p.3 #1 · The disillusionment of the Canon Elite begins...
I'm for a pro 1.6 crop body as long as it doesn't weigh like a boat anchor
and as long as it has the ever useful and ever snobbishly derided pop-up flash.
p.3 #2 · The disillusionment of the Canon Elite begins...
I have to agree with Sam. We should see a new pro 1.6 body soon. My guess would be in 12-18 months. Since Canon has already announced that the 1.3 crop is going away, the 1D2n is the farewell model of a 1.3 By next PMA I'm hoping for the debut of the new body.
I was very doubtful until Canon intro'ed the 17-55 f/2.8 Serious glass, at a serious price deserves a serious body. As another poster in this thread observed, 16-35L has an EFS counterpart, 10-22 now, 24-70L has a 2.8 counterpart, the 17-55 f/2.8. So, if Photokina brings a 70-210L EF-S doppelganger like a 50-135 f/2.8, or a faster MrkII 10-22 it will be all but engraved in stone.
From a marketing perpective, with the great 10-22, and now the hopefully great 17-55, Canon CANNOT afford to alienate 1.6 crop users who have invested big in the EF-S lenses. Think about it, lets say you have the 20D, a rebel 300D as backup, the 10-22, the 17-55, and the *hypothetical* 50-135. You want to get a new body to replace the aging Rebel, and let the 20D do backup duty. You find that canon has gone all full frame sensors. You would be pissed yet furious. Pissed and furious people who have to start from square one with all new equipment probably won't go Canon after being burned. If Canon lost 20% of it market share to Nikon switchers over no 1.6 body they would be in the toilet having turned away the market segment that provides most of the camera division revenue.
1.6 is here to stay for a very long time. Much more than the APS 10 year mark. Come on Canon, lets get that 1.6 pro body out soon!
p.3 #3 · The disillusionment of the Canon Elite begins...
I think crop cameras exist only because full frame sensors are so expensive to build. From what I understand of creating micochips they are always getting smaller and tighter and it is a big problem to make them bigger. I think we will continue to see 1.6 crops grow in resolution over the next 5 years. While we see the Full Frames branch off in even higher resolution models that keep a super high price, and full frames with lower resolution and faster burst.
Basically it will be like it is now for a long time, just add 2 megapixels and change the model number every year.
p.3 #4 · The disillusionment of the Canon Elite begins...
darknite wrote:
I have to agree with Sam. We should see a new pro 1.6 body soon. My guess I was very doubtful until Canon intro'ed the 17-55 f/2.8 Serious glass, at a serious price deserves a serious body. As another poster in this thread observed, 16-35L has an EFS counterpart, 10-22 now, 24-70L has a 2.8 counterpart, the 17-55 f/2.8. So, if Photokina brings a 70-210L EF-S doppelganger like a 50-135 f/2.8, or a faster MrkII 10-22 it will be all but engraved in stone.
I disagree. Look at all the people with expensive glass hanging off their 300D and 350D. Canon realizes that people are willing to spend a lot of money on a "permanent" piece of hardware like a lens. The 10-22 sells for $800, and "low-end" customers snap it up. Heck, I started out JUST wanting a replacement for my Oly E-10 that also gave me 300mm. I went from a 300D, 18-55, and Sigma 70-300 to about $2300 in lenses and a 350D upgrade, and I'm considering a 100-400. And *I* am a low-end customer!
Canon has thrown up a lot of inflated prices with their recent lens offerings (70-300DO, 70-300IS, 60/2.8, 17-85, 10-22, 85/1.2 Mk2) and I believe the 17-55/2.8 is just their latest spaghetti noodle. Will people buy a $1100 EF-S lens, when Canon won't even say if they will ever produce another EF-S camera? They did with the 10-22, and Canon is hoping they will with the 17-55. I'd bet on it.
What if they ditch EF-S? They take a bit of a loss on the 17-55 (R&D not fully recouped), but make a ton of money on EF-S as a whole through repurchasing (especially from people who now consider it a permanent lens format due to the 17-55, and bought other EF-S lenses.)
