Apple just started selling Sonos at their stores, and I am not happy about it.  Below are a few of the reasons I think it is a bad fit for Apple:

1.  Airplay - Airplay is Apple's competing technology that has not reached its full potential.  As a result, I think Apple has an obligation to fill in the missing parts for people invested in THEIR technology before adding a third party service to fill in some of the empty spaces.  

I have an article discussing the things that Apple needs to do to make Airplay better, but the main two shortfalls are the lack of multi-room audio from iOS and the lack of Siri integration.  The lack of multi-room audio is 100 percent Apple's fault and has zero to do with the limitations of iOS.

In their own words, the iPad is supposed be a 5 year old PC replacement, yet a 5 year old PC can easily handle multi-room Airplay and my brand new iPad can't.  The WHAALE app can handle multi-room audio in iOS and I have a feeling that Apple's engineers have the capability to duplicate something that is being done in a third party app (if nothing else, they should give WHAALE access to Apple Music..it already works with Deezer).  

As I said, they need to implement Airplay into Siri.  Why can't I walk in the room and tell Siri to play music in the living room (receiver with Airplay built in) or to the Sunroom (Airport Express) and just have it start playing?  Google will be coming out with Casting features in their Google Home device that will put this to shame.  Pretty pathetic that Apple is falling so far behind the curve despite beating Google to market with both Airplay and Siri.  Adding Sonos to their store is putting a Band Aid in a place that they need stitches.

2.  Sonos Walled Garden - Sonos is a walled garden with Apple Music at this point.  As of right now, you can't simply stream from Apple Music or Overcast Podcast app to Sonos (You can do it with Google Music right now, but I digress).  In fact, many audio apps and video apps, like Youtube on iOS, do not work with Sonos at all.  Let's say you were listening to an album in your car or on a jog and went into your home and wanted to start listening to it on your system, with Airplay, you hit one button and don't miss a beat.  With Sonos, you close the Apple Music app, start Sonos app, and start playing the song again.  

3.  Confusion - Anyone experienced with using Airplay or Bluetooth and seeing it show up from any app or from the Control Center will be confused when the $199 speaker that they have plugged into the wall in the corner, that they just bought from Apple, can't even play their podcasts.  

4.  Beats - Beats was already working on a Sonos competitor when Apple purchased them for $3 billion dollars.  They scrapped that technology when they bought Beats for no apparent reason.  Right now, I am not aware of a Beats speaker that even has Airplay built into it.   There is no excuse for buying a company that makes speakers and not implementing your own Airplay technology into their speakers when Phillips, and others, have had Airplay capabilities for years. I should mention that Beats speakers do have Bluetooth.  Similar to Airplay, Bluetooth works across the entire iOS ecosystem, so it at least doesn't require a third party app to be useful. 

So maybe Apple has given up on Airplay?  If that is the case, a lot of people that own new AppleTVs, new receivers, individual speakers, and Airport Express units (and third party airplay receivers) will be disappointed.  I have two brand new receivers and both of them have Airplay built in, so it isn't like Apple isn't still making money on it.   My feeling is that they should support their own tech before adding competing third party devices to their stores.  

(By the way, note that this article has nothing to do with whether Sonos is a good value or not.  I have an older article comparing Sonos to Airplay that discusses some of those issues, but I would be saying the same thing if they were putting Denon Heos speakers (although it works with Bluetooth) or BlueSound Speakers (also works with Bluetooth) in their stores.   So sound quality or value have nothing to do with this particular argument.)

I have read so many posts where people are going nuts over the fact that Apple has removed the headphone jack from the iPhone 7.  Many of the complainers are Android Trolls that show up in every Apple discussion (they are easy to spot because they are the first to bring up off topic subject matter), but I believe there are still some actual iPhone users that are confused or have no idea what the removal of the jack will mean to them. 

In this article, I will discuss the many ways that you should be able to get audio from the iPhone.

Let's be honest, most people don't care about audiophile sound quality.  Therefore, most people fall into this category.    

