What products would you launch if you were Canon?

Started Sep 15, 2010 | Discussions
RR6 Junior Member • Posts: 41
What products would you launch if you were Canon?

I find all home videos so bad, I would not bother putting video on a DSLR. This is usually due to the bad sound quality (how many people use decent separate microphones), normal users do not have a steady-cam and the subjects usually don't know what to do and just wave at the camera. If you want to produce a naff video, you might as well purchase a purpose made video camera or a compact camera.

In terms of what I would launch...

I would replace the new 60D asap with a cut down version of 7D (same sized body but with no video, single processor, slower FPS and less weather sealing). The white balance processing (all settings) also needs to be significantly improved.

A good quality EF-S 100-400 IS USM is needed (the new 100-300 L lens is way too expensive for many users).

Add HDR support to DPP. This would just make the workflow much easier and quicker.

iMac, therefore iAm Veteran Member • Posts: 8,471
Re: What products would you launch if you were Canon?

RR6 wrote:

I find all home videos so bad,

Agreed. I tend to laugh when people take video of people posing in front of a tourist attraction doing nothing but waving (or worse, taking video of a landscape).

I would not bother putting video on a DSLR. This is usually due to the bad sound quality (how many people use decent separate microphones), normal users do not have a steady-cam and the subjects usually don't know what to do and just wave at the camera. If you want to produce a naff video, you might as well purchase a purpose made video camera or a compact camera.

But there are some creative people out there putting DSLR video to good use. Me, I have little if any use for it myself.

In terms of what I would launch...

I would replace the new 60D asap with a cut down version of 7D (same sized body but with no video, single processor, slower FPS and less weather sealing). The white balance processing (all settings) also needs to be significantly improved.

A good quality EF-S 100-400 IS USM is needed (the new 100-300 L lens is way too expensive for many users).

EF-S makes little-to-no sense for that focal length range, and considering that something like the 17-55 F2.8 IS is around $1000, there's no reason to think an EF-S 100-400 IS would be 'affordable'.

Add HDR support to DPP. This would just make the workflow much easier and quicker.

Better yet, in camera HDR.

-- hide signature --

Some cool cats that can use your help
http://www.wildlife-sanctuary.org

Even if you can't donate, please help spread the word.

SlrPhotographerNewbie Regular Member • Posts: 213
Re: What products would you launch if you were Canon?

A good quality EF-S 100-400 IS USM is needed (the new 100-300 L lens is way too expensive for many users).

I came to say this but 55-400 (which many would say IQ wouldn't be good but if they could work that out it would be fantastic!) - but they would never release such a great lens as then it would make buying all the other lenses that are just as good in this range moot!

villebon Senior Member • Posts: 2,218
Re: What products would you launch if you were Canon?

Nikon just put one over Canon with the D7000. And Nikon if gaining m,omemtum with that camera real fast.

If Canon really wants to lower the boom on Nikon, then they could come out with the 5D MkIII at under $2000!

-- hide signature --

Villebon

fyngyrz Senior Member • Posts: 1,606
I'd launch a low-light line

...something with very large, quiet sensels, about 5mp in APS-C or perhaps 12mp in FF. I picked 5mp because my Olympus E20 has five, and I found that was enough for very good pictures when the camera was working in its quietest regimes. Since then, sensors have come a long way in terms of how quiet they are, and so I'm thinking a 5mp shot will be quiet and good enough over a much wider range of exposures. Larger sensels are quieter, both because they reduce the noise outside the individual sensels, and because they capture more light, doing the averaging within the sensel where it doesn't include the noise between the sensel and the D side of the A/D.

Lower MP images have some other beneficial side effects, too; they can be processed a lot faster by the camera, leading to potentially higher frame rates; display and adjust faster in the computer; transferred between the camera and the computer faster; more of them fit on the camera at one time, they take up less space in the computer, they can be previewed faster and you can store more of them on devices external to the camera, they're faster to email, download, upload, etc.

