sploo wrote in post #17517855
I don't disagree with anything you've said above, but as you've pointed out - just about everyone else is miles ahead of Canon when it comes to low ISO DR. As such, that "niche" is pretty much now a baseline requirement, given the standard of the competition.
I'd argue that AF at f/8 and clean output over HDMI are also pretty niche (the 5D3 shipped with neither). IRC the D800 did, and Canon added them with firmware updates later. I often get the feeling that Canon deliberately leave out features from a body in order to try to differentiate models, whereas Nikon puts as much as they can into a body and still make a profit. In that particular instance I do wonder if Canon would have added the f/8 and HDMI features if it weren't for the fact they were present on the equivalent Nikon.
Obviously you can't just enable high DR with a firmware upgrade, but I'm certainly hoping that as soon as Canon had a hardware DR solution they'd try to get it on all new bodies.
From what we've learned so far though, that, granted, does appear to leave the 5Ds looking a bit uncomfortable. Given that it's based on a "dated" bodyshell (5D3, vs the newer features of the 7D2) it might indicate it's been in the works for some time, and is therefore not the very latest tech they have.
Nikon, Fujifilm, Pentax, Sony you name it will put in more features because they're not market leaders and have to compete with the behemoth that Canon is. They'll take fiscal risks and add more expensive features, and all Canon has to do is react to them just enough to maximize profit while minimizing pouring too much out of their R&D fund to minimize cost. In other words, the other camera companies are forced to innovate to even survive, while Canon can be more conservative because they have that actual cushion and think out their marketing and product segmentation and naming schemes, etc. Think Cinema EOS vs EOS and xD, xxD, xxxD lineup vs Nikon's lineup which was everywhere until a few years ago. Their current lineup is still a little confusing unless you're up to date with their literature and are a professional or advanced amateur or geek. Also, Canon has invested wisely into other product sectors like surveillance imaging for corporate sector, medical imaging, etc, so they're not at a do or die state all the time like the smaller imaging companies. They do however take serious feedback seriously. Whether they consider LOW-ISO DR as a serious deficiency remains to be seen, but on a 1DX that's been bred for iso 51200, I don't think it is. On a 5DS or 5DIV or 1DXII, it'd be nice to have. The only reason low-ISO is a baseline now is because almost everyone uses Sony sensors now. Canon continues to use their own sensor lineup because of the cost they've poured into setting up their own fabrication, for competitive independence, and for different priorities (skin tone accuracy, high ISO noise and saturation and color accuracy at high ISO, etc), some of which are very different from the Sony mirrorless crowd. Different folks, different strokes.