Sorry, until Canon commits to EF-S like I said earlier, I'm only buying EF-S for lenses that I absolutely need, and can't get in EF. My Tokina 12-24 is the only lens I need that can't be done (well) in EF. (Although I'd jump on a lightweight EF-S 20mm-ish prime.)
p.3 #5 · The disillusionment of the Canon Elite begins...
CKrueger wrote:
when Canon won't even say if they will ever produce another EF-S camera? [...] What if they ditch EF-S? [...] Sorry, until Canon commits to EF-S like I said earlier, I'm only buying EF-S for lenses that I absolutely need, and can't get in EF.
Canon has said, in the strongest terms possible, explicitly, that it is fully committed to the EF-S line. It is not going to ditch EF-S. It has made four cameras (count 'em 4, including 30D) that use EF-S. It has six EF-S lenses, so far.
EF-S will only go away when EF goes away, and I don't expect that to happen for at least a decade.
I expect that Canon will introduce a low end low cost EF-S camera, maybe a 3000D at the Photokina in August. Just a feeling about when, but I have absolutely no doubt they will introduce one before long.
p.3 #6 · The disillusionment of the Canon Elite begins...
Do you have a link for that, Monito? Not doubting, I'm just curious to hear it from the horses' mouth.
I think you're right about the 3000D. I'm surprised they didn't already do it. The D50 is going for less than $600 WITH a crappy lens these days. The 350D is going for $800 with a lens. That's a huge difference for the entry level market. Every D50 sale is a Nikon system win. I'm amazed Canon hasn't at least offered rebates or something like that on the 300D or 350D.
Jernej: Are you planing to introduce some high end EF-S lenses in the near future?
TAKAYA: Definitely. We are always planning 5 year spans so within the next 5 years we will develop high and mid end or even some completely unique EF-S lenses. But those are based on requests of professional photographers, however at the same time DSLRS are getting more popular with non professionals, therefore we have to develop lenses for both markets. It is not a question of timing, but as a leader of professional photography industry we are always thinking of high end products and new technology.
Jernej: Right now EF-S lenses are about 30% more expensive than EF counterparts. Will it stay the same or are prices going to fall?
TAKAYA: It is a matter of cost reduction and keeping the quality level. Our first priority was to achieve best possible quality. The next step will be to keep the quality and reduce the cost and achieve a more affordable price.
p.3 #8 · The disillusionment of the Canon Elite begins...
Very interesting. Thanks, Monito.
From that it looks to me like Canon is happy with two formats, and accepts that high-end customers might want a 1.6x camera. That's encouraging. The only thing that's discouraging is that Canon didn't stick an "L" label on this lens. If I may abuse a car analogy, look at Volkswagen. They produce an Audi A4, A6, and A8. They also produce the VW Jetta and Passat. That's cool, the VW's are cheaper and not as capable (to simplify the total package). But recently VW introduced the VW Phaeton. A car with the features and price that it should have been called an Audi. VW did it to try to push the VW nameplate upmarket (and failed miserably).
Why is Canon producing a lens that matches their "luxury lineup" in every way (price included), but still not call it an "L" lens? Don't get me wrong, I'd be happy if the "L" designation went away, but I have to wonder, why did they do it? It seems to say to me "it's a nice lens, but it's not as good as our REALLY good lenses".
I really don't care how Canon markets their lenses; I'm very brand/image agnostic. But I want to make sure I don't invest in EF-S lenses only to find that in five years Canon is only making bottom-of-the-market DSLRs (ie: $500 or less, sparse features) in EF-S, and what we would call a 350D today is FF.
I doubt Canon even knows that. But I DO know that Nikon is pretty much set on 1.5x as their future format.
p.3 #9 · The disillusionment of the Canon Elite begins...
CKrueger wrote:
Very interesting. Thanks, Monito.
