kewlcanon wrote:
OK I wish you good luck .

Ralph Conway wrote:
Didn´t I say I WANT?
It will not be a new 1D body, kewly. It will be something complete new. Canon is not telling "1 series" is merged and split it again half a year later. The new high MP body imo will not be a DSLR. Mirror is not needed any longer for a studio camera. They will make it a wifi controlable mirrorless "M" like body with an excellent EVF. There is a cause, why the "M" has entered the DSLR range on their webpage calling that market "digital cameras with interchangable lenses" now. The "M" surely was not this cause. It is just a nice toy (imo). It would have gone as a P&S, too.

Ralph


I do not need a camera like this.
All I wanted was just announced 10 days ago.

Take a look at the 1Ds series and the current 1DX.

skibum5 wrote:
... over the course of canon digital FF history the pure landscape people have had their needs focused on more than the generalist or action shooter...

skibum5 wrote:
OK but you have to admit over the course of canon digital FF history the pure landscape people have had their needs focused on more than the generalist or action shooter even if this one time the 5D3 didn't improve the landscape side of things much at all.

How so?

And...

Since Canon has already addressed the generalist (5DIII) the action shooter (1DX) and the entry level FF (6D), what sense does it make to come out with yet another generalist camera


And 38MP vs 46MP is hardly a HUGE sacrifice IMO even for a pure landscape shooter.

And 1fps is hardly a HUGE sacrifice IMO....


(and if the body is expected to sell to a broad range and largely please many different types it can be priced less too)

By the very nature of a camera having a lot of megapixels that means it will not please many different types.

If you want to talk about being priced less, we've already addressed that....a high megapixel camera can be priced less by not including features that are not wanted by the target audience (i.e. landscape/architecture/studio shooters don't need high fps.)

Canon should not expect to sell one specific type of camera to a broad range of photographers. Rather, it's the reverse: they should expect a broad range of cameras will each sell to specific types of photographers.

gdanmitchell wrote:
Take a look at the 1Ds series and the current 1DX.

skibum5 wrote:
... over the course of canon digital FF history the pure landscape people have had their needs focused on more than the generalist or action shooter...


of the course of history, more, almost the entire history really, until.... as you point out, now

Regarding lens resoltuion and pixel density, here is a cross post from another thread, showing how the Canon 400mm 5.6 L will look in the center with a 360 MP camera. We are well beyond the stage that 18 MP APS-C pixel density is what we can consider the highest confirmed usable pixel density.


Pentax Q 100% crop (pixel density corresponding to a 360 MP FF sensor)

artd wrote:

Canon should not expect to sell one specific type of camera to a broad range of photographers. Rather, it's the reverse: they should expect a broad range of cameras will each sell to specific types of photographers.



I agree. I wish somebody would start a new business like other PC companies out there do it for years: build your own camera depending on your need and available funds. I think this could be possible - offering a few main camera bodies, then different types of sensors with processors, different quality of viewfinder, with or w/o or limited video, a few types of AF systems to choose from, with or w/o wireless features, lens fit for a specific camera brand of your choice.

skibum5 wrote: ... over the course of canon digital FF history the pure landscape people have had their needs focused on more than the generalist or action shooter...

gdanmitchell wrote: Take a look at the 1Ds series and the current 1DX.

skibum5 wrote:of the course of history, more, almost the entire history really, until.... as you point out, now

No. Still nonsense. The 1Ds series cameras were and are the heavy duty generalist and action shooter cameras. 1Ds, 1Ds2, 1Ds3, 1D-X. Even the 5D, 5D2, and 5D3 are more "generalist" than "landscape", much loved by wedding photographers. The 6D is a generalist camera for sure. The 1Dc (cinema) is "action" for sure, not "landscape". That's 9 cameras to none.

They have not been optimized for landscape the way we are suggesting a landscape camera would be optimized:

No or very low FPS, low AF automation, substantially higher Mpx than other full-frame Canons, low or no video, etc.

somebody thoughtlessly wrote: I wish somebody would start a new business like other PC companies out there do it for years: build your own camera depending on your need and available funds. I think this could be possible - offering a few main camera bodies, then different types of sensors with processors, different quality of viewfinder, with or w/o or limited video, a few types of AF systems to choose from, with or w/o wireless features, lens fit for a specific camera brand of your choice.

Gak. The amount of ridiculous impractical unreasonable nonsensical wishful thinking that goes on here, totally divorced from reality.

PCs are not cameras.

PCs: don't have to be miniaturized, don't have to be robust, don't have critical mechanical components occupying large percentage of volume, have lots of empty space, exist in the context of a very much larger commodity-like industry, ...

DSLRs are not commoditized like PCs for similar reasons why smartphones are not commoditized like PCs.

On top of that, few people actually buy those build-it-yourself computer boxes these days, anyway. There is a reason why companies emulate, more and more, the roughly closed designs of laptops and similar and area moving more towards things like tablets.

The only place I know where you can sort of engage in this kind of build-your-own camera design to some extent is with some medium format systems where you can switch in and out a variety of backs. However, most photographers would not be very happy with the way you have to run those cameras, especially by comparison to the highly integrated systems we are used to now with our DSLRs.

