What si with this rash of troll posts all of the sudden?
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
For me, the sensor is probably the least important part of the camera.I think I would be more impressed with these sorts of photographers if they produced something artistically compelling when they did this. I keep harking back to the infamous Fred Miranda comparison of the 5dIII and the D800 where he shot a bunch of beautiful photos in Yosemite but to demonstrate how bad the Canon was he had to go find a special scene to demonstrate it and produced a photo that was unusable for anything but his demo. this after he proved that he could shoot such magnificent shots with the Canon equipment.
It's been that way ever since I bought a 7D and it continues to be the case with my 5DIII. I have never, ever felt limited by the sensor.
Lenses? Yes. I have owned lenses that I felt were limiting what I could do. When I felt that way, I got new or different lenses. Don't feel that way any more.
Before I had radio control strobes I felt a little limited (largely by my lack of technical skill though). Now I have 600RTs and any limitations I feel now reflect my own need to work on my skills, not on any limits of the speed-lights.
If I had to choose five or 10 things to upgrade on a camera body, the sensor wouldn't make the cut.
Why? Because all sensors from all brands and all formats are so good today that the differences are just plain insignificant. If there were truly a camera out there with a "crappy" sensor, it would be a different story. But even new cell phones have pretty damn good sensors in them.
I guess I don't have much sympathy for people who write encyclopedia-long posts obsessing over how disappointed they are because they pointed their cameras directly into the sun and didn't get perfectly exposed shadows in the foreground. That's pretty much the epitome of first-world problems as far as I'm concerned and I'm kind of embarrassed for them.
So... it would seem that what you are saying is that it is the overall "system" that matters and not only the sensor or the camera. I don't think too many here will argue with that.
All of this Sensor Hype is probably meaningless to that crowd as well just the same as it is to 90% of those buying Sony and Nikon equipment. If this were all that important, Nikon cameras would be selling a lot better than Canon and that is not what we really see.
The problem with that comparison is you use the sensor every single time you take a photo, and not "the system".
All of this Sensor Hype is probably meaningless to that crowd as well just the same as it is to 90% of those buying Sony and Nikon equipment. If this were all that important, Nikon cameras would be selling a lot better than Canon and that is not what we really see.Let me rephrase the question a bit for you...if you recommend a camera system based upon a sensor, then i wouldn't want a hear a recommendation from you anyways.
And answer that by saying that since the 5DII, I haven't seen a Canon camera with a sensor that was significantly better enough for me to want to buy it or recommend it to anyone.
i would look at whether or not the system fits the person, support, service, used market in the area, what they want to shoot; and recommend based upon that.
a sensor? wont' be as relevant as the above would be in 2-4 years time.
In 2-4 years time, I expect people with Sony/Nikon cameras to be taking and editing photographs that Canon people simply can't - at least not with the same level of detail and color. I fully expect Sony/Nikon cameras to have 15, if not 16, bit ADCs in 4 years time. As for the system? They'll fill that in. The vast majority of users don't need more than a handful of lenses - thus "a system" that has macro, T/S, etc, is meaningless to the average photographer that will buy a camera plus lens kit and use that for the next n years without buying anything else. How many people is that? There's a thread on here somewhere... the number of people that buy extra lenses is less than 10%. i.e the "system" is meaningless to 90%+ of the people that buy Canon cameras.
Here is the problem with this thinking though: The concept of an "IQ Gap" is more hype than reality. Look at the reviews on DPR for example, they don't show much of an "IQ Gap" in fact for all practical purposes, none at all in their example images. This is why I call it hype, it is really "much ado about not much". Even those who try to demonstrate the so called "problem" (and we have seen this time and time again) have to resort to some extreme shadow lift test case to demonstrate their point with the resulting image being unusable for anything much beyond PI surveillance perhaps.@jrista – You state that Canon's sensors haven't improved since before the 7D, and that all of their competitors' sensors have substantially improved, that Canon's customers have been demanding improved sensor IQ, and that Canon 'must respond'.QuoteA small fraction of the market shoots RAW, a tiny fraction makes large prints, and an infinitesimally miniscule fraction even knows what a Stouffer step wedge is, let alone has one.QuoteSmall wonder this 'sensor IQ gap' has no impact on sales. The bottom line is that for the needs of the vast majority of dSLR buyers, the IQ delivered by Canon's current sensors is more than sufficient, and that's not likely to change any time soon.
But a fair percentage of buyers pay attention to online reviews. Neuro, I'm in nearly 100% agreement with you on your contention that sales tell the story. However, it's dangerous (as IBM, Intel and Microsoft discovered several times, and as Apple may soon discover) to assume that what worked in business for so long will continue indefinitely. It's a reasonable assumption that if the I.Q. gap gets wide enough, the popular press, review sites, and entities like Cons. Rep. will start to disregard Canon's whizzbang features and marketing prowess, and view Canon's lineup as unworthy of serious consideration. You're correct that this will not likely happen soon (e.g. in the next 2-3 years), but 5 years is not out of the question.
IBM, Intel and Microsoft may have had episodes where they badly misunderstood the market, but they were able to recover due to their deep pockets and a willingness to part with previous strategies. I believe Canon can do the same. Based on Canon's (corporate) track record, I'll bet they have the ability to deliver IQ equal to or exceeding what's on the market now, but they won't do so until market conditions force them. Eventually, as jrista points out, the market will force them.
One more thing: you should know by now that jrista is not a DRone. When he makes assertions he almost always has good reasons for them, and he's willing to talk things out and admit his errors. You may disagree with him, but try asking politely for citations rather than descend into name-calling.