1.  Apple will put a pair of lightning Airbuds in every iPhone 7 box.  Nothing will be cheaper or more convenient.

2.  Apple will put an adapter in the box with every iPhone 7.  You can use your old headphones with it.   If you lose the provided adapter, you can buy them for $9 from Apple.   The funny thing is that many people speculate that Apple would charge $50 or more for an adapter, so it is surprising that you can get 5 or them for that price.  Some people are saying it will be easy to lose, but lets be honest, you can buy a couple extras for very little money to have on hand at all times.  

3.  The iPhone 7 will have 2 speakers and will be more useful for audio than the current speaker.

A lot of people are moving to wireless headphones.  They typically won't have the best sound quality, but you have a couple choices, you can get a Bluetooth wireless receiver and plug in any headphones or you can get headphones made for bluetooth.

​1.  Clipr - I can recommend this one since I have had it for years and it works great.  It can run on electric power or on its battery.  It has a clip that you can fasten to a collar to hold it in place while running.  It is Bluetooth 4.0.

2.  Apt-x Receivers - You can get similar devices these days that have a newer version of Bluetooth (4.1), so in theory, they might work even better.  

3.  SoundPEATS Wireless Headphones - I have a pair of these I use when walking the pups.  I have noticed a delay with video, but for audio they work fine.  They are only $20 and use Bluetooth 4.1.

4.  Apple's AirPods - These things have some amazing features if you can live with the looks of them hanging out of your ears.

5.  Higher End Bluetooth Headphones - I have a pair of Parrot ZIk 2.0 and they sound very good for Bluetooth.  The iPhone app comes with an equalizer, the ability to fine tune how much noise canceling you want, and look great.  There have been some complaints about durability, but mine still look like new.  There is a new version of the headphones, but I don't have first hand experience with it, but they areZik 3.0.  Many people also like the Bose noise canceling headphones, so they are an option, as well.
​

Over and over again, I have heard the question related to how you would charge them and play them at home.  If you want to charge your phone and listen to headphones, the best options cost a bit of money, but you will can very good sound quality with the right headphones.

1.  Airplay - I mainly use Airplay at home and I have written numerous articles about it on this site (check my search box).  The upside is you can add Airplay to any radio or stereo that has an Aux input or buy a receiver or speaker with Airplay built in.  The AppleTV, Airport Express, and third party cheap devices are easy to come by.  If you have an Nvidia Shield,  you already be able to accept an Airplay stream.

2.  Chromecast Audio/Chromecast - It is more limited than Airplay, but a great option based on price, if you use services that are compatible.  Of course, the Nvidia Shield and many TVs have Casting built in.

3.  Bluetooth - The Bluetooth Receivers I mentioned above can plug into a stereo, as well.  However, you could also get a Bluetooth receiver that stays plugged in all the time.

​4.  There are also pleny options like Sonos, Bluenode, Denos Heos, DLNA, etc.

(Note:  In a lot of these scenarios, you aren't actually play music directly from the iPhone.  With many of them, you are using an app on the iPhone to stream music to a third party device directly from the web.  Also, it should be mentioned that if you have an old run down router, you might have issues.  Bluetooth, it should be noted, does not require wifi.)

There are currently a couple stand alone options for charging while playing music.

Belkin Lightning Audio + Charge - This has two lightning ports, so you can charge and listen to music at the same time.  I expect we will see more of these on the market soon.  

Apple Dock - This gives you a dock for your phone and an analog output to plug in headphones.

You can also send audio to a computer wirelessly.  There is a program called Airfoil ( I have articles about it, as well) that turns your Mac or PC into an Airplay receiving device.  This give you the ability to send audio from the iPhone to the Mac/PC and then use the computer to feed an amp or you could use the headphone port of the computer.  It is really useful if you want to plug your computer in to a stereo across the room and use your iPhone to stream to it.  

Kodi - I haven't used Kodi on the computer in a while, but it used to have an Airplay receiving option built in.  I would suspect that it still does.

