New cameras?

Lowner wrote in post #16590363
Absolutely nothing that I wanted, that's for sure. Video, high ISO, inflated claims for DR. Yes, lots of gimmicks but nothing at all of any substance.

I would sell my soul for a modern 1Ds, with D800E beating DR, no AA filter, no video, low noise etc, etc. The 1Dx does not fit the bill for me.

Your metric for gimmic and "of any substance" might not match everyone elses.

But you missed the point: How much information have you seen earlier about what Canon have had in the pipeline, before Canon decided they were ready to release? Canon just does not like to send out much information about what they are doing before they are ready to show people real hardware.

I saw what I mentioned well before it was released, a lot of hype and overselling!

Show me a sales department that can sit on its hands when a new product is being beta tested - its impossible, they just are not wired that way. And then there are the Rumour sites also telling tales.

Lowner wrote in post #16590377
I saw what I mentioned well before it was released, a lot of hype and overselling!

Show me a sales department that can sit on its hands when a new product is being beta tested - its impossible, they just are not wired that way. And then there are the Rumour sites also telling tales.

The rumour sites exists because the Canon sales department is almost totally silent while new products are beta-tested.

To be true, over last few years (since 7D and 5D2 release) Canon has been underwhelming to say the least. The only camera that can sticks out as outstanding is 1Dx for me. 5D3 despite good AF lacks on the sensor side, 6D isn't quite up there with the sensor and it's AF is a joke IMO, 70D is kind ok but doesn't plug the hole after 7D. End the EOS M....oh please (yes I have actually tried one). Canon once again needs a camera to reclaim lost ground. Just like with 7D back in 2009. Let's hope they'll do it this year. Otherwise I'm really tempted to switch back to Pentax....for all it's good releases I can't get around Nikon's ergonomics...

pwm2 wrote in post #16590372
Your metric for gimmic and "of any substance" might not match everyone elses.
.

yap, everyone wants the same old rebel regurgitated for 4th time, no new sensor, no improvement...

nekrosoft13 wrote in post #16590610
yap, everyone wants the same old rebel regurgitated for 4th time, no new sensor, no improvement...

Not everyone needs a new sensor, because the sensor isn't a limiting factor.

In a number of situations, WIFI can be way more important than extra dynamic range.

What might not be obvious to you, is that the image quality the cameras had 5 years ago is still (and will forever) be enough for a large majority of all photography. So for lots of people, a new sensor will not represent any real substance just as it doesn't matter if their car manufacturer releases a car with a new engine generation.

pwm2 wrote in post #16590632
In a number of situations, WIFI can be way more important than extra dynamic range.

Very strange attitude.

Lowner wrote in post #16590652
Very strange attitude.

Why? Haven't you noticed that some people use the camera to take photos intended for a newspaper - where neither paper nor web have dynamic range or resolution enough to need a new sensor, but where delivery of the photos to the office is the prio 1.

I find it very strange to have an attitude that there aren't more than one way people may want/need to use their cameras.

You are putting words into my mouth. I believe that a DSLR should be capable of producing high quality still images and that if required, a lower standard could be selected. I happen to want the highest quality I can get but accept that's just me.

Lowner wrote in post #16590813
You are putting words into my mouth. I believe that a DSLR should be capable of producing high quality still images and that if required, a lower standard could be selected. I happen to want the highest quality I can get but accept that's just me.

Yes of course you want the highest quality you can get.

But lots of professional photographers do not get higher quality than they already have. But they are interested in other improvements in their camera gear.

You are just totally failing to understand that your needs are not generally applicable to all other hobbyists and professionals. So what you see as a must isn't for others. While things others see as much wanted/must isn't important to you.

Look at all people who professionally uses 1D2 or 1D3 or 1D4 cameras, while the world have seen the 1Dx. Why haven't they jumped instantly? If your view where the main view of everyone, then lots of people are strangely enough using Canon cameras that gives worse IQ than the best Canon cameras already available. So maybe, just maybe, your view is broken...

pwm2 wrote in post #16590632
Not everyone needs a new sensor, because the sensor isn't a limiting factor.

In a number of situations, WIFI can be way more important than extra dynamic range.

What might not be obvious to you, is that the image quality the cameras had 5 years ago is still (and will forever) be enough for a large majority of all photography. So for lots of people, a new sensor will not represent any real substance just as it doesn't matter if their car manufacturer releases a car with a new engine generation.

Actually, I was at a wedding in the Bahamas and the photographer had a 6D. I immediately realized that he was directly transferring them via WiFi. This allowed him to move right on to the next wedding without any downtime.

All of a sudden, WiFi went from being a cool feature, to a money maker.

The big problem is that Canon is losing the IQ game. Cool or even money-making features only get you so far. I'd be hard pressed to suggest a Canon to anyone who doesn't already own Canon glass. Maybe if a good deal popped up, but Canon isn't going to get away with charging premiums for their cameras until they play catchup.

Will a good photographer be able to get good shots with a Canon, absolutely. But, would that same photographer chose Canon if they were looking to buy a new camera. All Canon has right now are it's legacy users.

Footbag wrote in post #16591025
Will a good photographer be able to get good shots with a Canon, absolutely. But, would that same photographer chose Canon if they were looking to buy a new camera. All Canon has right now are it's legacy users.

bingo! i really want to switch, tired of waiting, how many years can you wait... but I have so much glass

nekrosoft13 wrote in post #16591067
bingo! i really want to switch, tired of waiting, how many years can you wait... but I have so much glass

But that ain't true, even if it might sound like the truth if not analyzed a bit more carefully. Canon still represents some of the best cameras in the world for most uses. The majority of users still doesn't look for more dynamic range or more resolution.

Canon is only behind for the specific group that prioritize extra MP or extra dynamic range or both. It's hard to say if that is 5% or if it's 25% of the user base. But it most definitely isn't the majority of the users.

Footbag wrote in post #16591025
All of a sudden, WiFi went from being a cool feature, to a money maker.

i also agree that wifi is a feature that can be very useful, however, how hard is it for nikon or any company to add wifi.
wifi to me is like video. i mean p&s had it forever yet dslrs didn't. i dont believe it was they couldn't more than they didn't want to. however with sensor tech i think if something is left out its cause they couldn't

I Understand pwm2 is being a bit if an antagonist, but the points are very valid and i think it is needed.

I have a 6d, ok outer points suck. Dynamic range is not that of sonikon and I do like interior and landscape, however, my canon glass is very, very good, and that means more than a sensor. My 24L makes my 60d look a hell of a lot better than the sigma that I have of same fl, despite the same sensor. So while yes there are better sensors, for me, the ergonomics, menu system, lenses etc. make up a larger part of the pie as pwm2 was saying. It isn't like I am not taking great pics with my crappy sensor, or like that is really holding back my "art".

What should be kept in mind is that with technology, the "best" when you get to the point of really good, comes at very minimal incriments of improvement for the task. The same task can be performed with really good. Look at car racing, does the technically "fastest" car win every race? There is just more to it than any one component.

I am not being a fan boy, but I chose a system, I am invested in it, and currently posses better tools for photography than famous photographers had, so at the end of the day, who bears the biggest blame for me not being a world renowned photographer, me or canon?