Still waiting for high MP canon while Nikon is coming out with new 800

[Roo]

Actually, if you read most of my posts on this forum regarding mirrorless cameras, you'll notice that I in fact do say exactly that: that manufacturers must stop equating mirrorless with tiny.

I see it the other way round: Canon AND prosumers need to stop equating "small size" with "inadequate functionality" :-)

camera industry needs to make the same shift company cars made about 10 years ago. Up to then "small car" meant "cheap car" meant "weak, S___ty uninspiring car with poor performance, poor safety, poor acceleration, poors brakes, poor heating, poor lights, poor experience, poor and S___ty everything. No advanced functions or luxury whatsoever". Think of a Hyundai Pony 1990s. Or a Vauxhall/Opel Astra. Or a Volkswagen Polo back then.

And now think of a 2014 BMW Mini Cooper. Yes it is more expenseive than a large car was in 1995. BUT .. it delivers ... without any bulk.

I want a Canon FF-sensored SMALL mirrorless camera ... with FULL FUNCTIONALITY. AT a price that puts it relative to a fat 5D 3 or 1D-X exactly where a BMW Mini Cooper sits compared to a BMW 5-series sedan or 7-series or an X5.

It can be done. Some Japanese makers have learned the lesson - Sony, Fuji (albeit they try to sell a regular Mini /APS-C at Cooper/FF prices). Canon and Nikon will have to follow soon .. or they will be taught a lesson. :-)

You really need to pick better examples:P  A BMW Mini Cooper is a much bigger car than the original Mini Cooper so it has plenty of 'bulk'.  Similarly a new Toyota Corolla is now bigger in every dimension than a 1990 Camry and even the current Polo is a little bigger than the Golf Mk2.  Hyundai were a developing brand in the 80s and 90s, much like the Japanese manufacturers were during the 60s and 70s, and now their pricing an features are much the same as everyone else.  The majority of cars are far superior than those of 10 or more years ago but that doesn't make us better drivers.

I could point out that mobile phones went smaller and smaller but started to grow in size again once we realised we liked the features of a smartphone but then this whole conversation is now so far off the original thread topic now it's ridiculous.

[johnf3f]

Children please stop squabbling!
If Canon don't make the high MP camera that you think you want/need the go buy from someone who does. It is pointless going on ad infinitum about what they don't make, if you really want 30+mp go buy it and stop whingeing. If there are enough of you then Canon will change their products - though when you discover (as I have) the advantages of more modest MP sensors we will welcome you back.

Yes that's right I am quoting myself!
I wish to retract this post as I feel it detracts from this thread, sorry for posting it folks.

I am having so much fun reading the complete ** here that I don't want it to stop! I am having a great laugh at it - please continue! It is a bit disappointing to read the lack of knowledge/experience of many posters (and I don't claim to be an expert) however it is quite amusing so please don't stop.

[sagittariansrock]

Actually, if you read most of my posts on this forum regarding mirrorless cameras, you'll notice that I in fact do say exactly that: that manufacturers must stop equating mirrorless with tiny.

I see it the other way round: Canon AND prosumers need to stop equating "small size" with "inadequate functionality" :-)

camera industry needs to make the same shift company cars made about 10 years ago. Up to then "small car" meant "cheap car" meant "weak, S___ty uninspiring car with poor performance, poor safety, poor acceleration, poors brakes, poor heating, poor lights, poor experience, poor and S___ty everything. No advanced functions or luxury whatsoever". Think of a Hyundai Pony 1990s. Or a Vauxhall/Opel Astra. Or a Volkswagen Polo back then.

And now think of a 2014 BMW Mini Cooper. Yes it is more expenseive than a large car was in 1995. BUT .. it delivers ... without any bulk.

I want a Canon FF-sensored SMALL mirrorless camera ... with FULL FUNCTIONALITY. AT a price that puts it relative to a fat 5D 3 or 1D-X exactly where a BMW Mini Cooper sits compared to a BMW 5-series sedan or 7-series or an X5.