I'd provide the ability for the user to define the in-camera push; all the way to the last bit - 13 stops -- if that's what they wanted. So standard (analog) ISO of perhaps 12800 or 25600, and pushes past that allowed right until you run out of bits to push. This is so you can see in the preview what you're going to get. Pushing later in the computer, having suffered with a dark, murky preview in the field has the very disagreeable characteristic of surprising you long after the opportunity to shoot again has gone away. The RAW file would contain the push value so post-processing could have an idea what was intended, but otherwise the raw file would be unaffected (it's a digital push, it can be done anytime, as long as you can see what you're doing.) This in turn means that a push can be done into an environment where you have more bits to the highlight end, so you don't automatically lose the upper dynamic range. So you could push faint stars up into view, while still keeping the bright ones from blowing out, simply by mapping a nonlinear curve to the output. For example; you want to push four bits (four stops), fine, the processing software allocates an 18-bit image, multiplies the image content by 16, and now you use an 18-bit aware set of curves to map it to your output 256 (or whatever) levels.

I'd make sure that the camera could emulate any exposure: So if you set 8 seconds at ISO whatever and f/whatever, after 8 seconds, the LCD could show you a preview of what you'd see.

I'd make sure that the maximum shutter time was programmable, rather than limited to 30s. Why shouldn't we be able to shoot 200 seconds at f/11 if we want to? Why do we have to buy an external gadget to do it for us? Nossir, I want the camera to do it.

I'd get rid of the hard-coded presets - macro, landscape, portrait, etc - and put in a whole circle of user presets that were preloaded with those settings. That way, if you want to use the camera as a P&S, you can, but if you want to actually set custom modes, every position is available to you.

I'd build in a GPS. The user could decide if they wanted to use it, or not. Personally, I'd use it all the time, no exceptions. GPS hardware is very inexpensive these days.

I'd see to it that the camera had sensor-based IS, to allow it to stabilize otherwise unstabilized primes and zooms. It would shut down in the presence of a lens that had IS, as that seems to be the better method of the two.

I'd provide for preview zoom up to 200%, so you could easily make out individual pixels on the camera's monitor. Including during live-view.

I'd fix auto-ISO so the user could set the low and high limits, including all the way into the pushed ISOs. The idea is you set the f/stop, you set the time, and the camera sets the ISO accordingly up or down to the points where you say "enough."

Although I have absolutely no use for movies -- I consider them a totally different art -- clearly, lots of people do, and I suspect they'd be pretty happy with a camera that was designed to work in low light. So yeah, movie modes. Though only if the AF can be made to track while recording. Nikon seems to be able to do this, Canon should too.

The camera would be able to enter a "shoot every X seconds for Y shots" mode for time-lapse projects.

The camera would support -X EV to +X EV by Y multi-shot modes, where X is any number of stops and Y is the fraction of the stop you want to step by; this would be used for high dynamic range projects.

The camera would support -X to +X focus in Y steps; this would support focus stacking projects. Additionally, it would support driven slow manual-like microfocus, for getting macro focus just where you want it. That means that you could tell the lens to take the smallest possible single focus step in either direction precisely and without error.

The camera would be able to upload images to the computer while shooting using wifi. This way, if you liked, you could take advantage of larger storage on your computer and do a whole project without worrying about your memory card(s.) The camera would also provide a "website" where you could browse the images using other devices like iPods and iPads and notebooks and so forth.

Wireless charging; wireless image uploading; wireless everything. The only things hanging off the camera should be lens/tripod and/or a camera strap. Nothing to forget, nothing to hook up. It just works.

There would be no print button, no matter how much the printer division wanted one.

Other than where those issues dictate otherwise, the camera would look a lot like the 50D in terms of control layout and features.

-- hide signature --
 fyngyrz's gear list:fyngyrz's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM Canon EF 50mm F1.4 USM Canon EF 85mm F1.8 USM Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM +12 more
fyngyrz Senior Member • Posts: 1,606
Nikon has really...

...put Canon in a tough position with the D7000.