From that it looks to me like Canon is happy with two formats, and accepts that high-end customers might want a 1.6x camera. That's encouraging. The only thing that's discouraging is that Canon didn't stick an "L" label on this lens. If I may abuse a car analogy, look at Volkswagen. They produce an Audi A4, A6, and A8. They also produce the VW Jetta and Passat. That's cool, the VW's are cheaper and not as capable (to simplify the total package). But recently VW introduced the VW Phaeton. A car with the features and price that it should have been called an Audi. VW did it to try to push the VW nameplate upmarket (and failed miserably).
Why is Canon producing a lens that matches their "luxury lineup" in every way (price included), but still not call it an "L" lens? Don't get me wrong, I'd be happy if the "L" designation went away, but I have to wonder, why did they do it? It seems to say to me "it's a nice lens, but it's not as good as our REALLY good lenses".
I really don't care how Canon markets their lenses; I'm very brand/image agnostic. But I want to make sure I don't invest in EF-S lenses only to find that in five years Canon is only making bottom-of-the-market DSLRs (ie: $500 or less, sparse features) in EF-S, and what we would call a 350D today is FF.
I doubt Canon even knows that. But I DO know that Nikon is pretty much set on 1.5x as their future format. ...Show more →
Why does it matter if it has an L label? It would only increase the price.
p.3 #10 · The disillusionment of the Canon Elite begins...
Sam,
Interesting post. And I have a different perspective.
The crop factor is not a key driver for Canon's product road map. What I mean is that Canon gives very little importance on 1.6x, 1.3x kind of things. They have not committed to any crop factors. What drives their road map is basically the Price and the MP. In other words, their road map in next 5 years have Products milestones, which are described as, for example, "$1,000 12MP DSLR". The road map doesn't show "1.6x 12MP DSLR", to illustrate my point clearly.
What they are releasing is NOT a 1.6x camera but a $1,500 8 MP prosumer DSLR. Canon can dump 1.6x any time as it never married to it.
p.3 #11 · The disillusionment of the Canon Elite begins...
If the EF-S 17-55mm isn't worth the price then people won't buy it. If it sells well, then yes, it IS worth its cost.
Moaning about it isn't going to make Canon say "Ohhh, they're right, it is overpriced!" Why should they; they are going to sell this lens by the shed-load and they know it.
Would you sell a product for less when you know you can get big the $$$ for it? No!
p.3 #12 · The disillusionment of the Canon Elite begins...
Pondria wrote:
The crop factor is not a key driver for Canon's product road map. What I mean is that Canon gives very little importance on 1.6x, 1.3x kind of things. They have not committed to any crop factors. What drives their road map is basically the Price and the MP. In other words, their road map in next 5 years have Products milestones, which are described as, for example, "$1,000 12MP DSLR". The road map doesn't show "1.6x 12MP DSLR", to illustrate my point clearly. What they are releasing is NOT a 1.6x camera but a $1,500 8 MP prosumer DSLR. Canon can dump 1.6x any time as it never married to it....Show more →
I don't know what you are trying to get at. Full frame sensors are not 2.56 more expensive than the cropped sensors (1.6 squared = 2.56 times the area), they are more than double that again because of yield considerations. First of all, not as many sensors fit on a circular die as 2.56 smaller ones because space is wasted at the edges. Secondly, because of the larger area, there is more chance of dust and other elements making imperfections, further lowering the yield.
So, to a company like Canon, it is vitally important whether it is a full frame 8 MP DSLR or a 1.6 crop 8 MP DSLR. A 1.6 crop 8 MP DSLR can be sold at various price points from $1400 to $500, depending on auxilliary features. You can't do it with a full frame sensor. Even if full frame sensors come down in price to that of today's 1.6 crop, then the 1.6 crop sensors will come down in price just as much and their cameras will be hypercompetitive and that market segment will be very price sensitive.
p.3 #13 · The disillusionment of the Canon Elite begins...
I totally agree with Monito on this one. 1.6 is here to stay. There will always be a price advantage.
Along those same lines... The 1DsII is much less expensive than a MF back. So, I'm really interested in how Canon will postion their 35mm Full-frame cameras in order to compete with MF.
