Add new comment

I''m sorry, I really can't tell if you were being sarcastic or not, but either way, I think Canon is making one bad move after another regarding their DSLR line and lenses.
I know this is completely unrelated, but that is for me, pretty much how Apple and Nintendo, two companies that were praised for innovation and for "changing the game" in so many aspects in their markets (and I was, until recent years, a long time fan and supporter of both companies) that seems got THEIR game pretty much figured and are stuck on stubborn design and marketing decisions to keep the status quo instead of being the true pioneers they are - or once were.

A company often have it's "soul" or "character" and is known for certain aspects. That shouldn't change, as this is what creates their identity and in a world where pretty much EVERYTHING on the user-end, consumer side is a commodity, that's what creates identification and sympathy for one brand over the other. But companies should also look forward to give their consumers what they want and what they need in balance with what said company THINK or supposes their installed base of clients want/need.

Just to illustrate how Canon is lagging on the game, the mirrorless systems like the Nex series or the M4/3 format are getting more popular every day. For the consumer and prosumer markets they're good enough of an alternative to huge, bulky, complicated DSLRs with a relatively acceptable trade off in image quality (TBH, i don't think most consumers or prosumers would even notice the difference in IQ). Even for some pros they're are becoming good alternatives for backup cameras, lighter setups and even lower budget alternatives (well in some cases).

Canon's response to that constantly growing market was... the EOS-M. ONE camera and a couple of lenses (sure, you could use all existing EF lenses, but that's not the point).

On the other hand, on the "true" pro side, the 5DIII, albeit a beast of a camera, is lacking in features compared to the D800 from Nikon. It doesn't matter which is the "best" camera, as that is not based on specs only but real world performance and usability. They realized how lacking their product was compared to its main contender they had to release a firmware update allowing clean uncompressed HDMI output on the 5D. Which means the camera was already ABLE to do it when it was launched...

Sigma just recently launched it's 18-35mm F1.8. In theory sounds an awesome lens. In the real world, the feedbacks are that these lenses are impressively good. And they have a more than reasonable price tag. THAT IS AWESOME. That is ground breaking. And that is coming from a company that for a long time had a reputation of being the manufacturer of cheap, dubious quality "off-brand" lenses. Now they got their own game.

I could even go on about the likes of Tamrom and Tokina as well, and how the 3 of them are offering excellent alternatives to the "brand" lenses, with a very good quality at a fraction of the price of an equivalent glass from the big boys. They're stepping up the game, although in some cases we could say they're changing the game as well. And on the extreme opposite to that, there are the likes of Rokinon and Samyang who are offering really cheap lenses that are good enough for most people. So the whole "get the brand stuff" mentality is slowly fading as the consumers realize there are A) Better alternatives or solutions from 3rd parties that fill a gap the main brands are not covering; B) There are reliable and "quality comparable" alternatives from these 3rd parties that are AS GOOD as the big brands for much less than what a "official" product costs; C) There are fairly good alternatives with significant less features on the specs sheet but with good IQ and a truly affordable price range (no AF, no IS/OS/VC/VR, full manual lenses). So in the end what's really important is not specs, feature, build quality/durability, image quality or price alone, but the combination of all this, which is perceived as VALUE.

I like Canon, I always have, but it seems they're not trying hard enough. Right now they're relying on a 4 year old technology for their sensors while everybody else is upping their hands. They'll either have to bring some true innovation back or be more consistent with what the market is offering.

The only reason my equipment is still Canon based is because I have invested a lot on it and most of my friends and fellow photographers and videomakers use Canon as well, so it's easier to trade/lend/borrow/buy/sell or even get real opinions about specific equipment.

I think most people using Canon for a long time think like that as well.

I shoot videos and I think the only reason Canon DSLRs are still a relevant player in that area is because of the community behind it. To be fairly honest, Magic Lantern is doing more for Canon (keeping it relevant) and for Canon users (making their equipment relevant and offering some value to it) more than Canon is doing itself. And the guys at ML rely on hard-work, community feedback and support and some donations... they're not behind a giant company with hi-end resources, labs, engineers, designers and a big wallet funding it. And that is a real shame for Canon.