Should/can Canon keep making its own sensors?

[marekjoz]

Many Japanese companies truely believe that anything that is absolutely required for their products MUST either be made in-house, or made by a company that they own a large share of.

Take Toyota for example, they make their own shock absorbers, even the transmissions they use in their cars are mainly made by Jatco, of which Toyota have a large shareholding.
Same with Canon.
I believe they want to have not only ultimate control over the required sensor in the DSLR's, but also the secrecy that is only available if done in-house.
(...)
Making their own sensors gives Canon ultimate control, and I doubt they would like to give that away.Nikon are a relatively small company in comparison to Canon, and therefore don't have the resources or money to make their own sensors, and for Nikon, it is far easier to get Sony or some other manufacturer to do it for them.
(...)

Does anybody take under consideration, that Nikon is a Mitsubishi's subsidiary?

[aj1575]

I also like to ask the question, what is wrong with the sensors from canon? It is true, that Sony's (and Nikon's) are better at the moment, but does it really matter? Up until a year ago, the EOS 5D II was the non plus ultra for outdoorphotographers. It was praised for its high IQ, now the mkIII is even better, so what should be wrong about it.
Sure, a better sensor always gives you more possibilities, but is it the limiting factor; and what is the limiting factor of the sensor? Sony (Nikon) sensors have the higher dynamic range at low ISO and the better color sensitivity, while Canon still performs better at high ISO. If you just take the DxOMark score as a measurement, then Sony (Nikon) is far better than Canon; but these marks say about the quality of a camera about as much as a 0-100 time for a car.

To be honest, I expected a bigger step in IQ from the 5d markII to the 5d markIII, but it was still an improvement from an already very high level.

So should Canon keep making its own sensors? definitly yes.

[steliosk]

Canon sensors would be fine if there weren't suffering from banding.

Just make a simple test.

Take an underexposed shot with the same settings, ISO 100 with a 5d mark3 and a d800 (which is the megapixel monster and should suffer a lot from noise and banding issues)

apply +4 or 5 stops in lightroom.
see what happens.

detail in 5D mark3 will just collapse and they want 3.600 euros for that? they won't gonna get it!

like someone said above, 5D 3 over 5D 2 is not as much as revolutionary as D800 over D700.

[aj1575]

Take an underexposed shot with the same settings, ISO 100 with a 5d mark3 and a d800 (which is the megapixel monster and should suffer a lot from noise and banding issues)

apply +4 or 5 stops in lightroom.
see what happens.

And now do the same at ISO 6400 or even higher maybe at 51'000, oh sorry, the D800 doesn't go up there...

It always depends on what you like to do with the camera, and how do set it. To me adding many stops in PP is not important, I do it very seldom. On the other hand, I do a lot of shoots with available light, which means I need high ISO.
So even though the D800 has the better overal sensor, the 5D mkIII would still be the better choice for me, because of the better IQ at high ISO.

[RLPhoto]

Canon sensors would be fine if there weren't suffering from banding.

Just make a simple test.

Take an underexposed shot with the same settings, ISO 100 with a 5d mark3 and a d800 (which is the megapixel monster and should suffer a lot from noise and banding issues)

apply +4 or 5 stops in lightroom.
see what happens.

detail in 5D mark3 will just collapse and they want 3.600 euros for that? they won't gonna get it!

like someone said above, 5D 3 over 5D 2 is not as much as revolutionary as D800 over D700.

If you miss your exposure by 5 stops, the camera is the least of your problems.

[tron]

If you miss your exposure by 5 stops, the camera is the least of your problems.

[1982chris911]

If you miss your exposure by 5 stops, the camera is the least of your problems.

I can still remember times when dark shadows were an important part of image composition ... with the d800 this seems to be obsolete for some strange reason as everyone is now pushing them by +4-5 EV ... In Every Picture    

[steliosk]

If you miss your exposure by 5 stops, the camera is the least of your problems.

The photographic skills are irrelevant.
ok i might overreacted about 5 stops but i wanted to make a point

The fact remains the same.. Canon sensor can't take it!!

Back to reality, try pushing a couple of stops in a wedding in a dark church and check the shadows at ANY iso!

Oh and check the RAW image,, not that stupid-filtered jpegs

[RLPhoto]

If you miss your exposure by 5 stops, the camera is the least of your problems.

The photographic skills are irrelevant.
ok i might overreacted about 5 stops but i wanted to make a point

The fact remains the same.. Canon sensor can't take it!!

Back to reality, try pushing a couple of stops in a wedding in a dark church and check the shadows at ANY iso!

Oh and check the RAW image,, not that stupid-filtered jpegs

Meh, I've shot ISO 3200 on the 7D, pushed 2 stops in the blacks and cropped to my tastes w/o any worries. Noise? Sure. Loss of detail? Sure. So what? Some of the best photographs aren't technically perfect.

Henri Cartier bressons documentary work was done with a limited DR but that didn't stop him right? He delivered some great work that many admire which I am one of. Being grounded in this, So what if nikons have a tiny edge in DR? Give me a camera and I'll get something out of it.

Now Lens selection has more weight to me than any body ever will. Canon has a better prime selection, so I shoot canon. Pretty straight forward.

[steliosk]

I have a total different philosophy
I'm a canon user too and as far as i'm concerned Canon lenses are superiors.
however Canon bodies are not.

As a consumer i demand always the best in the competition.

and no, pushing a couple of stops in 7D in 3200iso looks awefull in 20x30cm print and if i'd want that i'd like to make it myself, and not made by hardware weakness.

I don't care what bresson did in his time, this is not the issue by the way, plus i'm not looking backwards, i'm looking forward.

otherwise, we wouldn't talk about sensor tech, and we all could rely on a cheap compact to make out something out of nothing.

[RLPhoto]

I have a total different philosophy
I'm a canon user too and as far as i'm concerned Canon lenses are superiors.
however Canon bodies are not.

As a consumer i demand always the best in the competition.

and no, pushing a couple of stops in 7D in 3200iso looks awefull in 20x30cm print and if i'd want that i'd like to make it myself, and not made by hardware weakness.

I don't care what bresson did in his time, this is not the issue by the way, plus i'm not looking backwards, i'm looking forward.

otherwise, we wouldn't talk about sensor tech, and we all could rely on a cheap compact to make out something out of nothing.

I respect your opinion. Yes, I have pushed the 7D Hard. Its not an issue for me but you may not like the IQ and that's understandable.

As for sensor tech, I'd be shooting MF Film if DSLRs weren't around. If MF format wasnt around, I'd be shooting Large format. If Large format wasn't around, I'd be a painter.

[steliosk]

apparently you're right
but we humans are greedy!

Give us a 100megapixel sensor with 1.000.000 ISO and we will probably say when will the 200mpxels come out? hahaha

You have a point though. Technology provides more than we could possibly need.
But like i said we're greedy, and as far as i know myself, i won't stop nagging about banding and noise issues EVER

[Aglet]

Meh, I've shot ISO 3200 on the 7D, pushed 2 stops in the blacks and cropped to my tastes w/o any worries. Noise? Sure. Loss of detail? Sure. So what? Some of the best photographs aren't technically perfect.

HAHA!  sure, when the image is all noise at high ISO, you can't make much of a comparison.

Try this with your 7D; take a shot at ISO 100-400, push it 2 stops and see how much shadow banding you have now.  With most copies of the 7D I've seen, it's worse than doing this at hi ISO.

I'm now using a D800 for landscape type shots; it blows away my 5D2 so bad it's pitiful.  I've got D800 images where I can bring up the detail of charcoal, in the shade, in a shot taken in full sunlight while holding complete detail in clouds.  An image like this MUST be post-processed to look "realistic" otherwise it's very dark.  This requires lifting the shadows a LOT, even the midtones must be raised considerably.

This is something no Canon I've used yet is capable of without prodigious banding and noise in the shadow areas rendering the image unusable for how I want to present it.

In photos covering extreme ranges of lighting, there's no substitute for superior sensor technology that, regrettably, Canon does not currently provide.  I've yet to see what the 1DX can do but I'm not waiting for it, I'm getting fantastic images with the competitor's products where I could not get them before without having to resort to bracketing and laborious PP work for mediocre results.

[marekjoz]

Meh, I've shot ISO 3200 on the 7D, pushed 2 stops in the blacks and cropped to my tastes w/o any worries. Noise? Sure. Loss of detail? Sure. So what? Some of the best photographs aren't technically perfect.

HAHA!  sure, when the image is all noise at high ISO, you can't make much of a comparison.

Try this with your 7D; take a shot at ISO 100-400, push it 2 stops and see how much shadow banding you have now.  With most copies of the 7D I've seen, it's worse than doing this at hi ISO.

I'm now using a D800 for landscape type shots; it blows away my 5D2 so bad it's pitiful.  I've got D800 images where I can bring up the detail of charcoal, in the shade, in a shot taken in full sunlight while holding complete detail in clouds.  An image like this MUST be post-processed to look "realistic" otherwise it's very dark.  This requires lifting the shadows a LOT, even the midtones must be raised considerably.

This is something no Canon I've used yet is capable of without prodigious banding and noise in the shadow areas rendering the image unusable for how I want to present it.

In photos covering extreme ranges of lighting, there's no substitute for superior sensor technology that, regrettably, Canon does not currently provide.  I've yet to see what the 1DX can do but I'm not waiting for it, I'm getting fantastic images with the competitor's products where I could not get them before without having to resort to bracketing and laborious PP work for mediocre results.

Lucky you. So what's your answer to the question in topic?

[RLPhoto]

Meh, I've shot ISO 3200 on the 7D, pushed 2 stops in the blacks and cropped to my tastes w/o any worries. Noise? Sure. Loss of detail? Sure. So what? Some of the best photographs aren't technically perfect.

HAHA!  sure, when the image is all noise at high ISO, you can't make much of a comparison.

Try this with your 7D; take a shot at ISO 100-400, push it 2 stops and see how much shadow banding you have now.  With most copies of the 7D I've seen, it's worse than doing this at hi ISO.

I'm now using a D800 for landscape type shots; it blows away my 5D2 so bad it's pitiful.  I've got D800 images where I can bring up the detail of charcoal, in the shade, in a shot taken in full sunlight while holding complete detail in clouds.  An image like this MUST be post-processed to look "realistic" otherwise it's very dark.  This requires lifting the shadows a LOT, even the midtones must be raised considerably.

This is something no Canon I've used yet is capable of without prodigious banding and noise in the shadow areas rendering the image unusable for how I want to present it.

In photos covering extreme ranges of lighting, there's no substitute for superior sensor technology that, regrettably, Canon does not currently provide.  I've yet to see what the 1DX can do but I'm not waiting for it, I'm getting fantastic images with the competitor's products where I could not get them before without having to resort to bracketing and laborious PP work for mediocre results.

I've already done it. Works fine for me.