What's Next From Canon?

[Deleted member 68328]

Any chance of the 2 prosumer lenses to be a 135L IS ???
Canon has updated so many lenses over the past 3-4 years, but this one or a 105L IS is in dire need. Not that the 135mm is bad, but IS and latest AF would be a welcome addition.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I talk to many people who have switched from Canon and Nikon to Fuji, Panasonic, Sony and (rarely) Canon EF-M because they want something smaller and lighter.

No doubt. But Canon isn't losing market share, so the 'many' people you talk to aren't really relevant.

If EF mount was so fantastic the EOS-M series would have been launched with EF-S mount.

APS-C and FF MILC can have different target markets.

 

[scyrene]

The more I read about Canon and what it's up to the more I tell myself to just jump ship. Heck, I can't even remember the last time I used my Canon gear (maybe last fall?), have been shooting Sony and Fuji pretty well exclusively for awhile now. Canon really is the new Kodak. It's the big lumbering behemoth caught in a market that is changing FAST and it's oblivious to changing with it. They STILL want to protect their DSLR base when the market is SCREAMING mirrorless is what people want to buy. Sad really but at the end of the day they have no one to blame but themselves for this slow motion train wreck.

Bye then.

 

[scyrene]

You don't annoy the owners of 140.000.000 lenses without any reason,
and especially not when your former hardest competitor is forced to do
exactly that. Canon sells around 10.000.000 lenses a year. They don't
need a new mount to make people buy new lenses.

We've already heard talk that the new camera will have a new mount but that EF compatibility will be handled in an ingenious way. The idea I suggested earlier was nothing more than just putting down in words what has already been suggested.

Canon won't upset existing EF lens owners, but they also don't want to be the only manufacturer tied to a 1980s lens mount moving forwards. At the risk of upsetting existing customers they risk becoming uncompetitive when it comes to new customers.

Is the fact it was developed in the 80s relevant? Does everything have to be renewed regularly? Is it broken, and does it need fixing?

There is nothing that the EF mount can't do today. Vice versa: Since Canon designed it
with such a far reaching vision, it hasn't reached it's technical limits even remotely.

There is one thing the EF mount can't do today, and that's fit on a compact mirrorless ILC system. The competition are going small for a reason. I talk to many people who have switched from Canon and Nikon to Fuji, Panasonic, Sony and (rarely) Canon EF-M because they want something smaller and lighter.

Of course there's the occasional (usually) birder who in one breath complains that they won't buy a mirrorless because they prefer an OVF and in the next screams that Canon will be stupid for abandoning the EF mount on the mirrorless camera they won't buy.

If EF mount was so fantastic the EOS-M series would have been launched with EF-S mount.

Ah, I see. You believe almost everyone wants tiny cameras. It's pretty dismissive of what I would argue is a larger group than your caricatured confused bird photographer.

You're ignoring the rafts of stuff that have been discussed on these forums ad nauseam - that FF mirrorless can never be tiny, that FF and crop mirrorless lines don't need to follow the same model, that some people dislike tiny bodies (for various reasons), that once you add on all but a handful of lenses, FF mirrorless loses most or all its size advantage over DSLRs... But clearly you know best.

 

[BillB]

Any chance of the 2 prosumer lenses to be a 135L IS ???
Canon has updated so many lenses over the past 3-4 years, but this one or a 105L IS is in dire need. Not that the 135mm is bad, but IS and latest AF would be a welcome addition.

With the new 85f1.4L IS (and the older 100L IS macro) I don't think we will see a 105L IS any time soon.

 

[ahsanford]

You're ignoring the rafts of stuff that have been discussed on these forums ad nauseam - that FF mirrorless can never be tiny, that FF and crop mirrorless lines don't need to follow the same model, that some people dislike tiny bodies (for various reasons), that once you add on all but a handful of lenses, FF mirrorless loses most or all its size advantage over DSLRs... But clearly you know best.

But there is cache worth paying premium dollars for in small FF bodies. Canon could absolutely sell an RX1R II like fixed lens rig for $3k+. They could build a purpose-built tiny FF ILC platform with a handful of f/2.8 primes and f/5.6 zooms (not kidding) and make a killing of it. Who cares if an f/2.8 zoom or longer lens makes it too big -- there's a way to have a build a small FF construct and people will pay for that.