It can be done. Some Japanese makers have learned the lesson - Sony, Fuji (albeit they try to sell a regular Mini /APS-C at Cooper/FF prices). Canon and Nikon will have to follow soon .. or they will be taught a lesson. :-)

You think a 2014 Mini Cooper is exactly the same as a BMW 5-series (not even mentioning the other two lines) in a smaller package? How?

On topic: Companies like Canon do a lot of market research before plonking a FF sensor in a mirrorless body (and similar new models). They do not rely on intuition or what a few people might want- because it has to be profitable.
So if Canon isn't bringing out a mirrorless FF (so haven't anyone other than Sony yet) there must be an economically valid reason.
Tell me, why hasn't Sony brought out those A7/r compatible lenses yet. Only 4 lenses for the world's only FF mirrorless camera, and they are more intent on bringing out a 3rd model. Please tell me this demonstrates an amazing demand of their existing FF models. IMO, it is because Sony is experiencing lower sales than expected in the mirrorless STILLS market and therefore brought out the A7s to give the line a shot in the arm through 4K video. They aren't sure of the viability of this line, so are not investing in new FF E-mount lenses until they see sales take off.
It's a guess, but an informed one.

[Sella174]

On topic: Companies like Canon do a lot of market research before plonking a FF sensor in a mirrorless body (and similar new models).

Proof? (And a budget isn't really proof ... it just means that the MR dept. knows how to spend money.)

They do not rely on intuition or what a few people might want- because it has to be profitable.

A marketing dept. is "a few people" ... but that is not my point. Rather it is that if you give the "trendsetters" what THEY want, then the sheeple will follow. Basic marketing theory.

So if Canon isn't bringing out a mirrorless FF (so haven't anyone other than Sony yet) there must be an economically valid reason.

They don't have the technology for it and purchasing said technology will make it unprofitable. So, yes, there is an economically valid reason.

Tell me, why hasn't Sony brought out those A7/r compatible lenses yet. Only 4 lenses for the world's only FF mirrorless camera, and they are more intent on bringing out a 3rd model. Please tell me this demonstrates an amazing demand of their existing FF models.

Yes, Canon has made dozens of lens models, but how many do you actually need? Is the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 II and the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II not sufficient for nearly everyone's FF needs?

IMO, it is because Sony is experiencing lower sales than expected in the mirrorless STILLS market and therefore brought out the A7s to give the line a shot in the arm through 4K video. They aren't sure of the viability of this line, so are not investing in new FF E-mount lenses until they see sales take off.
It's a guess, but an informed one.

Good guess, only partially correct. MY guess is that Sony is optimizing the various cameras for the various needs of various photographers. For those people who primarily do video, there's now the A7s; for those who primarily do stills, there's the A7r; and for those on a budget, there's the A7. Is Canon not doing the same with the 1DC, the 5DIII and the 6D cameras, respectively? Yes, they are.

[dilbert]

...
Tell me, why hasn't Sony brought out those A7/r compatible lenses yet.
...

How many lenses a year does Canon introduce as new?
How many new EF-S lenses has Canon brought out in the last year?
How many new lenses for EOS-M did Canon announce with the new camera?

Only 4 lenses for the world's only FF mirrorless camera

Yes, and?
Do you think Canon developed the entire line of EOS lenses in one year? Or a hand full of years?

and they are more intent on bringing out a 3rd model. Please tell me this demonstrates an amazing demand of their existing FF models. IMO, it is because Sony is experiencing lower sales than expected in the mirrorless STILLS market and therefore brought out the A7s to give the line a shot in the arm through 4K video. They aren't sure of the viability of this line, so are not investing in new FF E-mount lenses until they see sales take off.
It's a guess, but an informed one.

Or that you have misunderstood how long it takes to develop one new lens, not to forget the cost and difficulty.