Personally, I have been using external DACs to get music out of my iPhones for a while.  I don't have an iPhone 7 for testing yet, but I believe it has the same functionality as the 6S+.  

You will typically need one of the camera connection kits to get this to work.  If you want to charge, you would want their Lightning to USB3 adapter which has a port for USB and another port with Lightning for charging.  For on the go, you might prefer a slimmer profile and they have the single port Lightning to USB adapter for that.

Dragonfly DAC with Plugable - I have written about this setup numerous times.  It works great, sound great, and its portable.  Dragonfly now has DACs that can work without the Plugable if you don't already have the Original Dragonfly laying around.   Of course, Dragonfly isn't the only portable USB DAC, so there are probably other options.  I prefer the Dragonfly because it is small.  I also have an older NuForce DAC and it works with this setup, as well.

Powered USB DACs - There are powered DACs all over the place at different price points.  With the USB3 to Lightning adapter, you can send audio to the DAC and charge the iPhone at the same time.  I have a Cambridge DAC Magic, Little Dot DAC 1, and they both work with this setup without an issue.

I had to put the Echo Dot in its own category because it is simply awesome and just came to market at a $50 price point.  It can attach to any audio system that has an aux or RCA inputs.  The great thing is that once you pair it to the phone, you can be playing music on your iPhone, say "Alexa pair with Phone" and music simply starts playing over your speakers.  It feels like the future.

Some of its amazing capabilities are in the video below.

We will see more of these come to market in the near future,   Below are two of the better choices at different price points:

Audeze SINE On-Ear Planar Magnetic Headphones with Integrated Lightning Cable for Apple iPhone/iPod/iPad (~$500) - These have a high end DAC built into the cable.

Brightech - Apple MFi Approved Pure Lightning Headphones (~$40) - Another Lightning option currently on the market.

Not sure I covered every option above, but you can see there are numerous options at many different price points depending on how picky you are about sound quality.  I personally use Airplay at home most of the time, USB portable DACs on vacation, and bluetooth in the car and at work.  All of them have their place.  However, I stopped using the headphone jack with any frequency a long time ago, so for me, the news that Apple dropped the port was met with a yawn.  If I missed any obvious options, drop me a comment or email and I will revise this article.

Update 2 (final word on the issue) - I received my iPhone on the last day of the initial reservation, so I am happy  that I got it on time and  that I don't have to call them again.   

UPDATE:  (9/15/16) Apple contacted me tonight and said they put in a request to send my Phone earlier.  The rep did not have a firm date, but he expected that I would get it before my first Reservation date.  I will keep you updated as to how it turns out.



As anyone that reads this site knows, I am a fan of Apple products.  I own an iPhone, three Macs, Airplay devices, Apple Watch, iPads of several generations (the iPad Pro 9.7 with Pencil is my newest device), so when I complain about Apple, it isn't because I have some vendetta against Apple.  In fact, if I didn't like Apple products, I wouldn't be in a position to deal with their customer service. (Below is the whole story, but I will get to the customer service aspect of the situation after I put it into context.)

 As per usual, Apple kicked off the preorder at midnight on Friday.  That meant I had to get up an try to order the iPhone at 2:00 in the morning.  I felt pretty lucky because I was done by 2:30.  Last year, I gave up and waited until morning to order it.  

I ordered a Jet Black, 256GB, iPhone 7 Plus.  They told me I would get an email with a reservation number to complete my order.  The delivery date was already pushed back to a period between September 26 - October 3.  I was surprised that the delivery got pushed back so far in such a short period, but I guess the phone is more popular than they thought it would be. 

I woke up after a few hours of sleep and I saw that my reservation was in my inbox.  I was eating breakfast and going through the order process when the page said an error occurred.  I tried to hit the back button, but it would not reload the prior page.  

As with most of these issues, going back and starting the process over usually fixes the problem.  However, when I tried to log back in, I got a message saying that the they could not find the reservation number.

