« Nikon D600: Is This For Real? | Main | Fuji Admits it is Considering a Full-Frame Compact System Camera »

Thursday, 20 September 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

What did the Elan cost when it was new? $2000 seems kind of reasonable to me.

Hopefully these will get the wheels turning at Sony. Not moving on from my a850 yet but would like to see the a99 drop in price (although I think the price is competitive) or for Sony to release a second model to compete with these offerings.

"So, Toyota doesn't really care what Hyundai or Chrysler are doing; it cares what Honda and Nissan are doing."

The Toyota plant that assembles all the Camrys sold in North America is located in Georgetown, KY, which is 15 miles from my home. I know people who work on the line, and rest assured, Toyota is paying extremely close attention to Hyundai.

So much so, there is a Hyundai Sonata parked in the plant. It was disassembled to find weakness that Toyota could use in their marketing. They could not find any. Now that car is a reminder to the employees that the competition is no longer just Honda and Nissan. (They're still not concerned about US cars.)


All of the comments on the other photography sites that have published this announcement have basically been baying for Canon's blood, but I don't understand that. This is literally THE camera I've been waiting for, and I cannot wait to buy one, or maybe even two. I will wait though, because I'd like the price to come down a little.

As far as I can tell, the main thing that has disappointed the on-paper spec fanatics is that this camera 'only' has 11 AF points. Given that I only use one at the moment, I don't see that as a problem. And the fact that I can use my *telephone* to control it, for no extra cost, is a total win. I'll say it again, a TELEPHONE.

Hmmm. I might actually consider this based on not-too-unreasonable price and newer technology. But then I look at the largest-size prints I can make (A3+ or 19"x13") and the quality I can get printing photos from my existing 5DmkI and 50D, and wonder: "what real-world improvements would I get for spending that money?"

I suspect what I already have hits my "good enough" threshold. I'd like to think that's because I'm the (it seems) increasingly rare type of photographer who prints, and judges "good enough" based on print quality rather than pixels-at-100% screen views. But perhaps I'm just undiscerning.

...Mike F

You're killing his cool! Once it comes from your mouth it has, by definition, already been uncool for a long time. I still think you're groovy though, so don't let him kill your buzz.

The relative value of cameras needs to take account of inflation.

A Nikon F plain pentaprism body cost $500 in 1968 and this equals $3,214.29 in today's dollars once inflation has been taken into account.

I know the $500 cost as I bought one that year but a more accurate valuation would be found in the number of paper route miles walked plus the number of driveways snow shovelled plus $100 from the second hand sale of a Yashica SLR.

The featured comment by Doug: "There were no refreshes for Canon's aging 'enthusiast' APS-C models."

Perhaps this says more about how stretched the CMOS sensor designers are at Canon than anything else?

The semiconductor part of Sony designs it's own sensors (it's a BIG company) that it uses and doesn't mind selling to other camera makers.

Nikon is willing to outsource some of their sensors IP and production (OK, most of their recent intros ... D7000, Nikon 1, D800 and D600) to third parties (like Sony and Aptina) to leverage their skills in designing and making state of the art sensors.

Canon seems to have taken the opposite track. For example, using their own CMOS sensors in the S100, S110 and G15 rather than the new versions of the Sony sensors used the previous models). Is this "not invented here" or just sensible cost control using Canon technology? Do they have the tech to produce state of the art sensors? I've not seen the numbers from DxOmark or sensorgen to indicate that they do.

It's an interesting strategy. Perhaps they have a Canon APS-C sensor in the wings? That would make marketing sense for a "cunning like a fox" strategy: grab the upgraders willing to pay with a new $2K+ full frame camera and then sell the APS-C to the laggards later?

We still need to see the Third Act of this play to find out their plan.

Mike F, you are saying "what real-world improvements would I get for spending that money?"

I'll give you my answer, as happy owner of two 5DmkI bodies. You get a brand new sensor, that is not 7 years old, which is A LOT when you talk about digital technology. Just to give you some perspective, keep in mind that the first iPhone came out two years after our beloved 5DmkI(!).

Now, thanks to this new technology, you will now be able to get much less digital noise in your images, which should end up giving you better prints.

As far as I am concerned, I love my old 5D cameras, but I do envy those who can take clear pictures are 3200ISO. Too often I find myself knowing that, given certain light conditions, there is no point to even take the camera out of the bag. I am also mildly attracted by the possibility of entering the world of video with my set of lenses. I love the idea of shooting video through a 50 f/1.4.

Like Rowan has said above, I am not too concerned about focus points. I also use exclusively the center one for 99% of my pictures. I'd rather spend the extra $1600 attached to the price tag of a 5D mkIII to get myself a new lens AND a new A3+ printer ;-)

Finally, I am very intrigued by the wifi ability of this camera. You can transfer files from camera to camera, from camera to computer, you can control your camera with your iphone, you can print wirelessly (not that I would ever want to do that, of course) and you can call web services. Now that's pretty cool ;-)

I have just spent a few days on a great Photography refresher in Cornwall UK ... concentrating on only using Manual mode. wonderful. I was enjoying my Pentax K5 .. but my other " student" had a Nikon D800 and the really remarkable thing to me was the viewfinder. Mine is acceptable but the FF viewfinder was like being back with my LX .... and as I get older i realise the reviewers are all young because the viewfinder difference whilst mentioned really does not get the attention it deserves.
I will not want to lose my old Pentax lenses .... but if they brought one out under £2000 new I would be looking to buy one 2 years later .. when it hit my price peaking !!! It also makes me think about which lenses to buy .... and to consider lenses that are FF only

and you can easily adapt M42 lenses. remember "takumar"?


cheers, sebastian

From a strictly business strategy I struggle to understand this.