What melts my face in all these debates is the presumption that [it's not going to be that small in many use cases so we should never do it] and [a full EF mount? Mirrorless is all about being small!] that leads to this binary/polarized debate.

Altogether now: Canon. can. do. both.

Just don't overcommit to the new thin mount's list of lenses and they'll be poised to win both the 'keep it small' coalition and the 'keep it seamless to my SLR' coalition. EF remains the flagship setup and the new thin FF mirrorless mount tops out at 5-7 lenses and that's all ever get (other than periodic refreshes of those same 5-7 lenses).

Canon has a comically deep double digit list of active ILC product lines right now. Are 2-3 more really going to break the business?

- A

 

[neuroanatomist]

Virtually everyone is ready to buy or very interested in a new Canon FF mirrorless and what do they do? A whole bunch of nothing - just vaporware.

Thanks for your very cogent explanation of why Canon sells more full frame cameras than Sony. :

Isn't it embarrassing when reality makes you look foolish?

Do they actually? I'd like to see the stats on that. Recently, Sony was reported to be #1 in FF in China.

Yes, Sony was #1 for two months in one (large) country. Last year they were #2 for two months in another (large) country. And last year, Nikon was #1 in that latter country. For one month.

The rest of the time? Canon.

 

[neuroanatomist]

But there is cache worth paying premium dollars for in small FF bodies. Canon could absolutely sell an RX1R II like fixed lens rig for $3k+. They could build a purpose-built tiny FF ILC platform with a handful of f/2.8 primes and f/5.6 zooms (not kidding) and make a killing of it. Who cares if an f/2.8 zoom or longer lens makes it too big -- there's a way to have a build a small FF construct and people will pay for that.

What melts my face in all these debates is the presumption that [it's not going to be that small in many use cases so we should never do it] and [a full EF mount? Mirrorless is all about being small!] that leads to this binary/polarized debate.

Altogether now: Canon. can. do. both.

Just don't overcommit to the new thin mount's list of lenses and they'll be poised to win both the 'keep it small' coalition and the 'keep it seamless to my SLR' coalition. EF remains the flagship setup and the new thin FF mirrorless mount tops out at 5-7 lenses and that's all ever get (other than periodic refreshes of those same 5-7 lenses).

Canon has a comically deep double digit list of active ILC product lines right now. Are 2-3 more really going to break the business?

Damn you and your logic. If only for bringing a reasoned argument to what should be a mine is bigger than / smaller than yours debate, I hope Canon never gives you your 50/1.4 IS USM.

 

[ahsanford]

Damn you and your logic. If only for bringing a reasoned argument to what should be a mine is bigger than / smaller than yours debate, I hope Canon never gives you your 50/1.4 IS USM.

Just curious what a tiny lineup might look like if Canon went all-in there, see below on what I could cobble together at Compact Camera Meter. It's pretty damn tiny.

Left to right (I'd put in more FF pancakes but the site doesn't have that many, and I didn't want to get called out for E-Mount glass instead of FE-mount):

A7III + 24 f/2.8
A7III + 35 f/2.8
A7III + 50 f/1.8 (surely a slower pancake would be an option as well)
A7III + 28-70 f/3.5-5.6
5D4 + 24-70 f/4L IS (for scale)

And I think a 24-50 f/5.6 (or even f/6.3 if not married to Canon's EF SLR focusing mandate) would be quite tiny, say EF 35 f/2 IS USM big.

So that's Platform A (perhaps throw in a slow UWA zoom, slow 85 prime and a macro) and you call it good. You're done with new lenses with that mount -- that's all you ever get other than refreshes. Leave the exotica fast glass, FD/FX/Alpha conversion kits and other FLs/speeds that won't save you any size/weight to the third parties that are springing up every day. If you want something else from Canon, pull out the EF adaptor.

Platform B comes later, aimed squarely at the 1D/5D camp, and it packs a full EF mount.

[Wipes hands.] I think we're done here.

- A

 

[jolyonralph]

Yes, Sony was #1 for two months in one (large) country. Last year they were #2 for two months in another (large) country. And last year, Nikon was #1 in that latter country. For one month.

The rest of the time? Canon.

I've no reason to doubt you, but this is not great news if it's true - less reason for Canon to innovate.

 

[jolyonralph]

So that's Platform A (perhaps throw in a slow UWA zoom, slow 85 prime and a macro) and you call it good. You're done with new lenses with that mount -- that's all you ever get other than refreshes. Leave the exotica fast glass, FD/FX/Alpha conversion kits and other FLs/speeds that won't save you any size/weight to the third parties that are springing up every day. If you want something else from Canon, pull out the EF adaptor.