I started calling Apple on Friday morning.  Unlike most companies that give you some idea about how long you will be in line, Apple just expects you to hang on for as long as it takes.  I was on hold for two hours and 20 minutes before I had to go into a meeting.  I left the phone off the hook, but it was a dead signal when I got back.  I suspect they picked up before I got back to my desk 15 minutes later, but I don't know for sure (more about that later).

I started calling them again when I got back from lunch.  Somehow a company that owns a music business can only play about 5 songs in constant rotation over the course of several hours and it picked three of them to play over and over and over.   I work in a professional environment, so one of the songs they were playing with great frequency wasn't appropriate to have on my phone's speaker for hours on end.  

​One of the songs is a song by Sasquatch called "25th (Tanner Caldwell Remix)".  If you are curious about what I am referring to, play the song on Apple Music or your service of choice and go to 2 minutes and 38 seconds in.  If they played it once, okay, but this song was on constant rotation.     Please bring back Muzak if you are going to have people on hold for that long with only 5 songs in your arsenal.  

Finally, after waiting for almost 3 hours, I finally had a specialist named Bobby on the other end.  I told him about my issue and he had me send him the Apple email to his Apple address with my reservation number.  He tried going through the reservation process and had no luck.  He checked on the issue and said it was a known problem that would fix itself in 2 or 3 hours.  I asked him if they had someone I could contact if it was not successful and he said I would have to call back the main number if it was not fixed.

I checked the site several times over the next several hours and it still would not work.  I, unfortunately, had to call Apple again.  I was "only" on hold for about 2 hours this time.  The same three songs were still in constant rotation, but I had no choice but to stay on hold.  Luckily, I was home, so I was able to put the music on the speaker and try to concentrate on TV rather than the music.

I told Tim (not Tim Cook), the new specialist, about my issues.  He said he would talk to a supervisor and put me on hold.  He claimed that they were still working on the issue and they expected it to be resolved by 10 AM on Saturday.   My reservation expires at 4 PM (their time) on Saturday, so I was hoping that the issue would be resolved.

I got up and checked my reservation, still no luck.  Their 10 AM is 12 PM here, so I waited until noon and tried it again.  It still didn't work.  I sent two emails (one in the morning and one in the afternoon) to the address Bobby had given me on Friday, but he never responded.  As a result, I checked the reservation a few more times and it still didn't work, so I had to call the main number again.

Unfortunately, they still had a similar playlist.  This time it played two of the three songs and mixed in a couple more songs.  It still played them over and over, but the "Sasquatch" was no where to be seen.   

Well, 2 hours and 45 minutes in, the music switched to ringing.  Yay!  I was finally going to get to talk to someone.  About 20 rings in, the phone simply disconnected.  AHHHHHHHH!  I felt like Charlie Brown playing football with Lucy!  

With so little time left before my reservation expired, I resorted to the "chat" feature on Apple's website.   It "only" took about an hour to talk to someone.  Luckily, I had Bobby's email address, which I provided to them, and I then explained my problem.  They could not do anything about the issue, but they said they would have a supervisor call me in the next 5 hours.

Instead of a supervisor, Bobby called me back within the hour.  He said they were still aware of the issue and they were extending my reservation expiration.  He also said he would call me back at 5 PM on Sunday to help resolve the issue or see if it had been resolved by Apple.

At about 4:30 AM on Sunday morning, I got a new email from Apple.  It had the extended reservation time and it had a "Complete Order" button that I tested.  It still did not work.  I sent Bobby another email to let him know that Apple had not resolved my issue.  

At 4:44 PM, Bobby called me.  He said that the problem should now be resolved.  

Well, Bobby was right!  I could now use the reservation link that Apple sent me to access all of the information I supplied.  It had my order details, my cell phone carrier details, etc.  However, the most important part of the initial reservation was missing and that was the date I would get the iPhone.  Instead of getting it by October 3rd (at the latest), the date was moved to November 1st (at the latest).

