old computer? It still runs Windows, it still lets you surf the web, etc.

Rinse and repeat with cars, TV, etc. To me, a 5 year old digital HD TV is something that I give away, not sell.

A 2 year old DSLR body is definitely not old technology, never mind very old, not by any sensible definition. DSLRs don't have a similar planned obsolescence going on as phones, and the depreciation curves are quite different. You know what depreciation curves are, don't you? What's even more important is that usage value is quite different from resale value. People who have an obsession of updating to the newest and shiniest every year might want to reflect on their consumption habits a little bit.

Incidentally, I'm typing this on a seven-year old desktop PC. I've upgraded its RAM once and its GPU once, but the mainboard and the CPU are the same. It runs everything I want it to, including modern 3D games. Computer tech just simply doesn't advance so quickly as it used to.
 

Orangutan

EOS 5D Mark IV
Sep 25, 2010
2,140
3
AvTvM said:
msm said:
Did you have a point you were trying to make or do you just have to parrot market share blahblah at every possible occasion?

Neuro's Canon fanboy logic is of the simple, deductive type:
1) Millions of people buy Canon mirrorslappers -> Canon Mirrorslappers are great.
2) Millions of flies eat sh*t -> sh*t is great food.
;D

I'm surprised to see you write this: although I often disagree with you, I rarely see you make such absurd statements. The logic is very different, but still simple.

1) Canon executives decide what products Canon will produce.
2) Canon is consistently the leader in sales and profit, therefore Canon executives are probably happy with their line (for now).
3) The customer may choose which brands and products to buy.
4) If enough customers change brands to have an effect on (2), [or if executives perceive this will happen soon] then the executives will decide to make changes to the product line
5) The opinions of individual (or small numbers) of Internet posters has little effect on (1)

The primary insight here is not that Canon products are faultless, but that Canon is seeking profit, not a perfect Camera.
 

J.R.

EOS 5D Mark IV
Jan 13, 2013
1,749
0
People who think Canon needs a better business model and they know better, should apply to Canon as a business consultant - there is a ton of money to be made here. Big corporations like Canon hire some incredibly smart people for carrying on their business profitably - if you are deemed smart enough, you may just hit some serious pay dirt.

But then you probably are not smart enough to be a consultant to Canon seeing that all you do all day is whine and carp about "mirrorslappers" (is that even a word) and that Canon makes cameras for Alpha males (what sort of a claim is that?) all day on internet-forums.

BTW, feel free to eat poop if you consider the eating habits of flies and humans to be the same. I'm wondering whether the constant slapping by the "mirrorslapper" has slapped all good sense out of you.
 

3kramd5

EOS R6
Mar 2, 2012
3,084
405
Larsskv said:
3kramd5 said:
dilbert said:
Larsskv said:
...
Sony´s business model seems to be releasing new cameras instead of fixing the many issues already released models has. The many A7-series releases indicates that. Having people buy new cameras every 12-18 months seems to be their strategy. Quality and repair service are not.

If there is new technology available to build a newer and better camera every 12 to 18 months then why shouldn't consumers benefit from that?

Why do consumers need to wait 5 years for a "newer and better" camera if the technology is available in much less time?

I agree. It's always struck me as odd when people complain about the introduction rate of cameras when new tech is actually included.

I´ve noticed that with the Sony A7 releases, far superior tech seems to be released in the next model, only a few months after the latter. Sony has to know this when releasing a model, and I know I would be upset if I bought a new A7 camera, that suddenly seems like a piece of junk 3 months later.

There is something in between 6 months and 5 years. Personally I think 3-4 years is ok, if the upgrade is significant.

Ah, personally I don't find that new models render those I already have pieces of junk.

That being said, wouldn't you be similarly upset buying a 5D IV 12 months after introduction and learning that Canon could have sold you something significantly upgraded at roughly the same price, but that they're sitting on for 2-3 more years?

Not everyone buys cameras on a schedule aligned to market introduction. In fact, I imagine most people do not. Having your best technology available to consumers at any given time is a good thing for consumers.
 

J.R.

EOS 5D Mark IV
Jan 13, 2013
1,749
0
Orangutan said:
AvTvM said:
msm said:
Did you have a point you were trying to make or do you just have to parrot market share blahblah at every possible occasion?

Neuro's Canon fanboy logic is of the simple, deductive type:
1) Millions of people buy Canon mirrorslappers -> Canon Mirrorslappers are great.
2) Millions of flies eat sh*t -> sh*t is great food.
;D

I'm surprised to see you write this: although I often disagree with you, I rarely see you make such absurd statements. The logic is very different, but still simple.

1) Canon executives decide what products Canon will produce.
2) Canon is consistently the leader in sales and profit, therefore Canon executives are probably happy with their line (for now).
3) The customer may choose which brands and products to buy.
4) If enough customers change brands to have an effect on (2), [or if executives perceive this will happen soon] then the executives will decide to make changes to the product line
5) The opinions of individual (or small numbers) of Internet posters has little effect on (1)

The primary insight here is not that Canon products are faultless, but that Canon is seeking profit, not a perfect Camera.

+1

It's difficult for some posters here to understand this and the same arguments are repeated ad-nauseam and when confronted with facts, more drivel is posted.

