I wouldn't get too wrapped up in terminology such as "prosumer," professional," and "consumer" when it comes to categorizing cameras. There are "consumers" using "professional" cameras and "professionals" using "prosumer" cameras. The verbiage is just marketing language, really.
I remember when the 5D first came out and Canon seemed to want to maintain a distinction between it (their "prosumer?" full frame camera?) and the somewhat higher MP 1-Series "s" models. They weren't successful in maintaining this concept there, at least in part because folks figured out that for much of the photography that called for FF and higher MP, the 5D worked great and was a less expensive option.
In this case, I think the poster was just recognizing that Sony's excellent A1 is marketed as their top-of-the-line "professional" (yeah, I know...) camera, while the excellent R5 is likely to be accompanied before long by an R3 and perhaps something like a fabled "R1," both of which would be positioned "higher" in the line-up.
(It is possible to regard two things as being true: the R5 is an excellent camera that works well for professional level photography, and Canon might introduce other cameras with different feature sets that are even better for certain types of professional level work than the R5.)
Dan
bobbytan wrote:
What gives you the impression that the R5 is a prosumer and not a pro camera? This is insulting to any pro who uses the R5 as their main camera. I would equate an entry-level camera to a prosumer camera.
arbitrage wrote:
Funny how the people claiming that have never even touched one of the two cameras. I'll leave it at that since I had both in my bag and shot 10,000s of images with both. People can believe what they want to justify what they bought. I'll shoot both and pick the best. I'd never spend $9K CAD on a camera that just "edges" out a camera I already owned. If that was the case I should have put that $9K towards an RF 600/4 or something.
R3 and R1 are pure speculation at this point. No one knows how they stack up (pun intended) to the A9II and A1.
If Canon wants more of my money they just need to produce that 600/4 DO....simple....they'd steal back every bird photographer that ever left to Nikon and Sony if they did so....Show more →
You like Sony. You already told us. Nothing wrong with that, per se, except among other things you keep bringing it up on the Canon board.
As far as 600/4's, I was looking at the weights on B&H, I believe, the other day. 600/4 EF III is the same as the Sony. Like 10g more both 6.7 lbs. R version slightly more 6.8 lbs. So no real weight difference. So I'm not sure why people are moving to Sony and Nikon over weight, at this point? On one hand I'd be interested in your opinion on this, but I'm not sure how it's going to go. I'm certainly not interested in getting hammered over amount spent on camera gear.
Hesitant to cosnider $6k an undercut, but it doesn't look like this has been posted on here yet. R3 sounds pretty amazing. I think Fro's video this week had similar info, still need to watch it.
AmbientMike wrote:
You like Sony. You already told us. Nothing wrong with that, per se, except among other things you keep bringing it up on the Canon board.
As far as 600/4's, I was looking at the weights on B&H, I believe, the other day. 600/4 EF III is the same as the Sony. Like 10g more both 6.7 lbs. R version slightly more 6.8 lbs. So no real weight difference. So I'm not sure why people are moving to Sony and Nikon over weight, at this point? On one hand I'd be interested in your opinion on this, but I'm not sure how it's going to go. I'm certainly not interested in getting hammered over amount spent on camera gear. ...Show more →
I don't think people moved to Sony or Nikon because of weight per se. Sony had a lighter weight 400/2.8 out a little before Canon brought there 400III out but I don't recall anyone switching because of that. People were moving to Nikon DSLRs because of AF and maybe because of PF lenses. People were moving to Sony for AF and for mirrorless features before CaNikon had their foot in the FF mirrorless market.
Canon and Sony weights for the latest 400 and 600 primes are essentially equal. I've used both and as far as I can tell IQ is a wash. TC performance is a wash. Now Nikon is still a much heavier lens (same as Canon MkII). Nikon has a new mirrorless 600/4 on their roadmap but we don't know how much it will weigh.
What I want is an even lighter lens than my Sony or the Canon and a shorter lens(yes I'm greedy). Theoretically Canon 600 f/4 DO would be that lens. We saw the EF prototype in 2015 and it was shorter than a 400/2.8. We don't know about the weight but it should be able to be lighter than the Mk III. I've lost hope that they will make it but you never know. We at least know they were thinking about it seriously 6 years ago.
arbitrage wrote:
We saw the EF prototype in 2015 and it was shorter than a 400/2.8. We don't know about the weight but it should be able to be lighter than the Mk III. I've lost hope that they will make it but you never know. We at least know they were thinking about it seriously 6 years ago.