[Wipes hands.] I think we're done here.

- A

I think you're mostly right there. What I'd also like to see is an EF-M FF 70-300 DO - The DO never really was popular for many reasons on the larger bodies, but really comes into its own on the smaller body, especially with newer generation DO systems.

 

[ahsanford]

Yes, Sony was #1 for two months in one (large) country. Last year they were #2 for two months in another (large) country. And last year, Nikon was #1 in that latter country. For one month.

The rest of the time? Canon.

I've no reason to doubt you, but this is not great news if it's true - less reason for Canon to innovate.

+1. Right now it feels like Canon is competing with one hand behind its back and it is still making money.

I want Canon to get a bit bloodied financially, question itself and possibly grow as a result. Even the most dug-in Canon supporter would agree we'd all benefit if Canon offered more spec-per-dollar.

- A

 

[unfocused]

But there is cache worth paying premium dollars for in small FF bodies. Canon could absolutely sell an RX1R II like fixed lens rig for $3k+. They could build a purpose-built tiny FF ILC platform with a handful of f/2.8 primes and f/5.6 zooms (not kidding) and make a killing of it. Who cares if an f/2.8 zoom or longer lens makes it too big -- there's a way to have a build a small FF construct and people will pay for that...

...Canon has a comically deep double digit list of active ILC product lines right now. Are 2-3 more really going to break the business?

Damn you and your logic. If only for bringing a reasoned argument to what should be a mine is bigger than / smaller than yours debate, I hope Canon never gives you your 50/1.4 IS USM.

I hate to break up this lovefest, but I'm skeptical of any claim by anyone that they know what Canon could sell.

AvTvM/Fullstop takes infinite grief on this site (well-deserved by the way) for insisting that he knows the market. So really, when you say Canon could "absolutely sell" something, what is the basis of your confidence?

I have no idea what Canon (or any company) can and can't sell and, more importantly, what they can sell and make profitable. Admittedly, I am almost completely uninterested in a full-frame mirrorless camera, so all of these discussions are simply academic to me and that certainly adds to my skepticism. Still I'd like to see some solid reasoning, if not evidence, that supports your claims. Otherwise, it's no different than AvTvM/Fullstop.

 

[MTSG]

'accelerated product development cycle over the next 18-24 months'

Canon!
o, o, good morning!

have a look - the money is still in my pocket
and it is not yours!

you lost us on:
50/1.4
200-600/xx
4k/60p
are u still ok?
are u still think u no need my money on that?
are u still hv good press?

congrat! u got 3 super sensor anounced nearly 1April/Fool
do u think we will wait to get from you ANY (ANY!) dslr/mirrless gear 3-5 years ???!!!

do you know old, really OLD sentence:
-we hv money
-we hv space
-we hv...
-we hv ...
-BUT WE DON'T HAVE A TIME!

hello, waiki waiki
luckily your 4k/30-60p products are USELESS underwater, in air, in space (hv u ever been?) and in this sort i hv my gp/6h now luckily

but, when u get dressed one of yr super sensor on shelve?
when i can give u my MONEY and get it?

seems u no need my money, at all

 

[neuroanatomist]

seems u no need my money, at all

True. Since 50% of the ILC market is buying Canon cameras, they don't give a damn about you.

 

[ahsanford]

I hate to break up this lovefest, but I'm skeptical of any claim by anyone that they know what Canon could sell.

AvTvM/Fullstop takes infinite grief on this site (well-deserved by the way) for insisting that he knows the market. So really, when you say Canon could "absolutely sell" something, what is the basis of your confidence?

I have no idea what Canon (or any company) can and can't sell and, more importantly, what they can sell and make profitable. Admittedly, I am almost completely uninterested in a full-frame mirrorless camera, so all of these discussions are simply academic to me and that certainly adds to my skepticism. Still I'd like to see some solid reasoning, if not evidence, that supports your claims. Otherwise, it's no different than AvTvM/Fullstop.

Fair. I'll answer the 'could absolutely sell an RX1R II' question with a few questions in return:

• What is the price of the Nikon Df body today? $2795. The same price it was at launch, some five years ago.
  
  
• What is the price of the RX1R II today? $3298. The same price it was was when it was announced nearly 3 years ago.
  
