Predictions on What to Expect From Canon in 2016

[unfocused]

.........the Sigma 150-600s on Black Friday this year sold out.

As for getting sold out, do you know how many were available? I saw many headline 'offers' that weren't, Adorama got in trouble for listing a tripod but only having two actually for sale, B&H got in trouble for offering 'free' lenses in a Hassleblad kit but reneged on it after shipping the bodies.

I believe he is referring to the Sigma Contemporaries that Authorized Sigma dealer Buy Dig offered for sale through e-Bay shortly after Black Friday. Their listing indicates that 383 have been sold – that's a lot of glass from one dealer. BTW, they also offered the Tamron at the same price (as did Amazon). I don't think anyone should argue that these lenses are not selling very well.

That listing number is normally for a repeat fixed price item, not that specific offer. If I relist a same product I can choose to use an old listing for the same or a different price, doing that adds to the counter of number previously sold, or I can start a new listing. We don't know which was utelised, so we don't know how many one company actually had on the shelf for that offer.

I am not saying they are not selling well, particularly when compared to production, but we don't have a clue as to actual retail figures, same as the 100-400 MkII. Personally I know of one Canon two Tamron's and no Sigma's in my small camera club.

That's true. We don't know how many of those lenses sold at the Black Friday weekend price and how many sold at the higher MSRP, but regardless, I have to think that nearly 400 lenses from one dealer is pretty impressive.

 

[PureClassA]

I was specifically referring to the 150-600. I didn't say no one one bought the Tammy/Sig. I said no one (market sales speaking, to be clear) would buy a 3rd party glass if Canon made something comparable in the same price range. If the 70-300 is the same price and raw IQ between 3rd party and Canon, anyone would be be a fool to buy 3rd party from a warranty and AF standpoint. There is no debate on that. As there is no comparable product at 200-600 from Canon, the argument is moot. For now. That being said, I would personally choose the Canon 100-400 L II over the Tammy Sig if wildlife was my game because of the AF and IS and weather sealing and service. That's me.

Exactly. If Canon can out resolve a subject at 400mm compared to a Tammy/Sig at 600mm (and all the extra pixels striking the subject at that tighter FOV) then that speaks volumes for Canon engineering. Tammy/Sig have to make products to fill price voids that 1st party manufacturers will/can NOT. Otherwise, no one buys third party. But with that third party pricing comes SOME degree of sacrifice. That degree is measured differently by each photographer.

Oh I don't know about that. Tamron have a 70-300 Vi DC that is in various places more expensive than Canon's 70-300 IS USM yet you would have to be a fool to buy the Canon and not the Tamron. Would I buy a 50/1.4 USM today? Nope - it is a horrible performer on higher resolution DSLRs, even when compared to Sigma's non-Art 50/1.4.

Generally the sacrifice you talk about is present in all products where the manufacturer has to trade of materials, time to deliver, etc, vs cost. Canon face the same dilemma with deciding what does and does not go in DSLRs.

And as for the "nobody buys 3rd party", well, the Sigma 150-600s on Black Friday this year sold out. That's a lot of sales to "nobody." Also lots of people here have bought various Sigma lenses from the Art lineup.

 

[brad-man]

In fact, I find it interesting that the likes of Sigma and Tamron have in very recent years decided that the much smaller enthusiast/pro market, with it's lower volumes make strategic sense to them. That is saying something that they are producing 4 figure lenses.

Perhaps it says that they weren't finding sales of superzooms to soccer moms as profitable as they needed, and were forced to attempt expansion into other market segments?

Interesting spin. When Canon expands their market, it's due to their clever business acumen. When Sigma/Tamron do the same, it's out of desperation :

 

[RickWagoner]

I'm also surprised that Canon Rumors Guy is putting the 200-600 that high on the list. It would be nice to see it released in 2016, but I'm not that optimistic.

If it is released, I expect a lot of people on this forum will be disappointed at the price. Being very optimistic, I expect it to be somewhere north of $2,500 -- a little higher than the Sigma sports lens but less than $1,000 more.

afraid you may be correct about the price though the Nikon 200-400 is below $1500. Wonder if Canon will try to compete with this lens and not make the 200-600 consumer grade and not L

I can't see Canon releasing a 200-600 that is less than either the list price of the Sigma Sports Lens or less than the price of the 100-400. While third party manufacturers may "trick" the autofocus into thinking an f6.3 lens is an f5.6, Canon won't do that, which means it must be f5.6. It will also be USM, as a slow-focusing 200-600mm is not going to cut it. I don't think Canon will worry too much about the pricing of the Nikon -- it's not like Canon users will buy a Nikon lens. Finally, Canon is not blind to the value of putting a red ring on their lenses, which adds to the perceived value.