I actually think we'll see the opposite happening on the full-frame end of the lineup in about 5-10 years. Instead of smaller lenses with smaller image circles, I think we might see slightly larger 35mm lenses with larger imaging circles to help combat the vignetting and soft corners that we've seen on Full Frame.
p.3 #14 · The disillusionment of the Canon Elite begins...
Canon may very well dump 1.3 crop at any time, because there are no lens lines married to it. But Full-Frame and 1.6 crop (APS-C) are here to stay.
EF-S and EF will last as long as each other and will be replaced together, but I don't expect them to be replaced for another decade at least. I don't see any technological need to do so, barring a revolutionary change like plenoptic systems that would totally eliminate lenses as we know them.
p.3 #16 · The disillusionment of the Canon Elite begins...
Nickrh, Does full frame or even 1.6 need to compete with medium format? (not flaming, just wondering) Canon & Nikon both have a huge range of lenses from ultra wide to serious super telelphoto that MF cannot match. MF doesn't allow you to shoot fast, its not very portable compared to FF and 1.6.
Then there is the price factor. The cost of a modest MF setup (using the 39MegaPixel Hasselblad) plus a wide angle, normal and telephoto lens would set you back what, almost $40,000-$45,000?
What could you do in the current Canon line with that kinda cash? 1DsII and D30 $9500
16-35L 24-70L 0r 24-105L 70-200L IS $4500 300 2.8L $4000 600 f/4L $7000 14L $2000
total so far $26,500 that leaves $13,500 to buy RedelXTs for the whole family.
Or, if the better quality thing pops up, and you don't mind working slow, take the leftover $13,500 and buy a 4x5 sinar F2 plus lenses and outfit a 4x5 darkroom. You could even skip the darkroom if you only wanted to do chromes. Plus money left to buy a few rebel XTs for close friends and family.
I shot alot of MF and LF (film), and the way things sit today MF isn't that great of a value or advantage for me. YMMV
p.3 #18 · The disillusionment of the Canon Elite begins...
The fact that Canon just release a constant max app. f2.8 EF-S lens absolutely signals a commitement to the 1.6x crop.
What reallo POs me is that you cant mount a EF-S on all Canon cameras they left all D30, d60 and 10d owners n the dust. Nikons DX lens mount on all Nikons even on an old FM, yes it vignetes at most settings but its very very usable. The 12-24 almost covered full frame at a lot of settings.
p.3 #19 · The disillusionment of the Canon Elite begins...
Monito wrote:
Canon may very well dump 1.3 crop at any time, because there are no lens lines married to it. But Full-Frame and 1.6 crop (APS-C) are here to stay.
EF-S and EF will last as long as each other and will be replaced together, but I don't expect them to be replaced for another decade at least. I don't see any technological need to do so, barring a revolutionary change like plenoptic systems that would totally eliminate lenses as we know them.
I think Canon has already dumped the 1.3. They will either get a faster processor for capture of sensor data or give us a software selectable crop to reduce the pixels sampled to provide for the faster fps the the 1.3 provided. The 'IIN is most likely the last 1.3 sensor body they will make.
p.3 #20 · The disillusionment of the Canon Elite begins...
I guess I use competing in a very liberal sense and I don't know much about MF.
I'm just assuming that at some point the top of the line DSLR and the bottom of the line MF will collide. Maybe not in terms of variety of lenses/etc., but in terms of initial cost to buy just a body (digital back) & a single basic lens. We all know there are plenty of people who don't have enough sense to realize they're buying into a system. And the more and more people who buy into DSLRs, the more and more hobbiest that will find a desire to tinker with MF just to be different.
To put another way, in 5 years I can imagine a 25MP DSLR and a 25MP Back going for roughly the same street price. Also assuming that larger pixels will mean better DR, Less Noise, Less Diffraction, Etc. then there may be a real difference in quality of the outputs of two similar MP cameras. These same sorts of arguments come into play within the Canon lineup (1DII vs 20D) and the amount of detail captured for telephoto shots.
Sure companies like Hasselblad will always stay to the front of the curve. But Pentax is already planning a 19MP 645 dSLR that may start putting pressure on Canon's. Full Frame offerings.