To think that there is another thread running on the topic of why people no longer participate at these forums.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,599
3,940
J.R. said:
Orangutan said:
AvTvM said:
msm said:
Did you have a point you were trying to make or do you just have to parrot market share blahblah at every possible occasion?

Neuro's Canon fanboy logic is of the simple, deductive type:
1) Millions of people buy Canon mirrorslappers -> Canon Mirrorslappers are great.
2) Millions of flies eat sh*t -> sh*t is great food.
;D

I'm surprised to see you write this: although I often disagree with you, I rarely see you make such absurd statements. The logic is very different, but still simple.

1) Canon executives decide what products Canon will produce.
2) Canon is consistently the leader in sales and profit, therefore Canon executives are probably happy with their line (for now).
3) The customer may choose which brands and products to buy.
4) If enough customers change brands to have an effect on (2), [or if executives perceive this will happen soon] then the executives will decide to make changes to the product line
5) The opinions of individual (or small numbers) of Internet posters has little effect on (1)

The primary insight here is not that Canon products are faultless, but that Canon is seeking profit, not a perfect Camera.

+1

It's difficult for some posters here to understand this and the same arguments are repeated ad-nauseam and when confronted with facts, more drivel is posted.

To think that there is another thread running on the topic of why people no longer participate at these forums.

Well, in AvTvM's defense, he wants a camera manufacturer to make the PERFECT CAMERA to meet every one of HIS NEEDS (his own words) and he's probably coming to the realization that is NEVER going to happen, and he'll be stuck slapping his 5DIII's mirror until he dies. So maybe he's just a teensy bit frustrated. ;D
 

JohanCruyff

EOS RP
Aug 9, 2012
338
23
54
Milano, Italy
d said:

"The body may be smaller but you can’t shoot without a lens."
"you end up having to carry multiple batteries, which negate any size advantage"
“Zeiss: The short flange distance between the sensor and the rear element is an engineering challenge for ultra wide-angle lenses ”.
And: "It is a euphemism to call the FE mount an “engineering challenge”. The more honest expression may well be “technically flawed”, or just plain handicapped."
Wow!
I didn't read a set of biased thoughts like this since...
...since last Canon release, I think. ;D

No wonder there are already 451 comments on Petapixel article (and rapidly counting)...
 

JohanCruyff

EOS RP
Aug 9, 2012
338
23
54
Milano, Italy
JohanCruyff said:
d said:

"The body may be smaller but you can’t shoot without a lens."
"you end up having to carry multiple batteries, which negate any size advantage"
“Zeiss: The short flange distance between the sensor and the rear element is an engineering challenge for ultra wide-angle lenses ”.
And: "It is a euphemism to call the FE mount an “engineering challenge”. The more honest expression may well be “technically flawed”, or just plain handicapped."
Wow!
I didn't read a set of biased thoughts like this since...
...since last Canon release, I think. ;D

No wonder there are already 451 comments on Petapixel article (and rapidly counting)...

Besides, the evil author ignores the joys of pinhole photography for the sake of insulting Sony.
 

msm

EOS RP
Jun 8, 2013
309
1
Larsskv said:
dilbert said:
Larsskv said:
dilbert said:
Larsskv said:
...
Or, like we Canon users can do, sell the old camera for a noticable amount, making the upgrade affordable.

It is an attempt to "trade in" an old camera for a new except that the camera dealer doesn't want your old camera (or would offer very little for it.)

The only reason you sell the old camera for a reasonable amount is that people perceive the old one to still be worth something.

This "selling the old camera" is a large part of the reason behind everyone wanting features to not increase too much from camera to camera: the newer one being not too different means the older one seems like it is worth more. Hence lots of people wanting "8fps/22MP" - it isn't just the "8fps" people want but they also want the number of megapixels to be close to the same as their 5D2/5D3.

The main problem is people who purchase second hand cameras pay way too much for them (in general.)
...
The Canons are worth something used because they are good at taking pictures, ergonomic, user friendly, and people expect them to be working even if the warranty period is out.
...

But they're old technology.

A used camera that is 2 years old is a very old piece of technology. Would you pay top dollar for a 2 year old computer? It still runs Windows, it still lets you surf the web, etc.

Rinse and repeat with cars, TV, etc. To me, a 5 year old digital HD TV is something that I give away, not sell.

Personally, I don't buy a camera based on what I expect to sell it for. I buy a camera to use. My challenge is to make sure that I get $1000 or $2000 or $3000 worth of value out of it before I buy the next one.

How much does a used car cost (proportionally) after being used for 1 year?
How much does a used car cost (proportionally) after being used for 2 years?

Does anyone buy a new car based on what they'll sell it for when they're done?

The market for used Canon gear disagree with you. Here in Norway, a 4 year old 5D3 sells for more than twice as much as a 1 1/2 year old A7.

If money is a concern, which I guess it is for most of us, resale value matters, and I find it foolish to state otherwise.

Yep and seeing how a new 5D3 actually sells for 3x the cost of a new A7 here in Norway I can't really see you building a very strong case here for your claim that Canon holds second hand value better. :p

And seeing that the 5D3 is due for an update soon that value might be about to take a big dive too.