"You know how to take the reservation, you just don't know how to hold the reservation"  Seinfeld
​

Since I was still on the phone with Bobby, I explained that the only reason I stayed on hold for hours listening to three awful songs over and over was to hold my reservation date.  I could have just got online and resubmitted the order if I didn't care about when I received it.  

He said there was nothing he could do about the fact that they added a month to my delivery date.   I asked if I could talk to a supervisor.  He put me on hold for about 30 minutes and then he came back and said the supervisors were all tied up and he would have one of them call me.   That was yesterday afternoon and it is now Monday night and I have not heard from anyone.  I sent Bobby an email and left him a voicemail, but I have not heard back and I have no idea when he will be back in the office.  

That is a BAD APPLE!

I will update this post if I hear anything from Apple, but they truly dropped the ball on this one.  From the 2 to 3 hours hold time for people following up on an issue that they claimed would be resolved, to the inappropriate songs being played over and over, to the inability to have a website that performs properly, to the inability to hold a reservation when they have already reserved a place in line, to the supervisor not calling me back.  I have to say that this is the worst customer service I have had in my life!  

While I love Apple products and I have spent a lot of money in their ecosystem, it is making me reconsider my loyalty to the brand.  

The iPhone 7's biggest claim to fame is the fact that Apple removed the headphone port.  They offset that issue to some extent by including a pair of lightning earbuds and an adapter to make it easy to connect any of your old headphones.  

My perspective on this issue is that I don't really care.  I use the Dragonfly setup I have mentioned before or I use my Parrot Zik 2.0 Bluetooth headphones when I am moving around.  I know some people don't want to carry an adapter to use their headphones, but it really isn't a big deal.  If you have a pair of headphones you normally use with the iPhone, just connect the adapter and be done with it.  The adapter looked pretty small, so it isn't like some of the adapters people have been using with computers.

The Airpods that use some sort of unexplained technology* to work wirelessly, but I am waiting for more info on the tech before I would consider them.  My main question is whether it is bit perfect.  If you move from device to device around the house, it moves from one to the other seamlessly, so that would be nice to have if you worked at home.

(*Update - According to an excellent article from Buzzed the Airpods use Bluetooth with "special sauce".  I doubt they are bit perfect (meaning no data is lost from the originating audio device), but it does mean that they will work with non-Apple devices if you don't need the extraordinary abilities that come with the "special sauce".  I should mention that I agree that these things look weird with the white sticks hanging out of your ears.  However, I still might buy a pair down the road just for the convenience of seamlessly moving from one device to another.)

The camera looks awesome.  It is using a sensor that can bring in more light, which is awesome for indoor photos.  It is reportedly f1.8, so we are getting to the point where it can compete with the popular f1.8 "nifty fifty" in Canon's line up.  The 7 Plus gets two lenses which adds a 2x telephoto lens.  Obviously, you can probably get twice as close if possible, but quite often it is in not possible, so the extra length will be very useful.  

They add some sort of processing that will blur background.  If that works as good as the photos in their presentation, it will make your portraits look a whole lot better. 

The iPhone 7 has some new colors, so you can get it in black and jet black now.  I like the shiny black.  It reminds me of my old 3Gs.  They have also added stereo speakers and made them louder.   One other awesome new feature is the fact that you can now get it in 256GB!  It will surpass the storage capabilities on my old iPod Classic.  

They also announced a faster new watch with GPS and impressive water resistance.  Personally, I would like the water protection, but I won't be updating until next spring, if at all.  We will be closing the pool soon, so that gives me some time to wait.  It does have a brighter screen and it is 50 percent faster, but I think the new OS will make the Apple Watch (original) feel a lot faster anyway.

I am making some changes to my home office andDen, so I am going to discuss some of those changes and why I picked the devices that I have chosen.  This first article discusses some of my goals and why I chose the Onkyo TX-646 as my first addition.

Over a year ago, I received anHP 34 inch 4k monitor.  I discovered a way to send it a 4k signal from my iMac, so I have been happier with the monitor than ever.  I really like the extra sharpness for editing photos, editing video, and for watching video sources like YouTube or Amazon Prime.  As a result, I eventually want to update all my screens to 4k (or more) in the space.  