With the very tight integration of the DSLR camera systems - which is nothing at all like the way film worked - you would have to give up a lot to have a removable sensor, etc in your DSLR. On top of that, the darned thing would end up being even bigger. And it would only sell to a very small subset of the market.

Fortunately there is an easy solution. First, hang onto your camera until you really need to replace it. It is entirely unnecessary to buy each new camera body upgrade. The differences are real, but they are also typically not that significant to your photographic results. Skip an upgrade or two before buying again. And when you do buy a new camera, hang onto the most recent older body as a backup and second camera. Sell your oldest body or give it to some deserving kid or family member... ;-)

Dan

Monito wrote:
somebody thoughtlessly wrote: I wish somebody would start a new business like other PC companies out there do it for years: build your own camera depending on your need and available funds. I think this could be possible - offering a few main camera bodies, then different types of sensors with processors, different quality of viewfinder, with or w/o or limited video, a few types of AF systems to choose from, with or w/o wireless features, lens fit for a specific camera brand of your choice.

Gak. The amount of ridiculous impractical unreasonable nonsensical wishful thinking that goes on here, totally divorced from reality.

PCs are not cameras.

PCs: don't have to be miniaturized, don't have to be robust, don't have critical mechanical components occupying large percentage of volume, have lots of empty space, exist in the context of a very much larger commodity-like industry, ...

DSLRs are not commoditized like PCs for similar reasons why smartphones are not commoditized like PCs.

Hi,

gdanmitchell wrote:

Fortunately there is an easy solution. First, hang onto your camera until you really need to replace it. And when you do buy a new camera, hang onto the most recent older body as a backup and second camera. Sell your oldest body or give it to some deserving kid or family member... ;-)Dan



+1000...

Edd

gdanmitchell wrote:
On top of that, few people actually buy those build-it-yourself computer boxes these days, anyway. There is a reason why companies emulate, more and more, the roughly closed designs of laptops and similar and area moving more towards things like tablets.

The only place I know where you can sort of engage in this kind of build-your-own camera design to some extent is with some medium format systems where you can switch in and out a variety of backs. However, most photographers would not be very happy with the way you have to run those cameras, especially by comparison to the highly integrated systems we are used to now with our DSLRs.

With the very tight integration of the DSLR camera systems - which is nothing at all like the way film worked - you would have to give up a lot to have a removable sensor, etc in your DSLR. On top of that, the darned thing would end up being even bigger. And it would only sell to a very small subset of the market.

Fortunately there is an easy solution. First, hang onto your camera until you really need to replace it. It is entirely unnecessary to buy each new camera body upgrade. The differences are real, but they are also typically not that significant to your photographic results. Skip an upgrade or two before buying again. And when you do buy a new camera, hang onto the most recent older body as a backup and second camera. Sell your oldest body or give it to some deserving kid or family member... ;-)

Dan

Monito wrote:
somebody thoughtlessly wrote: I wish somebody would start a new business like other PC companies out there do it for years: build your own camera depending on your need and available funds. I think this could be possible - offering a few main camera bodies, then different types of sensors with processors, different quality of viewfinder, with or w/o or limited video, a few types of AF systems to choose from, with or w/o wireless features, lens fit for a specific camera brand of your choice.

Gak. The amount of ridiculous impractical unreasonable nonsensical wishful thinking that goes on here, totally divorced from reality.

PCs are not cameras.

PCs: don't have to be miniaturized, don't have to be robust, don't have critical mechanical components occupying large percentage of volume, have lots of empty space, exist in the context of a very much larger commodity-like industry, ...

DSLRs are not commoditized like PCs for similar reasons why smartphones are not commoditized like PCs.


Hmmm, really? I built my PC myself out of single components. In the end I have a top end of the line PC for half the amount of money which I would have needed to pay for a pre-made similar PC.

The main problem I see why this might never happen with cameras is patent infringement. Likely Canon, Nikon, and others patented their cameras very well that it might get very difficult for someone else to use a blank camera body, add similar features as demanded by the customer and sell it with the lens fit.

I don't understand why the camera has to become bigger if made out of single components.

Monito, your points are not valid at all, good post to ignore like most of yours.

retrofocus wrote: Monito, your points are not valid at all, good post to ignore like most of yours.


They stand up just fine. They are true and pertinent. They show why your build-it or configure-it camera system is not offered.

I assembled this 6-core, 16 GB, 2.7 TB computer myself, so yes, I know the custom PC aspect as well.

Monito wrote:PCs: don't have to be miniaturized, don't have to be robust, don't have critical mechanical components occupying large percentage of volume, have lots of empty space, exist in the context of a very much larger commodity-like industry, ...

DSLRs are not commoditized like PCs for similar reasons why smartphones are not commoditized like PCs.

You can't refute them and you can't make an argument for why they are not valid, but you assert it anyway.

Rational people in this thread agree with the points I made.

