User Experience is Top Metric Again

David Hull wrote:

You are trying to make the argument that Canon is "too expensive for what it's worth" i.e., overpriced. You are also trying to make the argument that other manufacturers products are just as good while being cheaper.

So, if all this is true, just buy the other product and be done with it -- price is your driver. Unfortunately, though, this doesn't seem to be the case. By your own admission, there is apparently something you like about that Canon "L" glass that the others don't offer. You just don't like the price.

Unfortunately (for us), Canon seems to want premium prices for their premium stuff. Fortunately (for Canon) enough people are bellying up to the bar that they can get those prices. Canon is not the only company like that -- vote with your wallet if you are unhappy, then. -- as you say there are other options.

Ironically, the EOS R system product which I have personally been least satisfied with (in many respects, not all) is the one which is an absolute bargain and cheaper than almost anyone expected - the R7. I so wish they had gone for a higher spec sensor and a more R5/R6-like body, at whatever price would have made that possible. 50% more would still be only £2k.

Steve Balcombe wrote:

David Hull wrote:

You are trying to make the argument that Canon is "too expensive for what it's worth" i.e., overpriced. You are also trying to make the argument that other manufacturers products are just as good while being cheaper.

So, if all this is true, just buy the other product and be done with it -- price is your driver. Unfortunately, though, this doesn't seem to be the case. By your own admission, there is apparently something you like about that Canon "L" glass that the others don't offer. You just don't like the price.

Unfortunately (for us), Canon seems to want premium prices for their premium stuff. Fortunately (for Canon) enough people are bellying up to the bar that they can get those prices. Canon is not the only company like that -- vote with your wallet if you are unhappy, then. -- as you say there are other options.

Ironically, the EOS R system product which I have personally been least satisfied with (in many respects, not all) is the one which is an absolute bargain and cheaper than almost anyone expected - the R7. I so wish they had gone for a higher spec sensor and a more R5/R6-like body, at whatever price would have made that possible. 50% more would still be only £2k.

And for me that would have priced me out of the system. The R7 was the only one even remotely fitting my needs and price - if you can afford full frame then it's ok to price the APS-C performance camera out of the hands of those that can't cough up that much money you obviously so casually can spend.

charlyw64 wrote:

Steve Balcombe wrote:

David Hull wrote:

You are trying to make the argument that Canon is "too expensive for what it's worth" i.e., overpriced. You are also trying to make the argument that other manufacturers products are just as good while being cheaper.

So, if all this is true, just buy the other product and be done with it -- price is your driver. Unfortunately, though, this doesn't seem to be the case. By your own admission, there is apparently something you like about that Canon "L" glass that the others don't offer. You just don't like the price.

Unfortunately (for us), Canon seems to want premium prices for their premium stuff. Fortunately (for Canon) enough people are bellying up to the bar that they can get those prices. Canon is not the only company like that -- vote with your wallet if you are unhappy, then. -- as you say there are other options.

Ironically, the EOS R system product which I have personally been least satisfied with (in many respects, not all) is the one which is an absolute bargain and cheaper than almost anyone expected - the R7. I so wish they had gone for a higher spec sensor and a more R5/R6-like body, at whatever price would have made that possible. 50% more would still be only £2k.

And for me that would have priced me out of the system. The R7 was the only one even remotely fitting my needs and price - if you can afford full frame then it's ok to price the APS-C performance camera out of the hands of those that can't cough up that much money you obviously so casually can spend.

But it isn't the "APS-C performance camera", that's the whole point. It's a mid-range body at a very keen price, and as such it appeals to a lot of people including yourself. What it's not, is the high-end crop body that others were waiting and hoping for. The R7 name is a big hint that there will never be one, which is making many people look at Olympus and Fujifilm.

By the way, I don't have a lot of time for your 'inverted snobbery'. For most of my working life I didn't have the disposable income for anything more than a basic SLR body (which I never upgraded) and a very small set of non-L lenses. But now I'm lucky enough to be able to choose better gear and I make no apology for that. That said, "only £2k" wasn't intended to suggest this is pocket change, only that it would be a good price for a truly high-end APS-C body like the £2,500 Fujifilm X-H2S with the benefit of Canon's AF technology. Even the OM-1 with its even smaller M4/3 sensor is over £2k.