  
• And the Leica Q? $4495. Same as launch three years ago.

I contend -- based on said evidence -- that demand is sufficiently great for luxe/fancy/style-related camera in this era of lifestyle traveling 1%-ers (with more money in their pocket than they know what to do with) that there is room for another high prestige FF offering. Such an offering is not aimed at we, the general market -- it is aimed at moneyed folks who dig the exclusivity of the tech, the simplicity and the IQ it can deliver. It does not need to offer the comprehensive value/feature-set/lens portfolio in more prizefight-like FF enthusiast/professional space -- it just needs to be cool and easy and take better pictures than their friends' cameras. Bonus points if it makes you seem richer or a tastemaker in the process.

As for the super-tiny mirrorless platform alongside an EF mirrorless platform, I said 'could'. I have no idea if it would be profitable, but it would seem practical given the ongoing fragmentation/camps within the market. That's just a working theory of mine, not a proven market strategy at all.

- A

 

[sebasan]

I think this kind of threads are released by Canon Rumors to attract all the trolls in the neighborhood and get a lot of clicks. I am not criticizing Canon Rumors, but I think there is no much information and lot of non sense in this (and similar) threads.
Greetings.

 

[BillB]

I hate to break up this lovefest, but I'm skeptical of any claim by anyone that they know what Canon could sell.

AvTvM/Fullstop takes infinite grief on this site (well-deserved by the way) for insisting that he knows the market. So really, when you say Canon could "absolutely sell" something, what is the basis of your confidence?

I have no idea what Canon (or any company) can and can't sell and, more importantly, what they can sell and make profitable. Admittedly, I am almost completely uninterested in a full-frame mirrorless camera, so all of these discussions are simply academic to me and that certainly adds to my skepticism. Still I'd like to see some solid reasoning, if not evidence, that supports your claims. Otherwise, it's no different than AvTvM/Fullstop.

Fair. I'll answer the 'could absolutely sell and RX1R II' question with a few questions in return:

• What is the price of the Nikon Df body today? $2795. The same price it was at launch, some five years ago.
  
  
• What is the price of the RX1R II today? $3298. The same price it was was when it was announced nearly 3 years ago.
  
  
• And the Leica Q? $4495. Same as launch three years ago.

I contend -- based on said evidence -- that demand is sufficiently great for luxe/fancy/style-related camera in this era of lifestyle traveling 1%-ers (with more money in their pocket than they know what to do with) that there is room for another high prestige FF offering. Such an offering is not aimed at we, the general market -- it is aimed at moneyed folks who dig the exclusivity of the tech, the simplicity and the IQ it can deliver. It does not need to offer the comprehensive value/feature-set/lens portfolio in more prizefight-like FF enthusiast/professional space -- it just needs to be cool and easy and take better pictures than their friends' cameras. Bonus points if it makes you seem richer or a tastemaker in the process.

As for the super-tiny mirrorless platform alongside an EF mirrorless platform, I said 'could'. I have no idea if it would be profitable, but it would seem practical given the ongoing fragmentation/camps within the market. That's just a working theory of mine, not a proven market strategy at all.

- A

I follow your reasoning, but I wonder how many of these cameras are being sold, and whether making money is a goal in keeping these cameras on the market in any specific way beyond pushing the brand presence.

 

[BillB]

Damn you and your logic. If only for bringing a reasoned argument to what should be a mine is bigger than / smaller than yours debate, I hope Canon never gives you your 50/1.4 IS USM.

Just curious what a tiny lineup might look like if Canon went all-in there, see below on what I could cobble together at Compact Camera Meter. It's pretty damn tiny.

Left to right (I'd put in more FF pancakes but the site doesn't have that many, and I didn't want to get called out for E-Mount glass instead of FE-mount):

A7III + 24 f/2.8
A7III + 35 f/2.8
A7III + 50 f/1.8 (surely a slower pancake would be an option as well)
A7III + 28-70 f/3.5-5.6
5D4 + 24-70 f/4L IS (for scale)

And I think a 24-50 f/5.6 (or even f/6.3 if not married to Canon's EF SLR focusing mandate) would be quite tiny, say EF 35 f/2 IS USM big.

So that's Platform A (perhaps throw in a slow UWA zoom, slow 85 prime and a macro) and you call it good. You're done with new lenses with that mount -- that's all you ever get other than refreshes. Leave the exotica fast glass, FD/FX/Alpha conversion kits and other FLs/speeds that won't save you any size/weight to the third parties that are springing up every day. If you want something else from Canon, pull out the EF adaptor.