Not only that, but when he sells his stuff -- Canon gets another customer (or keeps one). This same argument was used when Sony came out with IBIS (for example) over on DPR there were huge numbers of posts bemoaning the imminent demise of Canon (and Nikon) if they didn't immediately adopt this new "game changing" technology, yet so far we haven't seen it happen (and indeed, Sony have moved from it in a number of their offerings).neuroanatomist: I agree with what you wrote, but of course it will have some effect on Canon. For example I´m Canon guy. For last year I bought three Canon cams. But if they don´t deliver here, I´ll be forced to look elsewhere, that way I´ll stop buying their products. So it has effect. I hope they solve it, because I´d be very happy to buy another Canon product.
I didn't think I needed to spell it out explicitly, but the effect I am referring to is an effect on market share, not at an individual level. You may switch to another brand for more DR, that's not going to affect market share. Perhaps as you switch away from Canon, three other people switch to Canon for better AF for video and/or stills.
Isn't a point about pop up flash and articulating screens not being on pro cameras because it affects sealing, and sealing is deemed more important than these features for pros?That's what I always thought their reasoning to be. But I think beyond that, they more or less expect that the people who buy those expensive, fancy bodies also have expensive, fancy lighting equipment (high end speedlights, strobes, etc.).
If you throw enough ideas on the wall, something has to stick eventually.
It looks like it could hold 10. Maybe the other two are back-ordered at B&H or had to go back to Irvine for adjustment ;-)It achieves this using ten, commercially available Canon 400mm lenses with unprecedented nano-fabricated coatings with sub-wavelength structure on optical glasses.
I only count 8.
It's a CR3 about the fact that the NDA/embargo will expire. That's really it. I wouldn't call this a CR3 about the 7D "replacement" (cleverly worded ) itself. Don't get your hopes up too much...all this is is reporting the fact that Canon will be lifting NDAs and allow people to speak freely about certain upcoming products starting in Sept., however we still don't know what those products are. Just that it's the 7D "replacement"...whatever that is...7D II? 3D? 4D? 2D? Something still APS-C? Something maybe APS-H? Something with 10fps? Something with more FPS? It's all still the same old questions...we still don't know anything. We just know now that we WILL know more clearly, but possibly still not for sure, in a few more months.What do you mean it isn't going to be a 7D replacement? He's got a picture of it right there in the article! ;-)
Seems like the 5D iii just got pooped on. For anyone who can stomach 36MP that is.I thought that the 5DIII got "pooped on" by the D800? Is this new "poop" then?
Luckily for Canon they have the better lens line-up. Which is what really matters.
I also think that there is a degradation that comes with thee things and the companies that are making fast primes are generally going for the best MTF curve they can get. So putting the IS gizmo in there costs them some performance in that regard. Zooms are always a compromise so for those it doesn't matter as much (and they are already big and heavy).I'm wondering why fast primes like a 35/1.4 or a 85/1.2 don't come with IS. The fastest lens to feature IS is the 35mm (and the 200mm) f2. Why is that? People would love a 50mm f1.2 IS Is there some sort of technical problem? I can't imagine anything else, it would sell well, would set them apart, isn't too expensive... Can someone help me?Hi tayassu!
I will try to make an approach, as far as I can handle your question:
IS (Canon) is a moving optical element inside the lens.
To work properly it has to move fast and accurate. To be fast it has to be of low weight.
Fast apertures need a larger image circle over the whole optics compared to narrow apertures.
Therefore the optical elements of the IS should be larger as well. This leads to higher weight which causes loss of speed and higher energy consumption and also to higher prices because of the more expensive optics.
So with IS Canon always compromises between functionality of the IS and useful max. aperture.
This is my conclusion. Maybe someone else can do better.
That's what I was getting at. It is really the whole chain they are analyzing not just the sensor. If Canon could figure out a way to get some low speed column conversion going on their sensors they would have a pretty high performance solution and we would all have to find something else to whine about :-)I am not proposing that they test the sensor and ADC separately, they could not do that without opening the box and connecting equipment and that we would really be difficult in the case of Sony. What I am saying is that they are not really reporting sensor performance, they are reporting camera performance and should say so.
Please don't even suggest such an appallingly horrible possibility!!
"Camera performance" includes evaluation of such things as autofocus, frame rate, buffer depth, shutter lag, viewfinder characteristics, build quality, etc. How good is an image with low noise and high DR if it's blurry from poor AF or misses peak action due to shutter lag? No, DxOMark is NOT reporting camera performance. Not even close.
I get what you're saying – they are measuring the final output of the sensor, on- and off-die amplifier circuitry, the ADC, heat dissipation capacity, firmware coding, etc. More than just the CMOS chip, but while dissecting the component contributions and characteristics is of academic interest, I'm not convinced it has any practical relevance. If you ignore their Biased Scores, DxOMark's 'sensor' measurements are useful as one aspect of camera performance to be considered when comparing bodies.
I guess it really depends on how we define class leading. Canon is an international business, it's not there to appease techhie geeks, but to provide it's share holders with a reasonable return on their investment. So if we look at the market, the Canon 5DII and 5DIII are big sellers for Canon. But the Nikon D800 isn't shifting any where near as many units. So, which camera is the more commercially viable? If you really feel that the Exmor sensor is more important to you than your current Canon one, then feel free and jump ship. It's the only metric Canon is really concearned with. If enough people buy a D800 and not a 5DIII then it will cause Canon to listen. In the mean time, Canon's market placement has been skillfully played out and the 5DIII is a brilliant product. The only way to get Canon to loose faith in their market research and placement is to show them it's wrong at a sales level.I agree completely. This just doesn't seem to be tipping the scale that much for whatever reason. That has to be somewhat frustrating for the DxO geeks among us.