Steve Balcombe wrote:

charlyw64 wrote:

Steve Balcombe wrote:

David Hull wrote:

You are trying to make the argument that Canon is "too expensive for what it's worth" i.e., overpriced. You are also trying to make the argument that other manufacturers products are just as good while being cheaper.

So, if all this is true, just buy the other product and be done with it -- price is your driver. Unfortunately, though, this doesn't seem to be the case. By your own admission, there is apparently something you like about that Canon "L" glass that the others don't offer. You just don't like the price.

Unfortunately (for us), Canon seems to want premium prices for their premium stuff. Fortunately (for Canon) enough people are bellying up to the bar that they can get those prices. Canon is not the only company like that -- vote with your wallet if you are unhappy, then. -- as you say there are other options.

Ironically, the EOS R system product which I have personally been least satisfied with (in many respects, not all) is the one which is an absolute bargain and cheaper than almost anyone expected - the R7. I so wish they had gone for a higher spec sensor and a more R5/R6-like body, at whatever price would have made that possible. 50% more would still be only £2k.

And for me that would have priced me out of the system. The R7 was the only one even remotely fitting my needs and price - if you can afford full frame then it's ok to price the APS-C performance camera out of the hands of those that can't cough up that much money you obviously so casually can spend.

But it isn't the "APS-C performance camera", that's the whole point.

I beg to differ, it is faster than any APS-C ever made by Canon, it has a more comprehensive and capable autofocus than any APS-C ever made by Canon. There is nothing the 7DII does better (besides having an optical viewfinder - but even I had to concede that they have become unaffordable to produce) except maybe weather sealing.

You are too hung up on the name - which is rather short sighted.

It's a mid-range body at a very keen price, and as such it appeals to a lot of people including yourself. What it's not, is the high-end crop body that others were waiting and hoping for.

Then be specific, what is missing besides an IP-67 water sealed rating? What would you have added to justify the cited price? I have always shot with DSLR as soon as they became affordable, starting with the 10D, culminating in the 7DII which I used for 8 years. The offerings by Olympus and especially Fuji are horrible in usability and partly in image quality (too small sensor for Olympus and don't get me started on the x-trans malarkey in the Fuji, they themselves are not so keen on that, else their medium format cameras would have had that same CFA - you could offer them as a giveaway in a supermarket promotion alongside a roll of toilet paper and I wouldn't jump ship to those)...

charlyw64 wrote:

Steve Balcombe wrote:

charlyw64 wrote:

Steve Balcombe wrote:

David Hull wrote:

You are trying to make the argument that Canon is "too expensive for what it's worth" i.e., overpriced. You are also trying to make the argument that other manufacturers products are just as good while being cheaper.

So, if all this is true, just buy the other product and be done with it -- price is your driver. Unfortunately, though, this doesn't seem to be the case. By your own admission, there is apparently something you like about that Canon "L" glass that the others don't offer. You just don't like the price.

Unfortunately (for us), Canon seems to want premium prices for their premium stuff. Fortunately (for Canon) enough people are bellying up to the bar that they can get those prices. Canon is not the only company like that -- vote with your wallet if you are unhappy, then. -- as you say there are other options.

Ironically, the EOS R system product which I have personally been least satisfied with (in many respects, not all) is the one which is an absolute bargain and cheaper than almost anyone expected - the R7. I so wish they had gone for a higher spec sensor and a more R5/R6-like body, at whatever price would have made that possible. 50% more would still be only £2k.

And for me that would have priced me out of the system. The R7 was the only one even remotely fitting my needs and price - if you can afford full frame then it's ok to price the APS-C performance camera out of the hands of those that can't cough up that much money you obviously so casually can spend.

But it isn't the "APS-C performance camera", that's the whole point.

I beg to differ, it is faster than any APS-C ever made by Canon, it has a more comprehensive and capable autofocus than any APS-C ever made by Canon. There is nothing the 7DII does better (besides having an optical viewfinder - but even I had to concede that they have become unaffordable to produce) except maybe weather sealing.