It is so much better, or appears that way from the specs (testing will let us know later when it's actually available), that Canon has been caught with a line makeup that makes little economic sense in comparison.

The D7000, at jsut a couple hundred $ different price as compared to the 60D... with live focus during movies, ISO capabilities that beat the 50D, 60D and 7D, magnesium skeleton, more AF points, 100% VF, a more sophisticated lighting sensor (and focus assist if I understand the Nikon materials), a more robust, larger body better suited to larger lenses...

If the D7000 performs up to spec, it'll be the obvious better choice for an awful lot of consumers who are buying their first camera. As for Canon upgraders, the 60D is lame, the 7D is far too expensive (and still doesn't offer any more in camera push than the 50D), and the 50D itself has been outclassed. Only the 5DmkII remains, and at the price, it's really not in the running (and that's not even considering the slow shooting rate, the AF problems, and the lack of a built-in flash.)

Consider: I've got a lot of Canon lenses, mostly EF, and a 50D, and so you'd think I was pretty much committed to the Canon line.

But I can buy the D7000 and a decent lens (or two) for it for less than the 7D, and get features that are more useful to me than the (IMHO) really poor set of changes the 7D offers over my 50D. I'll still have my 50D and Canon lenses, and I'll have this sweet Nikon which extends my ability to work in darker regimes, adds movies with tracking AF, and probably focuses better to boot.

It'll all come down to how well the D7000 actually takes pictures, but I'm thinking it's likely to do just fine, and that is going to cause Canon some real problems.

And you know what? Good for Nikon. I hope they really draw blood.

The 50D was a great upgrade from my 40D. Better in so many ways. Microadjust. More (pushed) ISO settings. The awesome joystick-controlled set-everything from the LCD. The LCD itself. The quality of the preview. The faster sync. The improvements in the dust removal system. I was happy to buy it. And I did buy it. I've been a fan of the camera since I got it in my hands. Shot thousands of images I've been very pleased with, better than I could have done with the 40D.

The 60D leaves me cold. I don't care much about movies (especially if I have to do the focusing); I really don't care about stuffing more megapixels in there (in fact, I'd prefer to go back towards the ten MP of the 40D, thank you, for many reasons); My microadjust in the 50D is in use and I really don't like the idea of being without it with my Canon primes, which definitely need it; I don't want a smaller camera body; with my 50D in hand, there is only one area the 60D offers me something I want, and that's a very slightly quieter sensor. But with the Nikon likely doing the same (or better... the sensels on the Nikon are larger, and that is going to count) and the extra stop of pushed ISO... the 60D basically falls flat on its plastic face.

Looking forward to DPR's review, and the others on other sites, too. Canon has one chance left within the current model line, and that's with the 5DmkIII. They could make a great camera if they stop trying to jam in more MP and concentrate on higher quality pixels instead. Outside the line, they could come with a low-light specialized camera and I'd be interested. But the current APS-C lineup... 60D, 7D... no thank you.

-- hide signature --
 fyngyrz's gear list:fyngyrz's gear list
Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM Canon EF 50mm F1.4 USM Canon EF 85mm F1.8 USM Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM +12 more
Rock and Rollei Senior Member • Posts: 2,201
Re: What products would you launch if you were Canon?

The 60D, actually. I suspect Canon actually have a far better grasp of the market than some armchair analysts...

Also a scaled-down version as the 2000D.

An updated 100-400 constant f4, and a 24-70 f2.4 IS (yes, f2.4).

And a mirrorless model, of course.

 Rock and Rollei's gear list:Rock and Rollei's gear list
Canon EOS 5DS R Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EOS R Canon EOS M6 II Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L USM +29 more
jitteringjr Veteran Member • Posts: 3,608
Re: What products would you launch if you were Canon?