To insert my uninformed opinion in the matter, I don't hear about a whole lot of folks building laptops from scratch like we used to with the chunky PCs. Monito likely has a point in that the smaller devices get, the more difficult it will be to build it as a consumer or hobbyist without big precise machinery. If this added nothing to the debate, apologies.

zquaratella wrote:
To insert my uninformed opinion in the matter, I don't hear about a whole lot of folks building laptops from scratch like we used to with the chunky PCs. Monito likely has a point in that the smaller devices get, the more difficult it will be to build it as a consumer or hobbyist without big precise machinery. If this added nothing to the debate, apologies.

I am pretty sure I am much more uninformed than you are.
To add some more stupid thoughts: A couple of years ago (about 20 when I have been the product manager for grafphic/video apps with Amiga computer of Commodore germany) we used to set up our PCs ourselfs. There was nothing you could not do if you owned a soldering gun. 16-20 years old boys knew better than production companies to create new better, faster, cheaper stuff that was working more reliable, too. Some people still believe it is ths way and new companies like "red" seem to prove that idea. Me as an old stupid guy decided about 15 years ago for myself that those times have gone.
A soldering gun is a worse wrecking ball in smd times.

One year ago I asked myself (and Sony) if why they do not sell the 13 inch screen in HD resolution that was offered in the "Z" series. All components I wished made a 8000 € labtop. This year they offer something that fits my needs much better with an 11 inch HD res screen for about € 1200-1400 (depending on cpu speed, ram and HD/SSD volume).

I like the idea to set up my own camera from components. And I am pretty sure I will do as soon any company offers an affordable system and those components. As long this is not the case I purchase the camera body next to the features I want/need. I am not in the gear creating business any more but in the business of creating something using gear.

Ralph

Ralph Conway wrote:
I like the idea to set up my own camera from components. And I am pretty sure I will do as soon any company offers an affordable system and those components. As long this is not the case I purchase the camera body next to the features I want/need. I am not in the gear creating business any more but in the business of creating something using gear.
Ralph


Well, Ralph....I can see from some of the other reactions above that some just never will be able to become another sort of Steve Jobs - trying something new and try unridden paths. With this attitude above we woudn't have an iPhone for example. Yes, building a camera from optional components might be hurdlesome in some points (as I said before, the patent infringement could be one of them) but certainly not impossible as idea. The size of the device doesn't matter - it is all about cost. Nobody builds custom-made notebooks since the price for those devices has come down a lot, and the savings to build your own laptop would be often minimal compared to the normally sold devices. But if the profit margin of a sold new full frame camera body for example is so high as with current prices, it might be a good savings to build your own body from components if this service would be offered.

There's a difference in modular camera like RED and building a camera from components like you do with PC.

With PC, each component is made by many competing manufacturers, which is why they're cheap and saves you money.

Those components are also made to an international standard like PCI-E, SATA, etc. to communicate with each other. There's no such international standard in camera components except the connections from the camera to an external device.

Then there's the high precision components like the mirror box and shutter. They're also a moving component.

Sorry retrofocus, it's not impossible but it might as well be. For it to work, you do need a modular design like the RED camera then you need standardised connections between components. For now, it's not like trying to build a PC yourself, it's more like trying to build the hard disk drive yourself.

Even when you can build such camera, not everyone will like it. Look at how many people use a Mac, and they even try to argue that it's actually just as cheap, if not cheaper, to use a Mac.

Wow this thread has gone to the dogs. I know I can be a grumpy bastard at times, but some of us around here are in a permanent state of grumpiness

retrofocus wrote:
Hmmm, really? I built my PC myself out of single components. In the end I have a top end of the line PC for half the amount of money which I would have needed to pay for a pre-made similar PC.

Not everyone finds computer construction to be an entertaining pastime, so there is value in not having to spend time building a machine. I might have done that back in the day, but today I'd rather just use the computer and minimize the need to tinker. YMMV.

Monito, your points are not valid at all, good post to ignore like most of yours.

Classy. Not.

Not about your post, but my favorite new forumtography term has to be "hurdlesome." ;-)

Dan

n0b0 wrote:
There's no such international standard in camera components except the connections from the camera to an external device.

Okay - even better, create your own standard how to put the parts together! You even avoid the patent infringement in such case. Sorry, but so far nobody could give me fact-based reasons why someone couldn't try to develop a modular DSLR system - given that this would need experience in this technology. I also don't mean that the customer needs to build it him/herself, but more that a company offers to stack given modules together depending on the performance need of the customer. I am pretty certain that this would be a successful idea as long as there is an advantage for the consumer to buy such a modular built camera (like cost and better fit for the need, also better lens compatibility to established lens manufacturers for example).
Realistically this won't happen soon. The camera market is not going well, profits are down quite a bit, so it would be very hurdlesome for someone to even start with such new business.

Because camera manufacturers makes more money building a whole camera and update it incrementally, just like Apple does.

Then there's also the issue of compatibility with the software. 3rd party lens is a good if somewhat basic example of modularity. They don't AF as fast, accurate and reliable as OEM lenses.

To be honest with you, I think PC modularity came from the nerds who modded their machine, then a whole market opened up because of it. It's the same with cars and aftermarket parts. So if you want the same thing with dslr, people will need to start modding their cameras in big numbers.