You are too hung up on the name - which is rather short sighted.

It's a mid-range body at a very keen price, and as such it appeals to a lot of people including yourself. What it's not, is the high-end crop body that others were waiting and hoping for.

Then be specific, what is missing besides an IP-67 water sealed rating?

The OM-1 has an IP53 rating, as do a few of the lenses; the Fujifilm has no rating.

What would you have added to justify the cited price?

I answered that in the post you originally responded to, but I guess any suggestion that there is a world beyond the R7 is dealt with by selective memory.

I have always shot with DSLR as soon as they became affordable, starting with the 10D, culminating in the 7DII which I used for 8 years. The offerings by Olympus and especially Fuji are horrible in usability

Canon could learn a lesson or two about usability from the OM-1, but clearly you have never used one. I haven't personally used the X-H2S, but in the part of my post which you conveniently cut, the only specific comment I made was about the price.

and partly in image quality (too small sensor for Olympus and don't get me started on the x-trans malarkey in the Fuji, they themselves are not so keen on that, else their medium format cameras would have had that same CFA - you could offer them as a giveaway in a supermarket promotion alongside a roll of toilet paper and I wouldn't jump ship to those)...

If you had used an OM-1 you wouldn't be so critical of the sensor. Its readout speed makes the R7 look antiquated, and the difference in size between Canon APS-C and M4/3 is only a 1.25x additional crop - which is why, if you look at actual images, the OM-1 is right up there.

Steve Balcombe wrote:

charlyw64 wrote:

Steve Balcombe wrote:

charlyw64 wrote:

Steve Balcombe wrote:

David Hull wrote:

You are trying to make the argument that Canon is "too expensive for what it's worth" i.e., overpriced. You are also trying to make the argument that other manufacturers products are just as good while being cheaper.

So, if all this is true, just buy the other product and be done with it -- price is your driver. Unfortunately, though, this doesn't seem to be the case. By your own admission, there is apparently something you like about that Canon "L" glass that the others don't offer. You just don't like the price.

Unfortunately (for us), Canon seems to want premium prices for their premium stuff. Fortunately (for Canon) enough people are bellying up to the bar that they can get those prices. Canon is not the only company like that -- vote with your wallet if you are unhappy, then. -- as you say there are other options.

Ironically, the EOS R system product which I have personally been least satisfied with (in many respects, not all) is the one which is an absolute bargain and cheaper than almost anyone expected - the R7. I so wish they had gone for a higher spec sensor and a more R5/R6-like body, at whatever price would have made that possible. 50% more would still be only £2k.

And for me that would have priced me out of the system. The R7 was the only one even remotely fitting my needs and price - if you can afford full frame then it's ok to price the APS-C performance camera out of the hands of those that can't cough up that much money you obviously so casually can spend.

But it isn't the "APS-C performance camera", that's the whole point.

I beg to differ, it is faster than any APS-C ever made by Canon, it has a more comprehensive and capable autofocus than any APS-C ever made by Canon. There is nothing the 7DII does better (besides having an optical viewfinder - but even I had to concede that they have become unaffordable to produce) except maybe weather sealing.

You are too hung up on the name - which is rather short sighted.

It's a mid-range body at a very keen price, and as such it appeals to a lot of people including yourself. What it's not, is the high-end crop body that others were waiting and hoping for.

Then be specific, what is missing besides an IP-67 water sealed rating?

The OM-1 has an IP53 rating, as do a few of the lenses; the Fujifilm has no rating.

What would you have added to justify the cited price?

I answered that in the post you originally responded to, but I guess any suggestion that there is a world beyond the R7 is dealt with by selective memory.

I have always shot with DSLR as soon as they became affordable, starting with the 10D, culminating in the 7DII which I used for 8 years. The offerings by Olympus and especially Fuji are horrible in usability

Canon could learn a lesson or two about usability from the OM-1, but clearly you have never used one.

