Should/can Canon keep making its own sensors?

[suburbia]

I wonder if Canon will reach a kind of "Apple Moment", like when Apple quit spending its R&D money trying to beat Intel on a component (CPU's) and started just using Intel chips like everyone else.

When did Apple have that "Apple Moment"?  Before they bought CPUs from Intel, they bought them from IBM (the PowerPC series), and before that, they bought CPUs from Motorola (the 68xxx series).

I think you will find Apples "moment" was enabled by the loose licensing and large manufacturing possibilities of the ARM processor family! But I digress.

There are certainly tales of caution in the home computer and entertainment world about throwing money at expensive hardware R&D but then the sale margins were always really tight and it was always quite a niche market driven by entire chipset functionality.

Surely sensor design is relatively easy for a camera company with such a big market to focus on?

[TTMartin]

Given that the main source of the 'Canon sensors are falling behind' documentation is from DxOMark, I don't think so.

I believe that DxOMark either can't fully decode the CR2 file using their own software, are nothing more than a Nikon marketing shill, or both.

[poias]

I believe that DxOMark either can't fully decode the CR2 file using their own software, are nothing more than a Nikon marketing shill, or both.

You don't need DxO to tell you that 5D3 has shitty shadow noise and banding. Its DR is sufficient if you can nail the exposure, shoot JPG, and post online, however.

[bdunbar79]

I believe that DxOMark either can't fully decode the CR2 file using their own software, are nothing more than a Nikon marketing shill, or both.

You don't need DxO to tell you that 5D3 has shitty shadow noise and banding. Its DR is sufficient if you can nail the exposure, shoot JPG, and post online, however.

Interesting.  I've been shooting with the 5D Mark III since April and I have not noticed those issues with RAW files and printing.  Hmmm, guess I got the only good copy.

[poias]

I believe that DxOMark either can't fully decode the CR2 file using their own software, are nothing more than a Nikon marketing shill, or both.

You don't need DxO to tell you that 5D3 has shitty shadow noise and banding. Its DR is sufficient if you can nail the exposure, shoot JPG, and post online, however.

Interesting.  I've been shooting with the 5D Mark III since April and I have not noticed those issues with RAW files and printing.  Hmmm, guess I got the only good copy.

5D3's IQ is same as 5D2's. Good photographers can take any equipment and make them look good. But 5D3 itself has no IQ improvement over its 4 year old predecessor. Fact.

[bdunbar79]

I believe that DxOMark either can't fully decode the CR2 file using their own software, are nothing more than a Nikon marketing shill, or both.

You don't need DxO to tell you that 5D3 has shitty shadow noise and banding. Its DR is sufficient if you can nail the exposure, shoot JPG, and post online, however.

Interesting.  I've been shooting with the 5D Mark III since April and I have not noticed those issues with RAW files and printing.  Hmmm, guess I got the only good copy.

5D3's IQ is same as 5D2's. Good photographers can take any equipment and make them look good. But 5D3 itself has no IQ improvement over its 4 year old predecessor. Fact.

Not sure I claimed it did??  I bought the 5D Mark III after having a 5D Mark II for a long time due to the myriad of improvements over the Mark II.  IQ wasn't one of them.  I'm not getting your point?

[neuroanatomist]

5D3's IQ is same as 5D2's. Good photographers can take any equipment and make them look good. But 5D3 itself has no IQ improvement over its 4 year old predecessor. Fact.

But...if true (big if), is that because they can do no better, or by choice? 

The 1D X is very noticeably better than the 5DII in terms of IQ.  That suggests that Canon could have made improvements to the 5-series IQ, but chose to improve pretty much everything else (since the IQ was already excellent), instead (again, IF the 5DIII has no better IQ). 

[bdunbar79]

5D3's IQ is same as 5D2's. Good photographers can take any equipment and make them look good. But 5D3 itself has no IQ improvement over its 4 year old predecessor. Fact.

But...if true (big if), is that because they can do no better, or by choice? 

The 1D X is very noticeably better than the 5DII in terms of IQ.  That suggests that Canon could have made improvements to the 5-series IQ, but chose to improve pretty much everything else, instead (again, IF the 5DIII has no better IQ).

Since I qualify to say it, and I wasn't going to go there but you MADE me , my RAW images out of the 5D Mark III seem to have better IQ than my 5D Mark II RAW's.  The shadows are much better.  JPEGS even better.  IQ of JPEGS is actually noticeable to a non-photographer.  Not at all saying 5D Mark II had bad IQ, we all know it is excellent.  This is a subjective comparison.

[wickidwombat]

I believe that DxOMark either can't fully decode the CR2 file using their own software, are nothing more than a Nikon marketing shill, or both.

You don't need DxO to tell you that 5D3 has shitty shadow noise and banding. Its DR is sufficient if you can nail the exposure, shoot JPG, and post online, however.

Interesting.  I've been shooting with the 5D Mark III since April and I have not noticed those issues with RAW files and printing.  Hmmm, guess I got the only good copy.

5D3's IQ is same as 5D2's. Good photographers can take any equipment and make them look good. But 5D3 itself has no IQ improvement over its 4 year old predecessor. Fact.

actually not fact as you state, at iso 100 there is next to no difference between the 2 correct, however as the iso is increased the mk3 starts to lead the 5Dmk2 in IQ and over iso 1600 the 5dmk3 blows the doors off the mk2

FACT (well at least on my copies anyway)

[Drizzt321]

5D3's IQ is same as 5D2's. Good photographers can take any equipment and make them look good. But 5D3 itself has no IQ improvement over its 4 year old predecessor. Fact.

But...if true (big if), is that because they can do no better, or by choice? 