I was still wearing diapers back in 2015 and happily clicking away with my little 70D, so I missed all the press and internet chatter when Canon teased everyone with that prototype. I've since seen images of it but does anyone know if it was a fully functional lens and not just some type of marketing mock-up? Were people allowed to at least hold it or better yet snap a few shots with it?
Just seems odd to me that they would show such a lens but then never deliver after all these years. Not that I could justify the price tag of such a dream lens but I'm just curious if it was in fact a functional lens that was shown.
arbitrage wrote:
Funny how the people claiming that have never even touched one of the two cameras.
R3 and R1 are pure speculation at this point. No one knows how they stack up (pun intended) to the A9II and A1.
I'm a firm believer that it's not necessary to have used any camera before you buy it. It's great to be able to use a camera before buying it, but if not, THAT's what professional testers are for. By professional testers I don't mean guys like Fro or Tony, I mean real testers like Bryan Carnathan.
Yes the two pie-in-the-sky Canons are just that at this point BUT judging from how good the R5 has been and that the 1Dxlll as a dslr was good enough to be beating the Sony at some of its own ML game can give us a lot of real world insight!
Sure some jump around and hurry to the next best thing, others are more patient and wait for the next big thing to come to them!
John
bobbytan wrote:
What gives you the impression that the R5 is a prosumer and not a pro camera? This is insulting to any pro who uses the R5 as their main camera. I would equate an entry-level camera to a prosumer camera.
Bobby, sorry, I take it you own a couple of R5's?! LoL
I think we photographers need to establish an antidisestablismentarianism thought process when it comes to our cameras.
We hammer into ourselves and others that the only thing that matters in photography is the nut behind the camera, think the quip, " Jeez you must have a great stove"!!
Suddenly every pro photographer is insulted because I said they don't have a great stove!?
I'll admit I've noticed the last few years that Canon has pretty much dropped the word pro/professional from all of its printed materials to describe their cameras, effectively blurring the lines of what they used to consider a professional camera.
I guess I'm a little old school in that I still consider that Canon only makes ONE pro body and currently that spot is held by the 1Dxlll!!!
John
PS, no offense meant to all those hard working pros that use the R5!
lighthound wrote:
I was still wearing diapers back in 2015 and happily clicking away with my little 70D, so I missed all the press and internet chatter when Canon teased everyone with that prototype. I've since seen images of it but does anyone know if it was a fully functional lens and not just some type of marketing mock-up? Were people allowed to at least hold it or better yet snap a few shots with it?
Just seems odd to me that they would show such a lens but then never deliver after all these years. Not that I could justify the price tag of such a dream lens but I'm just curious if it was in fact a functional lens that was shown.
There was one working prototype not in a proper final casing (see photo below) and then the final casing in the display case was actually empty of the real elements. The working prototype was only MF and did not have electronics in it. You could view it through the attached 1DX but it was only wide open at f/4 and no aperture or AF etc. So the elements were there, just not full electronics.
To my knowledge this was the only time Canon ever showed off a lens like this well before it was finalized. We never were told why the project was abandoned (assuming it was abandoned and not just postponed). I still look back at this and find it one of the oddest things Canon has ever done. Usually it would have been something I would have seen and forgot about except that it was basically my dream lens....600/4 in a compact package.
Theories I and others have had about why it never came out are that it was too difficult or innefiencet to get good yields of such. large DO element. The 600III weight saving developments (that must have been in design concurrently) were as good or close enough to make the 600DO weight savings not worth the effort. The EF design was abandoned for an RF design and will come one day.
The BR elements were actually mis-reported. There was some mixed messaging at the display. The 600/4 DO did not include BR elements.
Fun facts about the 600/4 DO....it was the first DO lens that Canon put a Red ring on and used the "L" in the name. It was going to be a serious lens....even though we all know the 400DOII was a serious lens but was denied full "L" red-ring status by Canon marketing. You can zoom in and make out the actual name of the lens on the name plate.
arbitrage wrote:
I don't think people moved to Sony or Nikon because of weight per se. Sony had a lighter weight 400/2.8 out a little before Canon brought there 400III out but I don't recall anyone switching because of that. People were moving to Nikon DSLRs because of AF and maybe because of PF lenses. People were moving to Sony for AF and for mirrorless features before CaNikon had their foot in the FF mirrorless market.
Canon and Sony weights for the latest 400 and 600 primes are essentially equal. I've used both and as far as I can tell IQ is a wash. TC performance is a wash. Now Nikon is still a much heavier lens (same as Canon MkII). Nikon has a new mirrorless 600/4 on their roadmap but we don't know how much it will weigh.