EFS 15mm f2.0 USM
EFS 20mm f1.4 USM
EFS 30mm f1.4 USM
EF 50mm f1.4 USM II
EF 24-70/2.8 IS USM
EF 100-400 IS USM II

 jitteringjr's gear list:jitteringjr's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Canon EF 50mm F1.4 USM Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II Canon EF 85mm F1.8 USM Canon EF 135mm F2L USM +7 more
macky patalinghug Senior Member • Posts: 1,223
smaller, simpler, cheaper

Canon bragged that they could compete w/ the m4/3, size-wise, with out abandoning the mirror. And I've read about Canon saying it long before Sony announced their SLT technology.

So with that in mind I pray for the 2000D to be a 1000D in a m4/3 sized body (e-pl1 or GF1 size). If this happens I would ignore the LX3/5 and S90/95 or the G11/12 offering which are now quite tempting.

And never mind if the white lenses would look awkward with it. Buyers of this kind of camera would be very well contented with 18-55 is and the 55-250 is. If I have one I might stick an old fast prime on it.

I already have a 7D which I can use if want to look mean. But there are lots of time when you can take better public photos when you are inconspicuous. Even the rebel (I also have a 500D) can already make people conscious that someone with a DSLR is in their midst.

Since another part of me daydreams of creamy bokehs, I would like the 5Dmk3 to be the 5Dmk2 in a 60D body and launched at a quarter price less than the the 5Dmk2.

-- hide signature --

slowshotmax

 macky patalinghug's gear list:macky patalinghug's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Canon EOS 6D Fujifilm X-M1 Nikon D5300 Canon EF 35mm F2.0 +4 more
orpheo Forum Member • Posts: 81
Re: I'd launch a low-light line

Thanks, that was fun to read! Someone "dreaming" up a camera regardless of what "market" dictates.

I suggested a low-light line some time ago (even in a mail to canon - well, you never know...) as a possible solution to get out of the compromises (rather more in favor of more pixelcount lately). I would not be as radical as you, but would stick to 12MP, like Nikon did for quite a while.

Just today I went through the data over at DxO-Mark and thought, with that 7D-sensor even 15 or 16MP might have been possible and it still would have been a little better for low-light than the Nikon D90 and get very close to my old 5D.

Then I saw the announcement of the Nikon D7000. We will see soon how that compromise works.

photog7320 Senior Member • Posts: 2,423
Re: Nikon has really...

fyngyrz wrote:

But I can buy the D7000 and a decent lens (or two) for it for less than the 7D,

$300 is not going to get you much in terms of glass.

and get features that are more useful to me than the (IMHO) really poor set of changes the 7D offers over my 50D.

You're not making sense. The 7D and the D7000 out perform the 50D in the same areas. If the 7D has a "poor set" of changes over the 50D, then so does the D7000.

Quite frankly if you think the changes in the 7D are poor vs the 50D, you haven't been paying attention to the 7D's reviews and you certainly have not used a 7D.

I'll still have my 50D and Canon lenses, and I'll have this sweet Nikon which extends my ability to work in darker regimes,

I seriously doubt there's any great gain in high ISO with the D7000 vs the 7D. I could be wrong. We will know when the full reviews are out. (In some other threads it's being said that the D7000 is about 1 stop behind the D700 at high ISO. That's about where I would judge the 7D to be.)

adds movies with tracking AF,

If it's fast enough to be usable.

and probably focuses better to boot.

Than your 50D? In situations that call for more points (i.e. BiF), yes. Otherwise, debatable. And not better than the 7D.

It'll all come down to how well the D7000 actually takes pictures, but I'm thinking it's likely to do just fine, and that is going to cause Canon some real problems.

It's going to cause Canon to be more aggressive in their next update. Which is good for everyone.

They could make a great camera if they stop trying to jam in more MP and concentrate on higher quality pixels instead. Outside the line, they could come with a low-light specialized camera and I'd be interested. But the current APS-C lineup... 60D, 7D... no thank you.

Here we go with this fallacy again...

  • The D7000 packs about as many pixels on APS-C as the 7D and 60D. So if you don't like what Canon did there, you better stay far away from the D7000.