When I got the monitor, I decided that I would add some streaming devices and if they were available in 4k, I would pay the extra money for the resolution.  I ended up buying an Nvidia Shield and a Roku 4.  I already have a 4k switch box, but I discovered that it could not handle HDCP 2.2 (the extra copyright protection stuck on 4k video).  That made me start thinking of what would happen if I updated Westinghouse 1080p TV to a 4k monitor.  I looked around for 4k splitters with HDCP 2.2, but they are few and far between.  Most of the splitters only have one HDMI input, so that is problematic if I want to split more than one 4k source.

Because of the limitations of a switch box, I started considering a receiver.  Since my office isn't my main destination for watching movies or listening to music over speakers, I decided to keep my budget under $400.

I have been a huge fan of Denon over the years, but when I started looking for a receiver that would fit my needs, Onkyo TX-646 was the one the checked every box at less than $400.  The Denon S920W was similar in specs, but was priced at around $200 more when I bought the Onkyo. Of course, I wanted numerous HDMI inputs and the Onkyo has 8 of them!  I wanted two 4k outputs to feed my HP monitor and a 4k monitor that I was going to eventually buy to replace  my Westinghouse.  Since I was buying a receiver, I also wanted it to be Airplay compatible and have internet access.  The Onkyo checked every single box.  Here are some of the specs from Amazon:

• DTS:X is a next-generation object-based surround sound technology that includes height to deliver a fully-immersive listening experience
• Supports Dolby Atmos Up to 5.1.2 Channels for captivating, multidimensional sound
• High instantaneous current enhances speaker control for accurate and dynamic audio reproduction with 170 W/Ch. (6 Ohms, 1 kHz, 0.9% THD, 1 Channel Driven, FTC) and 100 W/Ch. (8 Ohms, 20 Hz-20 kHz, 0.08% THD, 2 Channels Driven, FTC)
• 4K/60 Hz-Capable HDMI 2.0a Terminals for UltraHD and supports HDCP 2.2 for premium 4K/Full HD video streaming and broadcast
• Built-in Bluetooth, Wi-Fi and Airplay with Pandora and Spotify to stream virtually any audio from your smartphone, tablet, or PC for clear and powerful sound

The one thing I would want in a living room setup would be Audyssey's MultEQ XT32 incredible room correction software.  I have it my current receiver and it made a HUGE difference in the sound quality.  That being said, my office is a lot easier to room correct because it is small, doesn''t have numerous doorways, etc.  

The Onkyo room correction was even ideal for this space.  You put the included microphone in one spot and it takes measurements of each speaker and determines cross over points of each one.  It is just so much easier than Audyssey'ss approach which requires you to move the microphone to 4 to 8 positions.  I believe Onkyo's approach would be a limitation in my living room, but ideal in my office where I don't want to go to that much trouble.    The other downside for living room use would be lack of pre-outs, but I will discuss that more when I talk about living room updates.

I have several sources hooked up the Onkyo now and love it.  It even has Bluetooth, so I could send audio to it from my Android devices if I wanted.  The switching works great, Roku recognizes it as HDCP 2.2 compliant, so now all I have to do is hook it up up to another 4k monitor and I will have the  (almost) ideal setup for my office.  

I want to mention that my iMac does put out 4k (3820x2160) over thunderbolt, but the native screen resolution maxes out at 2560x1440, so that one screen will lag a little bit behind the other screens in the office.  Adding a new 5k iMac is on my wishlist, but it is far from the top because I can still use my other screens when I need that extra bit of detail.  In fact, I would expect that I will update my laptop before I get around to doing anything with the iMac.  I may wait until Apple stops supporting it with updates and see what is out there at that point.  It may make more sense to just update the display and use a laptop for everything.  Kind of a wait and see situation since it is so far off in the future.  It is hard to rationalize updating the iMac when it still looks great next to the HP monitor and I doubt that very many people could see much difference in resolution given the 27 inch screen size and the distance from the seating position.   