Honestly, if a 200-600 materializes for under $3,000 it will sell very well. As for me personally, I'll keep using my 150-600 Sigma Contemporary until the Canon shows up in the refurbished store on a 15% off sale, which means I'm probably two years or more away from getting this lens when and if it materializes.

You guys are crazy, under $3,000 for a 107mm front element 200-600mm L IS tele zoom, that is the same sized front element with more internal elements and much more complicated build as well as being bigger and heavier than the 300 f2.8 IS MkII that costs $6,000.

Canon will lose the birders if they don't compete with the 150-600s, only thing that has kept birders with Canon is the old 100-400 and 400 5.6 back in the day. Now Nikon and even Sony bodies can be used with great for the price glass. This opens up a new world of dr for birders amongst other things. Only few people care enough about the L build quality when there is a great optic at a lower price. It is like the 55-250stm is the king lens for backyard beginner bird shooters, no reason to upgrade to anything else because the optic is that great for the price. Do a plastic 55-250stm optic in a 200-600mm ef-s mount and Canon Will keep their hold on the birding market. Why do you think the 7d2 is $1k now? for the $1700 price birders could go with a Tamron or Sigma lens on a D750 and still get usable fps and buffer but entirely different world with high iso, full frame or in crop mode, more features and just as great focusing system for a couple hundred dollars more. On the streets and in the forest i have seen more D750s being used than 7d2s by birders in the last year, hell before the days Tamron announced the 150-600 you were lucky to see two people with Nikon bodies shooting because it was all Canon with 100-400 or 400 5.6's...those days are done for Canon though.

Yeah, right. How can you compare Nikon D750 AF combined with a third party reverse engineered lens vs Canon 7D II and the Canon 100-400 II? Especially the D750 with its AF points all crammed into the centre of the frame against the 7D mk II. The two don't compare.

And no mirrorless holds its ground for birding - EVF's at the moment are a huge barrier when it comes to tracking moving subjects.

As for DR with birding, who with "cheap" f5.6 or f6.3 lenses and no artificial lighting is able to get useable shutter speeds for birding at ISO 100? The moment ISO creeps up to 1600 or so, any DR advantage of Sony sensors is completely gone.

I completely agree with AlanF - the only elements which can be made smaller and lighter with a tele lens for a small imaging circle are the extreme rear elements, all of which are tiny compared to the front ones. The weight saving from making a lens with 70+ mm at the wide end for EF-S only would be ~1%. It's like shooting yourself in the foot when you're developing, manufacturing and marketing what amounts to very expensive glass. A cheap flimsy plastic barrel is an option to keep the weight down until you take into account such large and heavy elements so far from the mount.

Where one lacks the other makes up. There is way more to bird shooting than bif, in fact though most birders would just love to shoot bif all day long it is a rarity in the world of bird photography. Most bird shots are going to be passerines (smaller perching birds) as they're the most common in the world and usually the most colorful easiest to get closest to. The problem with shooting these birds is they're always under cover or under foliage making the lighting situation not ideal. The 7d2 has some nice noise reduction built in but all that it really is is just a program being applied to the photo as anyone can do this later even with canon dpp software and with this active in camera you will eat battery life out. At the end of the day all you have is a slightly better 70D iso performance in the 7d2 from the sensor itself. This is when and where the D750 being full frame comes to shine, esp with shooting one of the 150-600mm lens at f/8, 10,000 iso shots are no issue for this camera. This allows you to keep your shutter speed up compared to the 7d2 making your shots and your fps more usable. 10fps is useless when your shutter speed is dialed so low that you're lucky to get the first shot sharp let alone the 9 after, keeping the shutter speed up you can actually use all 6.5 fps in these commonly low light perching bird moments. Also one thing every birder has done in the field is snap a pic of the SLR screen to share the bird they caught with friends, D750 has nfc and wifi so no more of that. It may seem silly and small but it is something every birder does.