The Olympus cameras are unusable for me, to finicky, bad EVF (for me, all I ever tried did trigger migraines, the R7 I tested extensively and luckily that viewfinder is bearable). I hope Canon does not follow those unbearable chimeras, I never liked Olympus "usability"...

If you had used an OM-1 you wouldn't be so critical of the sensor. Its readout speed makes the R7 look antiquated,

The readout speed is of no consequence to me, I don't intend to ever use the fully electronic shutter. Gimmicks like Pre-Burst or focus stacking (especially the latter is a horrible waste of developers time for the firmware, focus stacks don't work).

For me the image quality doesn't stop at the rolling shutter, it is defined by a lot of features and for those the Olympus cameras and lenses suck and are much more expensive than the Canon. Besides that, I expect OM Systems to fail quite soon, they have lost their appeal to many...

charlyw64 wrote:

Steve Balcombe wrote:

charlyw64 wrote:

Steve Balcombe wrote:

charlyw64 wrote:

Steve Balcombe wrote:

David Hull wrote:

You are trying to make the argument that Canon is "too expensive for what it's worth" i.e., overpriced. You are also trying to make the argument that other manufacturers products are just as good while being cheaper.

So, if all this is true, just buy the other product and be done with it -- price is your driver. Unfortunately, though, this doesn't seem to be the case. By your own admission, there is apparently something you like about that Canon "L" glass that the others don't offer. You just don't like the price.

Unfortunately (for us), Canon seems to want premium prices for their premium stuff. Fortunately (for Canon) enough people are bellying up to the bar that they can get those prices. Canon is not the only company like that -- vote with your wallet if you are unhappy, then. -- as you say there are other options.

Ironically, the EOS R system product which I have personally been least satisfied with (in many respects, not all) is the one which is an absolute bargain and cheaper than almost anyone expected - the R7. I so wish they had gone for a higher spec sensor and a more R5/R6-like body, at whatever price would have made that possible. 50% more would still be only £2k.

And for me that would have priced me out of the system. The R7 was the only one even remotely fitting my needs and price - if you can afford full frame then it's ok to price the APS-C performance camera out of the hands of those that can't cough up that much money you obviously so casually can spend.

But it isn't the "APS-C performance camera", that's the whole point.

I beg to differ, it is faster than any APS-C ever made by Canon, it has a more comprehensive and capable autofocus than any APS-C ever made by Canon. There is nothing the 7DII does better (besides having an optical viewfinder - but even I had to concede that they have become unaffordable to produce) except maybe weather sealing.

You are too hung up on the name - which is rather short sighted.

It's a mid-range body at a very keen price, and as such it appeals to a lot of people including yourself. What it's not, is the high-end crop body that others were waiting and hoping for.

Then be specific, what is missing besides an IP-67 water sealed rating?

The OM-1 has an IP53 rating, as do a few of the lenses; the Fujifilm has no rating.

What would you have added to justify the cited price?

I answered that in the post you originally responded to, but I guess any suggestion that there is a world beyond the R7 is dealt with by selective memory.

I have always shot with DSLR as soon as they became affordable, starting with the 10D, culminating in the 7DII which I used for 8 years. The offerings by Olympus and especially Fuji are horrible in usability

Canon could learn a lesson or two about usability from the OM-1, but clearly you have never used one.

The Olympus cameras are unusable for me, to finicky, bad EVF (for me, all I ever tried did trigger migraines, the R7 I tested extensively and luckily that viewfinder is bearable). I hope Canon does not follow those unbearable chimeras, I never liked Olympus "usability"...

If you had used an OM-1 you wouldn't be so critical of the sensor. Its readout speed makes the R7 look antiquated,

The readout speed is of no consequence to me, I don't intend to ever use the fully electronic shutter. Gimmicks like Pre-Burst or focus stacking (especially the latter is a horrible waste of developers time for the firmware, focus stacks don't work).

For me the image quality doesn't stop at the rolling shutter, it is defined by a lot of features and for those the Olympus cameras and lenses suck and are much more expensive than the Canon. Besides that, I expect OM Systems to fail quite soon, they have lost their appeal to many...

There is so much arrant nonsense here that I will step out of the discussion at this point.