One thing I want to say about this Onkyo is that it sounds fantastic.  I was using my old receiver in the room with 2 channel audio only, but the Onkyo has influenced my decision to put together a 5.1 system in the space and I couldn't be happier, especially for the less than $400 price tag (though I spent another $75 for a center channel and I will eventually want to replace the sub I stole from the bedroom).  

If you have a similar situation, I can give this receiver my highest recommendation for price for performance. Not sure if anything out there currently comes close and I looked around quite a bit.

I have been using the Canon 5D Mark III since 2012.  I even wrote a blog post about upgrading at the time. I love Canon glass.  The glass is often less expensive than the competition and the amount of variety available is mind blowing.  As a matter of fact, I still love the quality of photos I get out of the Mark III.  The camera never gets in the way of the photo I am trying to get.

According to Amazon, these are the Canon Mark IV highlights:

• 30.4 MP full-frame CMOS sensor for versatile shooting
• Up to 7.0 frames per second continuous shooting speed
• 61-point AF system with 41 cross-points for expanded vertical coverage
• ISO range 100-32000 with 50-102400 expansion
• 4K video recording at 30p or 24p and in-camera still frame grab of 8.8MP images
• Touch-screen LCD monitor

It isn't so much that I am unimpressed, but the new Canon falls short in some areas that are now important to me.  

1.  Megapixels - The extra 8 pixels is okay, but not really enough to make me want to upgrade.
2.  FPS - One extra frame per second isn't that important, either.
3.  AF System - one of the bigger improvements, but not all that useful for a lot of my photos.  Even with the excellent Mark III autofocus, I still use the center placed focus point for most subjects and then move the camera based on desired composition.
4. ISO - Need to see more comparisons of low light performance.  For me, this is an extremely  important feature, but maybe the money would be better spent on fast lenses that I can use with future kits?
5.  4k recording - I was excited to hear about this until I read about the 1.64x crop and the fact that it only records in Motion JPEG.  Yes, it is better than 1080p only, but still a minor disappointment.
 6. Touch Screen LCD - Very nice to get a touch screen, but would be A LOT better if it was an articulating screen or at least a tilting screen.

Of course, compared to the Mark III, it is better in every way possible.  That will make it a worthwhile update for Pros and for people that are sold on Canon bodies.  My main problem with it isn't that it isn't a decent update, but that the competition is already better, in a lot of ways, for my personal needs.  For example, lets compare it to the Sony A7 RII.  

The Sony's specs (via Amazon):

• World's first Full-frame back-illuminated Exmor R CMOS sensor-42.4MP, 5-axis in-body image stabilization optimized for 42.4MP full-frame, 4K movie recording with full pixel readout and no pixel binning
• 2.4-million dot XGA OLED Tru-Finder w/ ZEISS T* coating, Simple connectivity to smartphones via Wi-Fi and NFC w/ camera apps, Fast focal plane phase-detection AF realized with A-mount lenses
• Shutter vibration suppression, first curtain shutter, and silent shutter, Resolution meets sensitivity 42.4MP up to ISO 102,400 / 4K up to 25,600, Durable, reliable and ergonomically enhanced for professional use
• Fast Hybrid AF with 399 focal plane phase-detection AF points

I can't really say how real world performance compares, but from a specs point of view, they both have their upsides and downsides.  

The reason I did not update to the Sony is the lack of native lenses, the native lens prices compared to Canon, and other trade offs like comparatively horrendous battery power.   I did strongly consider buying the Sony, but one thing I wanted was a lightweight package due to it being mirrorless, but I would have ended up using it with my current Canon lenses with a Speedboost adapter and the combo would have negated a lot of the weight advantages.  

With the price of these cameras both being over $3000, I have adopted the "wait it out" methodology.  I don't want to pay that much money for the relatively small upgrades or for other trade offs. 