What I want is an even lighter lens than my Sony or the Canon and a shorter lens(yes I'm greedy). Theoretically Canon 600 f/4 DO would be that lens. We saw the EF prototype in 2015 and it was shorter than a 400/2.8. We don't know about the weight but it should be able to be lighter than the Mk III. I've lost hope that they will make it but you never know. We at least know they were thinking about it seriously 6 years ago....Show more →
The 400/4 DO II is listed at 4.63lbs/2.1 kg on the B&H site. I don't want to carry a 6.7 lb lens either but the 600/4 is so much larger requiring a 150mm front element vs a 100mm front element on 400/4, it seemed like the 600/4 v3 probably pretty close to the DO at 6.7 lbs. I didn't realize Canon actually came out with a prototype though. Any idea on weight or specs?
Interestingly the 400/4 adaptall-2 is listed at only about 5 lbs/2.2kg. Came out in 1988.
Kinda have to think either they couldn't get the performance where they wanted, and/or it was too expensive, otherwise they would have produced 600 DO. Seems like it'd be popular the expensive camera gear is sold out a lot of the time. You wonder what it would cost. The potentially similar 400/4 DO v1 not noted optical performance, but personally I thought the 100-400 v1 not bad at 400mm. So if it was better than that, I might be fine.
arbitrage wrote:
There was one working prototype not in a proper final casing (see photo below) and then the final casing in the display case was actually empty of the real elements. The working prototype was only MF and did not have electronics in it. You could view it through the attached 1DX but it was only wide open at f/4 and no aperture or AF etc. So the elements were there, just not full electronics.
To my knowledge this was the only time Canon ever showed off a lens like this well before it was finalized. We never were told why the project was abandoned (assuming it was abandoned and not just postponed). I still look back at this and find it one of the oddest things Canon has ever done. Usually it would have been something I would have seen and forgot about except that it was basically my dream lens....600/4 in a compact package.
Theories I and others have had about why it never came out are that it was too difficult or innefiencet to get good yields of such. large DO element. The 600III weight saving developments (that must have been in design concurrently) were as good or close enough to make the 600DO weight savings not worth the effort. The EF design was abandoned for an RF design and will come one day....Show more →
So based on the article Jesse posted, the answer is no, they never showed a fully functional 600 DO. The "touchable" mock-up wasn't fully functional nor even close to being a final design. But as you said, at least they showed evidence they were working on such a dream lens.
JohnSil wrote:
Bobby, sorry, I take it you own a couple of R5's?! LoL
I think we photographers need to establish an antidisestablismentarianism thought process when it comes to our cameras.
We hammer into ourselves and others that the only thing that matters in photography is the nut behind the camera, think the quip, " Jeez you must have a great stove"!!
Suddenly every pro photographer is insulted because I said they don't have a great stove!?
I'll admit I've noticed the last few years that Canon has pretty much dropped the word pro/professional from all of its printed materials to describe their cameras, effectively blurring the lines of what they used to consider a professional camera.
I guess I'm a little old school in that I still consider that Canon only makes ONE pro body and currently that spot is held by the 1Dxlll!!!
John
PS, no offense meant to all those hard working pros that use the R5! ...Show more →
Two points:
1) People who operate more than one brand - the netherpeople occupying the shadowlands between mount systems - are the most useful people in comparing equipment; partly because they've used the equipment in different systems, but also because they're the only ones who've shown that they're not trying to prove their own brand is the best. That's not to say you need own two brands to have valid observations and opinions, but I put a lot of weight on the assessments of wandering system users like Arbitrage.
2) The 600 DO (I've taken to calling the lens the "unicorn-sasquatch hybrid") display that Canon put on all those years ago needs to be put in the very, very odd cultural context of Canon's communications people in Japan feeling the need to burnish their image in terms of technology prowess. That whole event was billed as a tech showcase, not a set of pre-announcements. Speaking as a former ad agency guy who has had Japanese tech clients, I can say that headquarters communications efforts that take place in other countries can - and likely will - have the feel of a teen's social media feed being taken over by their grandmother for a week. The objectives of these exercises are most often to satisfy the itch of some internal corporate constituency. At the time, Canon was pretty far behind in some areas, and they had corporate intelligence that they were about to fall further behind. They're technological answer to all that was at the back end of a multi-year development journey that ended in July 2020, 5 years later. They needed to show they weren't already defeated. What does this mean for the likelihood of seeing a horned bigfoot? It means that the 2015 event should be considered simply theatrical and doesn't signify much in terms of that likelihood.