The 1D X is very noticeably better than the 5DII in terms of IQ.  That suggests that Canon could have made improvements to the 5-series IQ, but chose to improve pretty much everything else, instead (again, IF the 5DIII has no better IQ).

Since I qualify to say it, and I wasn't going to go there but you MADE me , my RAW images out of the 5D Mark III seem to have better IQ than my 5D Mark II RAW's.  The shadows are much better.  JPEGS even better.  IQ of JPEGS is actually noticeable to a non-photographer.  Not at all saying 5D Mark II had bad IQ, we all know it is excellent.  This is a subjective comparison.

Owning the 5d2 and now the 5d3, I'd say I notice some IQ improvement (mostly in the higher ISOs, haven't looked carefully enough at low ISOs), but not too significant. But for me, it wasn't about the IQ since I was pretty happy to begin with. Although I do agree, the banding in underexposed blacks could certainly use even more help.

Also, having better IQ in the 1DX makes some sense. After all, it's the flagship camera, right? Shouldn't it have better IQ? Now lets see what Canon does with the rumored high MPx camera, and see what that sensor is like.

[poias]

I believe that DxOMark either can't fully decode the CR2 file using their own software, are nothing more than a Nikon marketing shill, or both.

You don't need DxO to tell you that 5D3 has shitty shadow noise and banding. Its DR is sufficient if you can nail the exposure, shoot JPG, and post online, however.

Interesting.  I've been shooting with the 5D Mark III since April and I have not noticed those issues with RAW files and printing.  Hmmm, guess I got the only good copy.

5D3's IQ is same as 5D2's. Good photographers can take any equipment and make them look good. But 5D3 itself has no IQ improvement over its 4 year old predecessor. Fact.

Not sure I claimed it did??  I bought the 5D Mark III after having a 5D Mark II for a long time due to the myriad of improvements over the Mark II.  IQ wasn't one of them.  I'm not getting your point?

It looks like you are content with 5D2's IQ. Others like myself are not. My point is that people are showing their denial and even blaming DxO for not giving their 5D3 a good IQ score. The fact remains, IQ wise(which I personally consider the HEART of a camera), 5D3 has no improvement, thus a failure in my opinion. That is not to say that good photographers cannot take awesome shots. They have and will continue to do so.

[TTMartin]

I believe that DxOMark either can't fully decode the CR2 file using their own software, are nothing more than a Nikon marketing shill, or both.

You don't need DxO to tell you that 5D3 has shitty shadow noise and banding. Its DR is sufficient if you can nail the exposure, shoot JPG, and post online, however.

You mean the banding that has been in every Canon camera since 2005?
The banding that has just gotten worse instead of the dynamic range of the sensors increasing?
The banding that only shows up in third party RAW converters, and not DPP?
That banding?

[poias]

I believe that DxOMark either can't fully decode the CR2 file using their own software, are nothing more than a Nikon marketing shill, or both.

You don't need DxO to tell you that 5D3 has shitty shadow noise and banding. Its DR is sufficient if you can nail the exposure, shoot JPG, and post online, however.

You mean the banding that has been in every Canon camera since 2005?
The banding that has just gotten worse instead of the dynamic range of the sensors increasing?
The banding that only shows up in third party RAW converters, and not DPP?
That banding?

We are not comparing 5D3 to powershots and coolpixes. The benchmark is now D800/E. 5D3's DR is blown out and away by D800/E in IQ department. Even NEXes blow Canon sensors away. Interesting seeing the denial.

[bdunbar79]

I believe that DxOMark either can't fully decode the CR2 file using their own software, are nothing more than a Nikon marketing shill, or both.

You don't need DxO to tell you that 5D3 has shitty shadow noise and banding. Its DR is sufficient if you can nail the exposure, shoot JPG, and post online, however.

You mean the banding that has been in every Canon camera since 2005?
The banding that has just gotten worse instead of the dynamic range of the sensors increasing?
The banding that only shows up in third party RAW converters, and not DPP?
That banding?

We are not comparing 5D3 to powershots and coolpixes. The benchmark is now D800/E. 5D3's DR is blown out and away by D800/E in IQ department. Even NEXes blow Canon sensors away. Interesting seeing the denial.

Do you own a 5D Mark II or III?  Have you ever?  Do you own a D800/E?  Have you ever?  If so, thanks for your valuable opinions.  If not, at least we know you can read reviews.

[papa-razzi]

CR Forum Logic.
1. 5D2 IQ = Praiseworthy, even today. (general agreement)
2.  5D3 IQ > 5D2 IQ (general agreement)
3.  5D3 IQ = unsatisfactory

Prior to the 5D3 and 1Dx, we had lots of forum posts/threads of how Canon shouldn't chase high MP sensors any longer - who needs more MP!  Canon should focus on better high ISO performance.  Nikon is winning in high ISO performance we say.  Then Canon do exactly that by keeping the MP down and improving high ISO performance in the 5D3 and 1Dx, but Nikon releases a MP monster.  Now we complain about not having a high MP camera.

Most of you seem to feel that if Canon doesn't provide you with exactly what you want, then they don't know what they are doing.  Markets do not equal 1 person.  Canon is building products for markets, and you may or may not fall into the target market for a product.  And, at any point in time, Canon may not offer exactly what you want in any product.  But, that does not mean Canon is stupid and Nikon is brilliant.  You (what you want in a camera system) may not be part of a very sizable or profitable market.  Not a happy place to be.

For me, the 36MP sensor with poor ISO performance at the high end is useless - I don't care how good the dark shadow detail is or how many stops I can push it in lightroom.  Others feel the opposite is true (for them).

Objectivity is not a strong point in CR Forum logic....