[dilbert]

Right.  Because I was discussing differences above ISO 800, where apparently this is not too significant:

Isn't it wonderful how two different people can look at the same graph and argue that the other is wrong, pointing at their part of the curve to prove themselves right?

Still having trouble reading, I see.  Go back and notice that I specified a use case involving high ISO, which is very common for me.

I don't think it is me that is having trouble reading or comprehending

Person X: Vendor A's sensor is the best because the graph is better at ISO J

Person Y: NO! Vendor B's sensor is better because the graph is better at ISO K

I don't get why people want to shoot with high ISO or case so much. At that point you've decided that getting the shot is more important than absolute IQ.

[RLPhoto]

Step 1: agree on the question.

Step 2: we'll never get to step 2.

We'll never get to step 1, because RLPhoto keeps changing the question.  Here's the quick summary:

RLP:  Sony sensors are better than Canon, anyone who disagrees is in denial.

Neuro:  The best Canon sensor is better than the best Sony sensor at higher than ISO 800

RLP:  You confirmed my statement, Sony sensor tech is better.  Check out the D4s.

Neuro:  Sony doesn't make the sensor in the D4s.

RLP:  I don't care if Nikon or Sony make the sensor.  Nikon uses sensors in their cameras that are better at every ISO setting when you compare equivalent bodies.

Neuro: The 6D has better DR at high ISO than the D600.

RLP:  What about some other cameras?

It's a tactic that some people trolls like to use on the Internet.  When shown information/data that contradict their statements, they pretend those data don't exist and then change their statements.  It's a tactic that's also frequently employed by petulant children who refuse to admit when they're wrong.

You seem like the child here neuro. Sony or Nikon sensor, it was a loose term but instead your egotism can't let you lose an argument so I decided to draw you out and yet you are still wrong.

1. Posting comparisons between incorrect bodies. (1dx-d800?)
2. Then denying the equivalent sensor is better. (D4s>1Dx)
3. Then posting childish images. (Who's the child here?)
4. Cherry picks the one camera in a lineup (6D-d600) and ignores the rest as proof of better sensors.

Quite frankly, I think all these threads have rotted your mind. I find it crazy that such a person as yourself continues to defend what is hopelessly wrong. Canon sensors are behind Nikon sensors.

I don't care if they are but it seems to hurt you very much. That's why I went along with this because again, your in denial.

Since this is all too complicated for you, let me make it real simple.

Who has better sensors canon or nikon?

I do not understand how you can make  statement  that one sensor is better than another above 800iso
This is DR and iso figures from 5dmk3 and D600.
Lars

Great, another person in denial.

[dilbert]

...
I do not understand how you can make  statement  that one sensor is better than another above 800iso
This is DR and iso figures from 5dmk3 and D600.
Lars

Ah, now you're using a different camera. You should be using the D800/D800e. You've changed the goal posts!

But yes, the D600 is a better indication of what the 5D series out to be capable of in terms of DR. Can't wait to see what Sony and Nikon can do with a 24MP FF sensor that uses the same technology as the 36MP sensor that is in the D800! Maybe they've held off on that while they try to get a 16bit sensor working?

[Roo]

Step 1: agree on the question.

Step 2: we'll never get to step 2.

We'll never get to step 1, because RLPhoto keeps changing the question.  Here's the quick summary:

RLP:  Sony sensors are better than Canon, anyone who disagrees is in denial.

Neuro:  The best Canon sensor is better than the best Sony sensor at higher than ISO 800

RLP:  You confirmed my statement, Sony sensor tech is better.  Check out the D4s.

Neuro:  Sony doesn't make the sensor in the D4s.

RLP:  I don't care if Nikon or Sony make the sensor.  Nikon uses sensors in their cameras that are better at every ISO setting when you compare equivalent bodies.

Neuro: The 6D has better DR at high ISO than the D600.

RLP:  What about some other cameras?