Platform B comes later, aimed squarely at the 1D/5D camp, and it packs a full EF mount.

[Wipes hands.] I think we're done here.

- A

Maybe a slow relatively inexpensive zoom down to around 16mm, parallel to inexpensive EF-S and EF-M offerings

 

[HarryFilm]

Here's what's coming next from my MULTIPLE Euro-sources:

I have access to corporate and other intelligence systems that have been rather reliable for me in the past. I don't ask for nor discuss personal identification with my sources since they want to keep themselves anonymous, but I can say that their technical and educational credentials are at such a high-level that they CANNOT be dismissed easily! (i.e. I can't really argue with actual CPU/GPU/DSP chip designers!)

1) Canon is is coming with a short flange distance mirrorless camera.
It will look very much like the M5 and may actually be intended to replace it!
A Canon corporate decision has NOT YET BEEN MADE as to whether to sell the currently in-testing APS-C or Full Frame versions OR BOTH !!! An adapter of some kind will be made available for EITHER or BOTH cameras to allow OTHER Canon lenses to have full functionality!

2) An up-to-65mm Very Large Sensor Medium Format Camera having 50 megapixels at a greater than Sony's 20 fps burst rate has been in-the-wild-testing for almost two years at various levels of refinement.

A large-format specialty EF mount has been designed along with a decent range of lenses created to appeal to sports/action/wildlife (200mm, 400mm, 600mm) plus portraiture (16mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm and 135 primes) and ONE stabilized 70-to-200mm zoom will be introduced. One Tilt Shift and Macro lens are also on the table but I don't know what focal length they are. The lenses are so large that focus-by-wire has been implemented BUT there is STILL a MANUAL focus and iris ring on these lenses but they are TRULY drive-by-wire designs.

These new lenses will all be PREMIUM L-series being very large and heavy but WELL PRICED compared to the higher end Leica, Zeiss, Fujinon lenses. This is a system that is DESIGNED for very low-light and very low noise photography at 50 megapixels (i.e. at around 8k by 6.xx k-pixels).

From what I understand, the DSP processing onboard is 20-bits per channel digitizing down to 16-bits per colour channel at 4:4:4/4:2:2 wavelet-based stills AND 4:4:4/4:2:2 INTERFRAME and INTRAFRAME encoded full-sensor downsampled 4k video at 60 fps! The consistent story I am getting from ALL my sources is this is to be Canon's FLAGSHIP STILLS camera being faster, higher resolution, lower noise and MUCH BETTER IMAGE/VIDEO QUALITY than the 1Dx Mk2....the biggest issue is that you will be paying a pretty penny for both the camera and lenses and that Canon expects 200,000+ of them to be sold within it's first 6 months of introduction! (that seems a bit low to me), but anyways, that's still up to 3.2 BILLION EUROS if it stays at the 12000 to 16000 Euros mark for just the body that I have been told it will be sold at!

Add on the lenses and Canon could be on the mark for 5 BILLION+ Euros in just Six Months! For the 350 Million Euros of Research and Development it was estimated/rumoured to cost for this camera, I would say that is a pretty good return on investment!

3) SOME sort of agreement between Apple and Canon is on the table RIGHT NOW!!!
It might be either a joint-venture agreement OR a straight-up takeover of Canon by Apple...BUT...the rumour mill is so hot right now on this, that I am getting well- bombarded by conflicting stories as to which it is! Joint Venture or Takeover?
I can't be truly confident yet as to which it is but I will let you know!

ONE THING that is consistent though is that one or more LARGE SENSOR SMARTPHONES (one inch sensors or larger!) using Canon imaging hardware and software IS in the cards! Will it be Apple-branded or Canon-branded...WHO KNOWS ???

4) DCI 8k (8192 by 4380 pixel) 60 fps Global Shutter sensors ARE coming to the Cinema EOS line of video cameras. There absolutely WILL be Full Frame AND APS-C models! Looks like NAB 2019 is the big splash date for this!

5) And an update to making a combined stills/video XC-15-like body with an interchangeable lens system LIKELY to be introduced at Photokina. 20 megapixels+ with 1" chip and decent 4K interframe-encoded video at 60 fps. Possibly 10-bit 4:2:2.

YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST !!!!!!