For the 100-400II and 7d2 bif you talked about..I agree this is a super fast set up, and for people who have the money to have a second body this is a perfect rig for a shoulder setup for bif when you have a tripod setup there for long distance shots. You see birders like this on the locks of the Mississippi for Eagles. But not a lot of people have that kind of money for two setups, two very costly setups. For people who can afford a one setup the camera needs change and the niche greatness of the 7d2 at $1400 seams silly compared to a D750 or worse yet a 70D. For a one all around SLR the 7d2 is just to niche, the 70D will take better portraits and landscape sadly (i compared both many times over) and of course the D750 is another level for those two types of photography. This was when the 7d2 was at the price it was before and i hope it don't go back up from the $1k you can buy it today.

I agree with you on mirrorless for birding but not because of the EVF (which i have not invested enough experience to agree or disagree with you) but for the size of mirrorless. Once you put a long super tele lens on a tiny body your rig is unbalanced in the hand making handhold bird photography harder than if you had a heavier and larger body. Lots of 70D and tamron 150-600 hand hold birders use a battery grip just to give themselves a better balance towards the back of the rig making it easier to shoot. One of the super advantages mirrorless has is it can be done in tiny lightweight bodies and that just makes no sense when using a big lens. If someone wanted a smaller easier setup for birds than a superzoom would be their choice, of course you won't be able to crop, have anything of a buffer, slower focus, etc but it is an option for people who don't want to lug around 7lbs of gear.

 

[Ph0t0]

In my Camera club it is 4x Sigmas OS C, 2x Sigmas OS Sport, 1x Canon 100-400 MK ii, 3x Canon 100-400 mk ii and 1x Tamron, 2x Nikkor 80-400... (not counting primes and 200-400 lenses)
And in our camera store Sigmas are selling approx 2:1 vs the new 100-400 Canon.

I own Canon 500 f4 IS and the old 100-400 and after testing Canon 100-400 ii, Sigma 150-600 C and 150-600 S lenses I'm seriously thinking about selling the old 100-400 Canon and getting Sigma 150-600 Contemporary to use as my lighter lens.

Anyway, that's just the situation here... but I would say that they aren't really having troubles selling the new Sigma lenses.

I am not saying they are not selling well, particularly when compared to production, but we don't have a clue as to actual retail figures, same as the 100-400 MkII. Personally I know of one Canon two Tamron's and no Sigma's in my small camera club.

 

[neuroanatomist]

In fact, I find it interesting that the likes of Sigma and Tamron have in very recent years decided that the much smaller enthusiast/pro market, with it's lower volumes make strategic sense to them. That is saying something that they are producing 4 figure lenses.

Perhaps it says that they weren't finding sales of superzooms to soccer moms as profitable as they needed, and were forced to attempt expansion into other market segments?

Interesting spin. When Canon expands their market, it's due to their clever business acumen. When Sigma/Tamron do the same, it's out of desperation :

Well, given that Canon is the dSLR market leader, has been so for pushing a dozen years, and has nearly every part of the market covered with suitable products, suggesting they might try to expand their market out of desperation would be pretty silly, wouldn't it?

Tokina 'merged into their mother corporation' (Kenko) a few years ago, a polite way of saying it wasn't a merger of equals and likely a sign of trouble. Hard to say how Sigma is doing, they're family owned and privately held. Canon remains profitable.

 

[PureClassA]

I own and have owned several Tamron and Sigma lenses. They make great products. But at no point have they ever been as fast, consistent, and reliable in Auto Focusing as native Canon glass. Period. Some have been pretty good. Some have been downright bad. I dont have that problem with Canon glass. It's a simple of matter of Canon not sharing its proprietary algorithms for AF with 3rd party lens makers. No reason they should either. And even trying to reverse engineer them in a Sigma or Tamron lab doesn't work as well as what Canon can do. I've also sent a couple lenses back to Sigma for adjustments because some require more Micro Adjustment in camera than the camera can even manage (greater than -/+ 20). It took me a few weeks to get my stuff back. Canon returns my gear from service within a matter of days. This isn't blowing smoke. It's simple measurable fact.

And the point is, given all of this, if Canon makes a lens with the same focal range, aperture, and IQ as a 3rd party, why would I buy the 3rd party? I wouldn't. Few would.