It's a tactic that some people trolls like to use on the Internet.  When shown information/data that contradict their statements, they pretend those data don't exist and then change their statements.  It's a tactic that's also frequently employed by petulant children who refuse to admit when they're wrong.

You seem like the child here neuro. Sony or Nikon sensor, it was a loose term but instead your egotism can't let you lose an argument so I decided to draw you out and yet you are still wrong.

1. Posting comparisons between incorrect bodies. (1dx-d800?)
2. Then denying the equivalent sensor is better. (D4s>1Dx)
3. Then posting childish images. (Who's the child here?)
4. Cherry picks the one camera in a lineup (6D-d600) and ignores the rest as proof of better sensors.

Quite frankly, I think all these threads have rotted your mind. I find it crazy that such a person as yourself continues to defend what is hopelessly wrong. Canon sensors are behind Nikon sensors.

I don't care if they are but it seems to hurt you very much. That's why I went along with this because again, your in denial.

Since this is all too complicated for you, let me make it real simple.

Who has better sensors canon or nikon?

I do not understand how you can make  statement  that one sensor is better than another above 800iso
This is DR and iso figures from 5dmk3 and D600.
Lars

I'm surprised the found a D600 clean enough to get a reading off 

[3kramd5]

I don't get why people want to shoot with high ISO or case so much.

I disagree. You do get it

At that point you've decided that getting the shot is more important than absolute IQ.

Exactly. It may not be as pretty as a low ISO studio shot, but you can't very well bring birds in flight into a studio setting. Noise > unintended motion blur.

[neuroanatomist]

I don't think it is me that is having trouble reading or comprehending

Person X: Vendor A's sensor is the best because the graph is better at ISO J

Person Y: NO! Vendor B's sensor is better because the graph is better at ISO K

If you don't think so, then I question your capacity for metacognition.

Here's what was actually stated, put in simple statements analogous to yours, which might help you comprehend:

Person R:  Vendor Q's sensor is the best.

Person N:  Vendor Q's sensor is not better at higher than ISO X, and here are data to support that claim.

I don't get why people want to shoot with high ISO or case so much. At that point you've decided that getting the shot is more important than absolute IQ.

'Getting the shot' is what photography is all about – getting the shot is ALWAYS more important than 'absolute IQ'.

If you actually believe that 'absolute IQ', I'd say your a hypocrite unless you own a Phase One IQ280...and despite owning one, you don't use it because you know that soon the IQ380 will be out, then the IQ480, etc., so any pictures you take today will eventually have pretty poor IQ relative to the soon-to-be-current 'absolute IQ'.

[dilbert]

I don't think it is me that is having trouble reading or comprehending

Person X: Vendor A's sensor is the best because the graph is better at ISO J

Person Y: NO! Vendor B's sensor is better because the graph is better at ISO K

If you don't think so, then I question your capacity for metacognition.

Here's what was actually stated, put in simple statements analogous to yours, which might help you comprehend:

Person R:  Vendor Q's sensor is the best.

Person N:  Vendor Q's sensor is not better at higher than ISO X, and here are data to support that claim.

Note that those two statements are not contradictory.

I don't get why people want to shoot with high ISO or case so much. At that point you've decided that getting the shot is more important than absolute IQ.

'Getting the shot' is what photography is all about – getting the shot is ALWAYS more important than 'absolute IQ'.

If you actually believe that 'absolute IQ', I'd say your a hypocrite unless you own a Phase One IQ280...and despite owning one, you don't use it because you know that soon the IQ380 will be out, then the IQ480, etc., so any pictures you take today will eventually have pretty poor IQ relative to the soon-to-be-current 'absolute IQ'.

How did you know?! Because the moment I put down the money for the IQ280, the IQ380 will come out! I've seen it happen lots of times, people posting here when a new/camera lens comes out saying they bought the superceded one just the week before! I'm too frightened that would be me with a very expensive camera that just went down in value a whole lot!!!