  • Pixel size is not the primary factor in high ISO because smaller pixels are magnified less when printed. Total sensor surface area is, followed by technology level. Going backwards in MP would cost us resolution but would not give us better high ISO.

  • At release the 7D offered the highest IQ, including the highest resolution and best high ISO, in the APS-C class. I'm curious to see if the Nikon 16 MP sensor edges it out in high ISO (it is one year newer), but I doubt there are any leaps here.

You're ripping on the 7D and praising the D7000 yet they are very similar cameras. I will certainly give credit to Nikon for packing so many features in at that price point. I have no doubt the D7000 is an excellent body that will sell like hot cakes. But you act s if the 7D brings nothing to the table and that's simply false.

Wayndom Senior Member • Posts: 1,933
Re: What products would you launch if you were Canon?

A metal-body 70D with MFA.
--
Canon since 1969

photog7320 Senior Member • Posts: 2,423
Re: I'd launch a low-light line

orpheo wrote:

Just today I went through the data over at DxO-Mark and thought, with that 7D-sensor even 15 or 16MP might have been possible and it still would have been a little better for low-light than the Nikon D90 and get very close to my old 5D.

The 7D has superior high ISO to the original 5D. You might want to try making some test prints some time rather than relying on the often criticized and sometimes plain ridiculous DxO tests.

Edward In Toronto Veteran Member • Posts: 4,217
Full Frame Rebel at $899 (nt)
-- hide signature --
photog7320 Senior Member • Posts: 2,423
Re: I'd launch a low-light line

fyngyrz wrote:

...something with very large, quiet sensels, about 5mp in APS-C or perhaps 12mp in FF.

This would make no difference. Total sensor surface area is the primary factor in high ISO, followed by technology level. Pixel size is not a significant factor because smaller pixels are magnified less in print, offsetting any losses in per pixel noise.

If engineers at Canon, Sony, or Nikon could achieve leaps in high ISO with a 5 MP DX sensor, we would already have it.

Larger sensels are quieter, both because they reduce the noise outside the individual sensels,

Not a significant factor.

and because they capture more light,

With gapless microlenses the amount of light captured depends entirely on the surface area of the sensor, not the pixel size.

Lower MP images have some other beneficial side effects, too; they can be processed a lot faster by the camera, leading to potentially higher frame rates;

The upper bound here is the mirror motor, not processing. Canon went through a lot of effort to reach 8 fps in the 7D body size off one battery. Notice the D300s needs a grip to hit 8 fps.

display and adjust faster in the computer; transferred between the camera and the computer faster; more of them fit on the camera at one time, they take up less space in the computer, they can be previewed faster and you can store more of them on devices external to the camera, they're faster to email, download, upload, etc.

Computer speed and storage increases by the month. Once you take a shot you can never go back to that exact same moment and take another, higher resolution one.

I'd provide the ability for the user to define the in-camera push; all the way to the last bit - 13 stops -- if that's what they wanted. So standard (analog) ISO of perhaps 12800 or 25600,

We have that now. Larger pixels won't change the limits we're hitting today.

I'd make sure that the maximum shutter time was programmable, rather than limited to 30s. Why shouldn't we be able to shoot 200 seconds at f/11 if we want to?

Agreed. Full programmable exposure control should be in every DSLR.

I'd get rid of the hard-coded presets - macro, landscape, portrait, etc - and put in a whole circle of user presets that were preloaded with those settings. That way, if you want to use the camera as a P&S, you can, but if you want to actually set custom modes, every position is available to you.

I would lose the exposure mode dial completely. Just let me choose modes from the rear LCD including the standard PASM and any number of custom, named modes I want which store every setting like the Cx modes do now.

I'd build in a GPS. The user could decide if they wanted to use it, or not. Personally, I'd use it all the time, no exceptions. GPS hardware is very inexpensive these days.

Agreed.

I'd see to it that the camera had sensor-based IS, to allow it to stabilize otherwise unstabilized primes and zooms. It would shut down in the presence of a lens that had IS, as that seems to be the better method of the two.