I was specifically referring to the 150-600. I didn't say no one one bought the Tammy/Sig. I said no one (market sales speaking, to be clear) would buy a 3rd party glass if Canon made something comparable in the same price range. If the 70-300 is the same price and raw IQ between 3rd party and Canon, anyone would be be a fool to buy 3rd party from a warranty and AF standpoint. There is no debate on that.

HAHAHAHAH!

Oh, you make me laugh. It is obvious from your comments that you've never actually used either of the lenses that I'm referring to. Which lenses do you have direct and personal experience with using?

There are no rules that say because it has the name Canon on it somewhere that it must therefore be better than any other comparable 3rd party product and if you think there are then I feel sorry for you.

btw, Canon's warranties are all 1 year. Tamron lenses come with a warranty for up to 6, Sigma at least 3. What was that you were saying about choosing Canon because of warranty?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Canon will lose the birders if they don't compete with the 150-600s, only thing that has kept birders with Canon is the old 100-400 and 400 5.6 back in the day.

Sure, right. Having bodies with excellent AF, fast frame rates and large buffers doesn't matter. Having a range of lenses from a relatively affordable 400/5.6 to the best supertele and TC lineup in the market is irrelevant. Canon just can't compete, of course that's why they're the market leader.

Now Nikon and even Sony bodies can be used with great for the price glass. This opens up a new world of dr for birders amongst other things.

Yes, clearly low ISO DR is the very important for birding. Low ISO is frequently used because there's no need for high shutter speeds, birds don't perch in shadowed thickets, and dawn/dusk are terrible times to shoot birds. It's all full sun shooting for most birders so low ISO DR is really critical. Almost as critical as it is for every photographer, that's why Canon has lost most of their market share to Nikon and Sony and their better low ISO DR.

Oh, wait..... :

Also one thing every birder has done in the field is snap a pic of the SLR screen to share the bird they caught with friends, D750 has nfc and wifi so no more of that. It may seem silly and small but it is something every birder does.

Every birder? I never have. I've never seen anyone doing so while birding in popular local spots over the years. But hey, if you and a few if your friends want to post immediately to Facebook, feel free. Most birders know better than to fiddle around with their cameras and miss the snowy owl lifting from her perch, the eagle grab the fish from the river, or the peregrine dive on the field mouse. But I know some people are addicted to social media, so WiFi and NFC must be great for them...

 

[MrToes]

A SENSOR with less shadow noise and more DR???

 

[unfocused]

A SENSOR with less shadow noise and more DR???

Please! That's so last month. We're arguing about the size of the front elements on lenses. Try to keep up.

 

[neuroanatomist]

A SENSOR with less shadow noise and more DR???

Canon dSLR sensors have had less low ISO DR since 2009, and yet Canon is the clear market leader and has sold way more dSLRs than all the other manufacturers, every year from 2003 until now. But I'm sure if you keep on posting the same comment over and over, in many threads and multiple times in the same thread, Canon will just have to listen! Great strategy!! ;D

 

[unfocused]

You see birders like this on the locks of the Mississippi for Eagles. But not a lot of people have that kind of money for two setups, two very costly setups.

I am just curious, where on the Mississippi you shoot. Around here (Illinois) I haven't found a good spot where you can get close enough with a 400mm lens. Any recommendations? I'm willing to travel.

For a one all around SLR the 7d2 is just to niche, the 70D will take better portraits and landscape sadly (i compared both many times over)

I'm trying to make sense of this. What is it about the 70D that you feel makes for better portraits and landscape?

Also one thing every birder has done in the field is snap a pic of the SLR screen to share the bird they caught with friends...It may seem silly and small but it is something every birder does.

Every birder? I never have. I've never seen anyone doing so while birding in popular local spots over the years.

I'm just going to take a stab in the dark here, but generally bitter sarcasm does not foster a great deal of camaraderie.

 

[privatebydesign]

A SENSOR with less shadow noise and more DR???

Please! That's so last month. We're arguing about the size of the front elements on lenses. Try to keep up.

Only people who lack knowledge of the equation, ø=f/a, where ø= front element diameter in mm, f= focal length in mm and a= aperture in f stops (so that is none of us now), and those in denial 'argue' about front element size. For everybody else it is an entirely accepted law of optical physics.

As for the sensors, we can't argue that yet as everybody here agrees that Sony and Nikon have sensors with lower noise and more DR at low iso, all we can argue about is how useful that difference is and how much other aspects of a system make that difference important or not.

As a generalist I don't want to carry three camera systems so I choose the one that makes the best compromises for what I want to do, so far that has been Canon and I can't see that changing if the biggest 'advantage' SoNikon have over Canon is that low iso DR and noise difference.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Also one thing every birder has done in the field is snap a pic of the SLR screen to share the bird they caught with friends...It may seem silly and small but it is something every birder does.

Every birder? I never have. I've never seen anyone doing so while birding in popular local spots over the years.

I'm just going to take a stab in the dark here, but generally bitter sarcasm does not foster a great deal of camaraderie.

I'll also take a stab in the dark that sweeping generalizations aren't going to sit well with everybody...generally. Claiming a particular feature is a benefit to 'everybody' or his close cousin 'the entire world' just comes off as silly and uninformed.

 

[Don Haines]

Also one thing every birder has done in the field is snap a pic of the SLR screen to share the bird they caught with friends...It may seem silly and small but it is something every birder does.

Every birder? I never have. I've never seen anyone doing so while birding in popular local spots over the years.

I'm just going to take a stab in the dark here, but generally bitter sarcasm does not foster a great deal of camaraderie.

I'll also take a stab in the dark that sweeping generalizations aren't going to sit well with everybody...generally. Claiming a particular feature is a benefit to 'everybody' or his close cousin 'the entire world' just comes off as silly and uninformed.

I've done it.....
Spotted a strange looking bird..... took a picture of it with the DSLR, displayed the image on the rear screen, snapped a picture of it, sent it off to my friend, and asked "do you know what this bird is"....

 

[AlanF]

...Also one thing every birder has done in the field is snap a pic of the SLR screen to share the bird they caught with friends, D750 has nfc and wifi so no more of that. It may seem silly and small but it is something every birder does.

....... and the niche greatness of the 7d2 at $1400 seams silly compared to a D750 or worse yet a 70D. For a one all around SLR the 7d2 is just to niche, the 70D will take better portraits and landscape ........

Not every; I am another birder who has never, yes never, "shared a photo" in the field.

I sold my 70D when the 7DII came out. Apart from the superior frame rate and much better AF of the 7DII, it has has single-point spot AF, with a significantly smaller spot than the single-point AF of the 70D. If you are trying to focus on a small passerine in the packed branches of a tree or a small passerine against a distant but bold background, the spot AF makes all the difference to the AF locking on to the bird and not the background. The 7DII is a better camera than the 70D for birding.

 

[Alastair Norcross]

For a one all around SLR the 7d2 is just to niche, the 70D will take better portraits and landscape sadly (i compared both many times over)
This is just plain nonsense. How, exactly, will a 70D take better portraits and landscapes than a 7DII? The sensors are pretty much the same, with the 7DII having a slight edge at high ISO. If you put the same lens on the cameras, you won't be able to tell the difference in the results, except, maybe, at really high ISO, where the 7DII will be slightly better. The only difference that might, occasionally, affects your results is the better AF system of the 7DII, especially the wider spread. This actually makes it slightly easier to get good portrait results, because it's more likely that there will be a focus point where you want it, without having to recompose. Also, the lack of spot focus on the 70D can make it more difficult to get really sharp focus on an eye, when you're shooting with very shallow DOF. So, in almost all cases, the two cameras will give identical results for portraits and landscapes, and where there is a difference, the advantage is with the 7DII.

I have no idea how to make my post not show up as part of the quote I'm replying to. Sorry.

 

[bdunbar79]

Well the 7D2 has a slightly better sensor and a better AF system. Logically, it doesn't take as good of landscape and portrait shots as the 70D. You know, the same exact logic in Monty Python and The Holy Grail how they arrived at the fact that if she weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood and therefore a witch. You know.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I'm sure the 70D is much better for taking pictures of very small rocks that float.

 

[Don Haines]

Not every; I am another birder who has never, yes never, "shared a photo" in the field.

At the moment, we are having a major snowstorm, everything is shut down, police telling people to stay off the roads, etc....so I am off wandering through the local woods with my 7D and Tamron 150-600, so I thought I would share a picture

It's amazing how connected this world is now..... I can surf the web and post pictures out in the woods during a snowstorm..... Ooohhhhh... Pleated woodpecker just flew past! I wonder what is going to happen to future DSLRs for a decent WiFi interface for file transfers and remote control?