[dilbert]

Exactly. It may not be as pretty as a low ISO studio shot, but you can't very well bring birds in flight into a studio setting. Noise > unintended motion blur.

Get a bigger flash

[Sella174]

... but you can't very well bring birds in flight into a studio setting.

Go tell that to the BBC ... Anyone remember that flying geese setup they did with the bicycle?

[sagittariansrock]

How many lenses a year does Canon introduce as new?
How many new EF-S lenses has Canon brought out in the last year?
How many new lenses for EOS-M did Canon announce with the new camera?

1. Canon has a long-term, stable range at the moment. They do not need to bring out a bunch every year.
2. Canon has vested interest in APS-C users going for EF lenses, as can be easily deduced. Nevertheless, point # 1 still works in this case.
3. Is it hard to see how much faith Canon has in the mirrorless market (which, ironically, validates my point). Just look at their investment in the last couple of years.

Yes, and?
Do you think Canon developed the entire line of EOS lenses in one year? Or a hand full of years?

There is nothing to think, I believe in cold, hard facts. Canon introduced the EOS range with 12 lenses and an extender. In a couple of years, yes.

Or that you have misunderstood how long it takes to develop one new lens, not to forget the cost and difficulty.

As I showed above, I don't rely on subjective understanding but on objective data. It does take a long time to develop a lens from scratch, but not so much to adapt A-mount lenses that already exist to FF E-mounts. It is a more long-term and expensive route than asking users to utilize the adapter, so Sony will do that only if they know the FF E-mount will be worthwhile.
FYI, you think developing the new sensor and tech for the A7s did not take time, money or labor?

Proof? (And a budget isn't really proof ... it just means that the MR dept. knows how to spend money.)

If I have to prove to you multi-million dollar firms conduct (effective) market research, then I give up. Do you also ask for proof that the earth revolves around the sun? How about a circumstantial evidence? Sony is down in the stocks and Canon turned a profit. Proof enough for you?

A marketing dept. is "a few people" ... but that is not my point. Rather it is that if you give the "trendsetters" what THEY want, then the sheeple will follow. Basic marketing theory.

Marketing (sic= should be market research) dept doesn't count as the few people. They record what people want, they don't impose their own wants.
Trendsetter based marketing is not a basic marketing theory. Is it what they taught you at school? You should ask for your money back.
This is a very risky technique that will work only under certain conditions: Is the number of trendsetter significantly large? How likely are they to influence the rest of the market? Can the company sustain the slow growth in the beginning until the trend catches? What is the likelihood of competition waiting the initial lag phase and then ramping up just as the log phase is reached.

They don't have the technology for it and purchasing said technology will make it unprofitable. So, yes, there is an economically valid reason.

Yes, that is one possibility. That is why I generalized it to an economically valid reason. However, unlike you I don't have access to Canon's business secrets to state it as a fact.

Yes, Canon has made dozens of lens models, but how many do you actually need? Is the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 II and the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II not sufficient for nearly everyone's FF needs?

Don't make such comments that make you look silly just for the sake of arguments. So this is why Sony isn't bringing out FF E-mount lenses? Because very few people need them?
I am guessing you have never used a macro lens, or shoot small birds with a 70-200 f/2.8?

Good guess, only partially correct. MY guess is that Sony is optimizing the various cameras for the various needs of various photographers. For those people who primarily do video, there's now the A7s; for those who primarily do stills, there's the A7r; and for those on a budget, there's the A7. Is Canon not doing the same with the 1DC, the 5DIII and the 6D cameras, respectively? Yes, they are.

You are stating the obvious, and acting smug for doing so  . Of course the different A7 cameras cater to different markets; my point was, bringing out the A7s while the A7/r setup is still lacking the lenses might imply that the stills market isn't as profitable as they hoped, so they are trying to boost the entire line by bringing out the video-centric model.