Agreed, but I don't think we will see Canon or Nikon do this.

I'd fix auto-ISO so the user could set the low and high limits, including all the way into the pushed ISOs. The idea is you set the f/stop, you set the time, and the camera sets the ISO accordingly up or down to the points where you say "enough."

Agreed.

The camera would support -X EV to +X EV by Y multi-shot modes, where X is any number of stops and Y is the fraction of the stop you want to step by; this would be used for high dynamic range projects.

Would love to see this.

Wireless charging; wireless image uploading; wireless everything. The only things hanging off the camera should be lens/tripod and/or a camera strap. Nothing to forget, nothing to hook up. It just works.

Some how I don't think wireless charging will work.

There would be no print button, no matter how much the printer division wanted one.

LOL!

Keith Z Leonard Veteran Member • Posts: 6,134
Re: Full Frame Rebel at $899 (nt)

I think I'd buy one, to go along with my 7d, if ISO performance was anywhere near 5dm2

 Keith Z Leonard's gear list:Keith Z Leonard's gear list
Canon EF 70-200mm F4L USM Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Canon EOS 400D +16 more
Keith Z Leonard Veteran Member • Posts: 6,134
Re: What products would you launch if you were Canon?

IS line of prime lenses, in the affordable range.

35mm f1.4 IS USM
50mm f1.4 IS USM
85mm f1.4 IS USM
135MM f1.4 IS USM
and maybe
400mm f5.6 IS USM

Charge a couple of hundred more than the current primes. Also "borrow" the 9 rounded blades from Sigma.

 Keith Z Leonard's gear list:Keith Z Leonard's gear list
Canon EF 70-200mm F4L USM Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Canon EOS 400D +16 more
Edward In Toronto Veteran Member • Posts: 4,217
Re: Full Frame Rebel at $899 (nt)

Hey, I'm Canon, I can do what every I want, I'll give you 1D-V image quality, and what the hell, I'll throw in a 50mm f/0.95 prime as a kit package for $100 extra.

Keith Z Leonard wrote:

I think I'd buy one, to go along with my 7d, if ISO performance was anywhere near 5dm2

RedFox88 Forum Pro • Posts: 30,186
Re: What products would you launch if you were Canon?

villebon wrote:

Nikon just put one over Canon with the D7000. And Nikon if gaining m,omemtum with that camera real fast.

How can nikon "gain momentum...fast" when the camera was press release announced a day ago and only some photo enthusiasts know about it? Such a funny statement.

If you really compare the cameras for what they offer without getting bogged down with semantics like metal vs. engineering plastic or heavy vs. lighter, the cameras are really quite similar. One has things the other doesn't.

60D

  • more pixels

  • manual video controls

  • flip-out LCD

  • lighter

  • all AF points are cross type sensors and are spread out wide

d7000

  • AF in video - but no manual controls.

  • heavier

  • 0.7 fps more (really a moot point)

  • more AF points, but cross types clustered at the center of the viewfinder

  • dual SD slots - most won't benefit maybe if you shot video (yet no manual video controls)

  • 100% viewfinder, but different between 96% and 100% is minimal and most will shoot a little wider to avoid cutting something off unless you are shooting macro on a tripod with plenty of time.

  • micro AF adjustments, but you almost need to be a camera tech to properly calibrate lenses.

Keith Z Leonard Veteran Member • Posts: 6,134
Re: Full Frame Rebel at $899 (nt)

ha ha, exactly! I said I'd buy it, I didn't say they'd make it, or even that they SHOULD make it. I love my 7d, but if there were a cheapy full frame that had decent IQ, even if all the rest of it was rather bad (AF performance, etc....) I'd probably buy it. Mainly for super wide angle shots and really low light shots (though with a prime and the 7d, I still do ok in this situation)

 Keith Z Leonard's gear list:Keith Z Leonard's gear list
Canon EF 70-200mm F4L USM Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Canon EOS 400D +16 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads