Predictions on What to Expect From Canon in 2016

[nvsravank]

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.

Type above the first quote line or below the last quote line, then you will be fine.

 

[unfocused]

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

Some simple HTML will do it.

When you reply, it automatically puts the name of the quote author, a link to the topic and message and a date within an HTML tag that is enclosed within a pair of brackets "[" and "]" and then uses an end closing HTML tag to end the quote and start your comment. That will be an opening bracket "[" followed by a "/" the word "quote" and a closing bracket "]"

Basically, all your post was missing was the ending HTML tag [ / quote ] which needed to be added at the end of RickWaggoner's quote. It looks like, instead, it got moved to the end of your comment, which makes it appear as though your comment is part of RickWaggoner's quote.

It gets a bit more complicated if you start pulling multiple quotes from posts, but basically, just remember that every opening tag [ quote ] needs to be paired with a closing tag [ / quote ]

Note, I added spaces and quotation marks in order to keep the editor from turning my code into quotes. You need to skip the spaces and quotation marks.

 

[AlanF]

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

Alastair, just make sure you leave the quote between the two quote commands as I have done in this screen shot.

 

[unfocused]

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?

Pileated woodpecker! My wife would be so jealous. Although that one looks like it is wearing a female cardinal disguise.

 

[Luds34]

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?

possibly... but I'd argue doubtful considering these companies have been around for years selling product on the low end of the market.

Maybe they moved into the higher end market to expand/grow the business?

Realistically, the low end product of their business was stable and supported them to pursue the high end market, to take that risk. I mean, after all, how many times can the engineering team redesign the 17-50 crop zoom or 90mm macro lens?

 

[AlanF]

There's an old rule in economics that first you capture the mass market and then you take over the high end market. The Swiss did it with watches - the Brits made the best in the world (apart from Breguet) in the 19th C and used the Swiss as cheap labour. The Swiss still dominate the market because those with money are lured by top quality and others by the cheap Swatch etc in the mass market. The Japanese did it with just about everything else. Canon, like the Swiss, keeps going with top quality at the high end and by being competitive in the mass market. I have bought my wife a pair of Swarovski binoculars at a ridiculous price, but they are so damn good and you get a lifetime's free service that they are just worth it. The optically excellent Hawke's I bought her 3 years ago are already becoming sloppy.

 

[unfocused]

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?

possibly... but I'd argue doubtful considering these companies have been around for years selling product on the low end of the market.

Maybe they moved into the higher end market to expand/grow the business?

Realistically, the low end product of their business was stable and supported them to pursue the high end market, to take that risk. I mean, after all, how many times can the engineering team redesign the 17-50 crop zoom or 90mm macro lens?

This is happening across the entire market and all manufacturers including Canon.

The point and shoot market has collapsed. (I would argue that Canon, Nikon and Sony all share more than a little blame for failing to comprehend the importance of connectivity in the internet age, but that's a discussion for another day.)

The entry-level DSLR market has stagnated (The cheapest DLSRs today are so good that few customers feel compelled to replace them. Note the ongoing popularity of the five year old T3i. In addition, cell phone cameras have improved to the point where customers that were previously good prospects for entry-level DSLRs are instead just upgrading their camera phones)

The professional market is contracting. This is most evident in photojournalism where the consolidation of media and cost cutting have been devastating to staff photographers. But, it is true in other professional markets as well. Wedding and event photographers are subject to heavy competition from new entrants, creating a lot of churn in the market but not much growth.

That leaves only the enthusiast market for growth. And, within the enthusiast market the competition is for the advanced amateurs who have lots of discretionary income to spend on their hobbies. (The majority of people on this forum -- which also greatly skews the perceptions of anyone reading this forum)

So, it's hardly surprising that Sigma, Tamron and Tokina want a piece of that enthusiast market and are upgrading their product lines accordingly.

Ultimately, that's what a lot of the debate over the past dozen or so pages has been about: Does Canon feel the need to be more aggressive in their pursuit of this highly lucrative market as they face new challenges from third party manufacturers? Some people say "no." Some people say "yes." I'm a "maybe," leaning toward "yes."

Obviously it's in our best interests as consumers if the answer is "yes."

 

[scyrene]

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.

Um... what? I'd say passerines are especially hard to get close to. They are also, on average, much smaller than other groups - raptors, owls, waterfowl, gulls, waders, and many are quite drab, especially from a distance. And considering they make up approximately 50% of bird species, they are underrepresented in bird photography, I would say. People love eagles and hawks, and ducks and gulls are more obvious and commonly less skittish.

 

[scyrene]

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...

Well it's an established practice from what I've seen of the British birding community on Twitter - especially with rarities. It's a 'back of camera shot' or BOC - common enough to have an understood acronym. Not done it myself. Usually it seems to be when someone has got the shots they want, but hasn't yet processed or uploaded - especially if time is critical (getting the word out of a new rare sighting) or if they are away from their computer. But this is done by photographing the screen with a phone and uploading the phone pic - the camera needn't have any connectivity itself.

 

[AlanF]

They are twitchers who have migrated to Twitter.

 

[PureClassA]

While Don was texting a picture of this:

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?

He Missed the shot of THIS:

 

[Luds34]

Ultimately, that's what a lot of the debate over the past dozen or so pages has been about: Does Canon feel the need to be more aggressive in their pursuit of this highly lucrative market as they face new challenges from third party manufacturers? Some people say "no." Some people say "yes." I'm a "maybe," leaning toward "yes."

I think I too would lean towards "yes" that Canon should be more aggressive in pursuing this market. And this isn't just lens design and the Sigma/Tamron 150-600 debate that went on for pages. I think more importantly they need to have a competitive mirrorless option. This "in between" M line is not terribly attractive or competitive to any enthusiast consumer. Either be competitive, or stay out of that market segment. Instead they've chosen the worst path, investing time, energy, money, and resources into a line that just isn't that good.

Furthermore I get Canon is doing well market wise, financially in regards to it's competition. However, that does not mean their strategy is necessarily sound (For the record I'm not arguing either way). Market dominance and momentum alone would keep Canon doing well for a good few years even with quite poor execution. We all here know the switching costs. And Canon execs know this. So I know they are not sitting complacent on market share numbers alone.

It comes down to what is considered competitive is highly subjective. The mythical 200-600 rumor that was debated, I heard some say this would be one of the big great whites and cost north of $6k. While others who felt it could be a nice L lens in the $2.5k to $3k range. Or even a more consumer base lens near the same price as the Tamron and Sigma C.

My humble 2 cents is that I see no need for this lens. One, again highly subjective, but I'd argue the 100-400 II already competes with the 150-600 lenses, especially with the 1.4x teleconverter. Sure the lens is more expensive, but Canon enjoys that luxury as their product is better. Premium product equals premium price. As for this lens being an expensive, super tele? There is not much of a market there and Canon already has that covered by the most awesome (I will never own) 200-400 f/4L.

One can debate the same with the Sigma 35 Art vs the Canon 35mm L. Canon has the better product so it commands the better price.

But coming full circle to me agreeing that Canon could/should be more competitive... I'd argue they might be trying to command too premium of a price and could do better by bringing their prices more in line, aka knock $200 off of their new 35 and 100-400. But once again, they are pretty smart so I'm sure someone has run the numbers and determined that the lower margins wouldn't make up for the increased sales or something.

 

[Don Haines]

While Don was texting a picture of this:

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?

He Missed the shot of THIS:

I was holding my phone at the time, tried to take a picture, but it would not lock on a white unicorn in a snowstorm......... and it missed the shot of bigfoot too......... stupid G@#$%@!@M apple camera!

 

[Don Haines]

OK, time to be serious again....

What would I really like to see in Canon DSLRs? A good touchscreen interface tightly coupled with a WiFi interface and a decent phone/tablet/ipad app that would allow you to do everything on your mobile device that you can do on the built-in touchscreen interface PLUS control the various buttons and knobs.

That would be fantastic for remote shooting. I can do it on my GoPro..... I can do it on my P/S camera.... why not my expensive DSLR?

 

[privatebydesign]

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.

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

Clearly you don't own one, at f5.6 it out resolves the 100 L Macro. For under $300 it has to be one of the best 'normal' lenses out there.

Well maybe I've just got a bad copy but my EF 50/1.4 produces terrible IQ when compared to modern lenses. I just don't use it any more - won't even pack it.

What apertures, compared to what? Like I said, at f5.6 compared to the 100L Macro the 50 is very good and that isn't just my copies.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=115&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=6&LensComp=674&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

 

[PureClassA]

Simple. I never said what you said I said. What I said was that WERE Canon to make a comparable lens to a third party in IQ, focal length, aperture, and PRICE.... There would be little reason to purchase third party. Yes, I own Sigmas and formerly Tamrons (and other sigmas) as there are NO comparable Canon options in their same price range. Currently I own a Sigma 50 and 35 ART. The similar grade Canon L options are considerably more expensive. The new Canon 35L II is comparable to the Sigma ART as will be the new 50L II when it comes out. Were Canon to produce these new lenses in the same price range as the Sigmas, there would be little to no reason to buy the Sigmas because the trade off between price and AF performance would be moot. I bought the Sigmas because they perform excellently in IQ but I knowingly tradeoff (in lower price) with a lag behind Canon in AF performance accuracy. You follow now?