There is already a bunching up of cameras in the Canon APS-C range. I shoot an 1100D (and honestly do not feel the need for an upgrade yet), but looking up on the range there is the 550D (discontinued but widely available at a discount and being pushed with 2 lens bundles), the 600D and the 650D (the 600 is supposed to have hipster filters, is that it?), the 60D and the 7D, all sharing roughly the same MP count. It's crazy! And the crazier thing is DxOMark's gives them all comparable scores, the older 550D usually coming out best!

Now they seem to be preparing to sell 3 full frame DSLRs simultaneously. Seriously, how can people decide, except for price or prevailing offers? It's a losing battle.

Compared to the Nikon offering this is not such a great deal. You an get the Nikon right now. Faster frame rate and built in intervalometer. Why would I ever need GPS, I know where I am when I photograph and I don't need everyone checking the info to go and find the exact location of every image. All Canon's leadership and they fall behind Nikon with the past two SLR offerings? Someone is asleep at the switch.

Mike said It's a newer sensor, said to do a little better in the lowest light.

I don't think that's the case - it's the AF system said to be the low light king (down to -3 EV). Actually suspiciously little has been said about the actual sensor ... which makes me suspect it may not be as good as that in the 5D3 or 1Dx to avoid loosing high value sales. I can't see any other reason to produce yet another FF sensor in the space of under 12 months.

Interestingly, Mike Owen (Professional Image Marketing Manager at Canon Europe) has been quoted on Imaging Resources as saying

we felt that this type of camera in this particular user group, auto focus performance is not 100% critical. But low-light performance for autofocus is important.

Make of that what you will.

Actually, I'm not against this camera as such - I'm against it's price point. It's a pretty average spec with a bit of electronic trickery thrown in (low cost stuff found in basic phones and compacts).

In essence I figure you're paying a premium of about 70-100% JUST for the full frame sensor. That doesn't seem right.



Re: reasonable. I'm not so sure that the price levels have been creeping up (especially once accounting for inflation ). Here's a review of canon d60 from 2002:
noting the "incredible price of "2199USD". (2800 usd in today's money).

Perhaps Brad simply have become a better photographer with higher standards?

I'm one of those disappointed by the price not being in the 1500 dollar range, on both the Canon and the Nikon, I do believe I made a mistake last week, based on information from another site, and the Nikon D600 actually does do tiff, according to DP, so I guess we'll wait and see...

One of the features of the D800, I believe, is the ability to shoot in the 4X5/6X7 format, by just setting that feature in the menu, a boon for guys like me that shoot portraits, and to whom the long 35mm frame as always been wasted space and not that attractive. Wonder if the D600 has that ability as well.

Recent shoots I've been on, with my Nikon APS-C sized chip, has made me realize that the "smaller" chip is just fine, and I've done some double page magazine spreads with it that look fine, so since I'm not making any 20X24 prints, the APS-C/FF thing is sort of a non-issue, except for the fact that I like prime lenses. Nikon needs to make a value priced 16mm and 24mm f/2.8 (similar to their very nice 35mm f/1.8) for their APS-C sized cameras, and then I don't care what happens...

BTW, I've said before, the Canon Rebel has always been a killer camera, and I find it interesting that Canon no longer reports shutter life for this model. I find it interesting because it's hard to believe that a company like Canon, even with their deep pockets, would make a separate shutter for the 7D and 60D and Rebel. I'm betting they don't want people to know they're probably using maybe one shutter for all APS-C models, or one type with slightly slower curtain speeds. It'd be interesting to find out if the Rebel actually has a fairly robust professional shutter in it, just not reported. It might kill their APS-C up-line business!

"Actually suspiciously little has been said about the actual sensor ... which makes me suspect it may not be as good as that in the 5D3 or 1Dx to avoid loosing high value sales."

"Loosing," meaning "to let loose, undo, detach, or release," is the antonym (opposite) of "tightening." You probably meant "losing," which is the transitive form of the verb "to lose," meaning failing to keep possession of or keep alive, or to fail to to win or retain, or to deprive or fail to gain.

Mike the Ed.

It would be interesting to compare the price of a "quality" camera from years ago (say, a Pentax Spotmatic or a Nikon FM) corrected for inflation into today's dollars. I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't somewhere in the neighborhood of $2000

Mike, you mentioned weight...well both D6 and D600 is beaten by the A99 in that department.
(And at the same time the A99 have far better specs and features than the other two.)


a spotmatic cost 289 usd in 1967, which according to http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ is 1,993 usd in today's money. Pretty close!

Mark Roberts...

I remember when a Hasselblad body was $525.00 in the early 80's....

The difference:

1.I still have the Hasselblad body, works fine and I use it all the time, I can easily use it for the rest of my life. I've already been through 4 digital camera change-overs that clients have demanded based on technology improvements.

2. When I bought the body, I was getting about $800-$1000 a day for a day rate, now, I'm lucky to get $250-$350 for doing the same assignment, and even luckier still if I can paid in anywhere near 120 days!

While you can make a point that based on actually dollar and inflation, the cameras might be similar in price; affordability is something entirely different!

My photography changes a lot when I upgraded my 300D to a 5D and at the time I didn't think it was all for the better. Having the smaller viewfinder forced me to pay more attention to the 'broad strokes' of composition in the scene. When I got the larger viewfinder and higher resolution sensor I started to pay more attention to texture and fine detail, sometimes at the expense of balanced composition!

Picking up what Tom Bell said above, I don't understand why modern digital SLRs have such small "looking down the wrong end of a binocular" viewfinder. When an affordable digital SLR with a viewfinder such as I had in my Olympus OM1 comes along I will then buy it double quick!

The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007