 Since price is a main consideration, I started making a list of other features I want in my next camera:

1.  Lightweight - I am tired of carrying around a heavy body with heavy lenses.  That being said, I don't want to make huge image quality sacrifices for the size.
2. 4k video - I said last year I would make more videos this year, but that hasn't happened.  However, if I had a real camera with 4k, it might be more fun and easy than simply using my iPhone in 4k. I have also used my Canon 5D for video, but neither is ideal.
3.  Cheap - Well, not really THAT cheap, but it can't cost $3500 if I am going to live with trade offs.  Also, it would be helpful if it had inexpensive lenses and still worked with my Canon lenses with an adapter.
4.  Fill in missing holes on my 5D Mark III.   Those missing holes would mainly be related to video, though weight is a consideration, as well.

The three cameras in my sights are theSony A6300 (~$998 for body only), the Panasonic DMC-GX8 (~$998 for body only), and G7 (~$700 with kit lens, less than $900 with 14-140mm).  They all have their own unique qualities and it really comes down to the system you want to employee and the money you want to spend.   I ruled out the GH4 based on price (for comparison, it costs ~$1670 with 14-140mm) and the fact that it costs more than the GX8 and would not move from video to photography as easily because of the lack of image stabilization.  The GH4 is the better video option, but for my needs, it is a bit of overkill.

The upsides to the Panasonic GX8 is that it has more megapixels and has image stabilization.  The G7's advantages are a pop up flash that would come in handy for city photography, is a lot cheaper, and is a little bit lighter (which may mean it feels less professional, but I am not too worried about shooting in the rain with it) than the GX8.  They both have articulating screens and shoot 4k video.   

The problem with the Panasonic(s) is that it suffers in every way to my Canon when it comes to photo image quality, so it would mainly be used for video or times I just can't or don't want to handle the weight of my Canon (like shooting photos in the city).  I already have an EPL5, but it doesn't have an electronic viewfinder, shoot 4k, or have a fully articulating screen.  As a result, it has been more of a trade off for both video and photos.  

The Sony A6300 is less of a trade off, especially with photography, but the lack of a fully articulating screen makes it less likely that I will want to shoot videos with it.  I do like the idea of getting a Sony and buying full frame lenses over time while Sony works on updating their full frame model, and lenses, so that there are less trade offs compared to using a DSLR.  Also, like the Panasonic, I can use a Metabones adapter to allow me to use my Canon lenses without too much of an investment in Sony lenses right now.  I would probably get a general purpose zoom for city pics, and use Canon lenses for everything else.  One thing I like is that the camera is so small.   The other upside is that both the Panasonic and Sony will need "speed boosters" to get use out of my Canon lenses, but there is a better chance that the Sony speed booster will work with a future Sony full frame that I could end up with in the future.


​​

So which is option is best for me?  To be honest, I haven't decided because I think the Sony is the better all around camera, while the Panasonic is quite a bit cheaper, has cheaper native lenses available, and would be better for the type of  videos I make with the articulating screen.  However, it feels like a huge compromise in sensor (only 16.1 megapixels) and not really a system I would switch to as a main camera in the long run, so any native lenses I would buy would not work on the full frame camera I would buy in the future.  Of course, maybe it makes sense just to have two setups that work for my needs at the time.  One thing about Sony and Canon is that their lenses will continue to weigh more than Micro Four Thirds, so maybe a lightweight second setup is something I might keep around for the long haul.

That being said, I am leaning toward the G7 at this moment, though it will be months before I buy, because it fills more holes right now with a lot less money being put out.  Like I mentioned, there is a kit setup out there that combines the G7 with a 14-140mm lens (which would be perfect for shooting in the city combined with my 20mm f1.7) for less than $900.  Then I would just add a Speedbooster (if needed) and have pretty much everything I need for the long haul while waiting for that perfect mirrorless camera to come out.  I may eventually end up with Sony, but you never know, by the time I am in the market, maybe Canon will have a more professional mirrorless that will keep me in their ecosystem.