...
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.
...

There's a great article somewhere on what the +/- 20 really means. In short, all cameras and lenses are made within a range of tolerance and the AFMA tries to align camera plus lens when the manufacturing errors are detectable by the end user. The unfortunate part is that this means if a body is at -15 and a lens is at -8 then the required adjustment of +23 is not available (I think this is the right way to do the math, not sure.) In summary, whenever an AFMA adjustment cannot deliver sharp results then it is likely that the body needs to be fixed too - even if other lenses are adjusted correctly.

But that's not the problem I have with your post...

After saying that Sigma/Tamron don't make comparable lenses to Canon and we should therefore not buy them, you talk about your experiences of having bought multiple lenses from Sigma/Tamron. So either your actions are not aligned with your preaching or you're just making it all up.

What's more you've totally missed the point of what warranty means.

Warranty means that in 3 years when I need to get my Sigma/Tamron lens serviced I send it off to them and they do it for free. Canon's 1 year warranty means that at the 3 year mark there is no free servicing of that lens.

 

[privatebydesign]

Warranty means that in 3 years when I need to get my Sigma/Tamron lens serviced I send it off to them and they do it for free. Canon's 1 year warranty means that at the 3 year mark there is no free servicing of that lens.

It also means that after three years they can wash their hands of the lens, and their customer. Just ask all the people who were left with Sigma paperweights when their EOS AF protocols broke, what did Sigma do then? They washed their hands of the problem after rechipping the lenses they decided they wanted to and left everybody else with unusable lenses. I personally know one guy who lost the ability to use all seven of his lenses on his new camera.

 

[neuroanatomist]

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.

What's more you've totally missed the point of what warranty means.

Warranty means that in 3 years when I need to get my Sigma/Tamron lens serviced I send it off to them and they do it for free. Canon's 1 year warranty means that at the 3 year mark there is no free servicing of that lens.

What's more you've totally missed the point of what service turnaround means.

A free warranty service or a paid post-warranty service that means a lens is gone for weeks is unacceptable for many customers.

Simple. I never said what you said I said.

You follow now?

You can lead a horse to water, but that won't improve the horse's reading comprehension skills.

 

[privatebydesign]

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.

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

Clearly you don't own one, at f5.6 it out resolves the 100 L Macro. For under $300 it has to be one of the best 'normal' lenses out there.

Well maybe I've just got a bad copy but my EF 50/1.4 produces terrible IQ when compared to modern lenses. I just don't use it any more - won't even pack it.

What apertures, compared to what? Like I said, at f5.6 compared to the 100L Macro the 50 is very good and that isn't just my copies.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=115&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=6&LensComp=674&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

I bought the 50/1.4 to use wide open (f-stop usually lower than 2.8 ) ... if I want to shoot at 50/5.6, there are any number of zooms that I can use instead And I did use it wide open with film and it was great because I never printed anything larger than 6"x4". It's a bit different with digital.

Funnily enough, I didn't, but I am happy to, none of your zooms cost $300 and weigh next to nothing though!

I doubt if you print much now either, just look at your images on your 24-27 inch screen.

I am very happy with my 50 f1.4, the focus is fast, consistent and very accurate, sharpness is good 1.4-2 and better as you close down. Mine is over ten years old and has never had an issue despite the fact that is has lived alongside various L lenses that have all broken. Best $300 lens I ever bought, indeed the only other sub $1,000 lens I give a damn about is the 15mm f2.8 fisheye which is a superb lens.

 

[privatebydesign]

Warranty means that in 3 years when I need to get my Sigma/Tamron lens serviced I send it off to them and they do it for free. Canon's 1 year warranty means that at the 3 year mark there is no free servicing of that lens.

It also means that after three years they can wash their hands of the lens, and their customer. Just ask all the people who were left with Sigma paperweights when their EOS AF protocols broke, what did Sigma do then? They washed their hands of the problem after rechipping the lenses they decided they wanted to and left everybody else with unusable lenses. I personally know one guy who lost the ability to use all seven of his lenses on his new camera.

Ouch, that's nasty but with the USB dock option and the ability to update lens firmware, it would seem that Sigma learnt from that experience.

How do you weigh the situation up:
- free warranty service for 3-5 years that may take 2-3 weeks
- free warranty service for 1 year that turns around a lens in a week but for years 2-5 is paid for

Clearly if you're a pro then things like membership for CPS helps keep in earning money, but if you're not a pro, what's more important? Shorter turn around time or longer free warranty service? I can see people being divided on that.

If the chip can take the firmware, if the chip can't and the lens needs a new one, as happened, then you are screwed just like all those early digital users were............