Is it time for the "CEO" of Canon's DSLR division to resign?

[Zlatko]

Whole point of the 6D was to update the 5D Mark II for entry-level FF.

Also to make a smaller full-frame camera.  Smallness is itself a virtue.  A lot of people have expressed a wish for a smaller full-frame camera.  Now Canon has made it.

[dlleno]

I guess I see things differently than the OP.  Put the 6D aside for a moment -- all I can say is they weren't targeting me with that design... lets wait and see how the sensor itself performs which may be telling.  Anyway, I see  Canon putting its best foot forward with the technology that they have.  ok, so they don't own the low-ISO DR  war at this time, and this allows the geeks and gearheads to pull out the charts showing the D800 with a DR advantage below ISO 800 or whatever it is.  so what?  if thats critical to one's work, i.e. if that advantage will distinguish you from others, and you can show it with real photos, and if all of that is more important than 1DX style AF, high-ISO performance and 6fps for example  then halleluiah thats what capitalism and free market competition is for.  The D800 is for sale. 

What I find amusing re: the 5D3 in particular is that because the D800 stole the marketing show with high MP and because some geeky chart shows better low-ISO DR, people thought thats what they needed, and so they ragged on the 5D3 because I guess it doesn't win the dxo score war.  Then when folks took another look they realized how good of a camera the 5D really is for its intended market (at least thats my observation).    For example, I haven't heard very many wedding/event  togs wishing  for lower fps, worse AF, or higher MP, and I don't hear many complaints about the 5D3's IQ (including DR)  at ISO 3200. 

I view the D800 as disruptive in the sense that it might cause Canon to take a few Red Bulls and tweak  their R&D strategy in the studio/landscape arena, to be sure.  That can't be done in a few months time. Reading in between the lines, I suspect Canon may be scrambling to produce a product that segments the market further -- a camera that is optimized for studio/landscapes.  Their R&D folks are probably working overtime.  That aside   I guess I could "blame" Canon because  it appears they didn't see the D800 coming -- or by the time they did see it, it was too late.  But  that doesn't mean the CEO should resign, although it could mean they should hire a better technology strategist.  Or that Sony kept a good secret and surprised the pants off of everyone. 

[V8Beast]

Rather than being "nothing exciting" as the OP writes, the 5D III shows Canon being extremely responsive to its professional users. It is as if they took the key points on many of our wishlists and actually built them. The delivered our "wish" DSLR — in essence, a smaller-bodied and less expensive version of their brick-sized 1D, with almost no compromises.  As such, the 5D III represents a price-break for some photographers.

From what I've observed in the field, photographers love the 5D3. From what I've observed online, a small group of vocal gearheads hate it, and think their numbers are larger than they really are.

[bvukich]

Hmmm...  let me think.  Should the head of the extremely profitable, market leading DSLR division resign?

Why?  Because of a little bit of nerd-rage?  I'd think not.

Get real.

[cliffwang]

Is CEO of Canon should be resigned?  I don't know.  However, I know Canon's marketing is in big trouble.  The 5D3 price is too high comparing to D800.  The price of 6D looks also too high comparing to D600.  I think Canon is just not aggressiveness enough like Nikon.  Its marketing division just cannot get the right direction or cannot align with RD department.  Something wrong inside of Canon DSLR division.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

The revealing of the 6D has got to be one of the biggest anticlimaxes in Canon's recent DSLR history. Never has a camera wasted so much potential to score well. If Canon were alone and the only manufacturer producing a cheaper DSLR then it would probably be doing better amongst the Internet forums but unfortunately for Canon, there is the Nikon D600, alongside which the 6D appears as a "huh?"

The 5D Mark III also suffered a lot, primarily because of the rise in price without a commensurate rise in IQ. Again, if you took away the Nikon D800, it doesn't appear too bad but again, there is nothing exciting about it.

Now that all of Canon's cards are on the table for this year, you're left wondering what were they thinking? That Nikon and Sony would just stand by and not enter the market? Or did Canon simply underestimate what they've been able to do in CMOS sensor development?

The 1DX is out there by itself. It is a remarkable piece of equipment, tailor made for its target audience. And perhaps that's where Canon's problem is: it doesn't really know who the audience is for the 5D3 and 6D. Why wouldn't it know that? Because so many people bought the 5D Mark II, it became impossible for Canon to understand all the details of who was using it, how and why.

Thus the success of the 5D Mark II may have actually killed Canon in multiple ways. First they've become complacent because they've thought they could just tweak it a little here and a little there, increase the price and everyone would fall over themselves in love. That hasn't happened, in part because of the price and in part because it was just tweaking. In the second, as above, the camera has had such wide appeal that it became impossible for them to fully grasp why it succeeded and thus they didn't know how to repeat that success. This is likely just an accident of history as much as anything else. Thirdly, in not knowing who to listen to or why the 5D Mark II was such a success, they've ended up listening to the wrong folks about what camera Canon would need to succeed.

Thus given what the 5D3 and 6D have revealed to be, I think that the only option for Canon is remove the people who made the final decisions about which features should be in/out and the price for the camera. I think it is more than evident that they targets for both cameras simply wasn't high enough and thus Canon has underperformed.

Whole point of the 6D was to update the 5D Mark II for entry-level FF.  No, that was actually a really smart business decision.  You have to put yourself in others' shoes before making comments like that.  If you have a 5D3 or 1DX is the 6D for you?  Of course not!  Then again, if you have a 5D3 and 1DX, why in the hell are you complaining?  It's your problem if you're not happy with your gear.  Shut up and go shoot.   

Also part of the point was to bring in newbies to FF and pricing it the same as the D600 which has better features and most likely a better sensor.... that is the issue.

It's a good idea, just given the competition it seems a bit under spec or over priced. That is the problem.

(with the 5D3 dipping to $2750 now at Adorama that is getting close to 6D price and offers a TON more)

Then again, I suppose there is a chance the GPS/wifi might entice newbies more than talk of image quality and AF and such, I guess Canon will see.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I guess I see things differently than the OP.  Put the 6D aside for a moment -- all I can say is they weren't targeting me with that design... lets wait and see how the sensor itself performs which may be telling.  Anyway, I see  Canon putting its best foot forward with the technology that they have.  ok, so they don't own the low-ISO DR  war at this time, and this allows the geeks and gearheads to pull out the charts showing the D800 with a DR advantage below ISO 800 or whatever it is.  so what?  if thats critical to one's work, i.e. if that advantage will distinguish you from others, and you can show it with real photos, and if all of that is more important than 1DX style AF, high-ISO performance and 6fps for example  then halleluiah thats what capitalism and free market competition is for.  The D800 is for sale. 

What I find amusing re: the 5D3 in particular is that because the D800 stole the marketing show with high MP and because some geeky chart shows better low-ISO DR, people thought thats what they needed, and so they ragged on the 5D3 because I guess it doesn't win the dxo score war.  Then when folks took another look they realized how good of a camera the 5D really is for its intended market (at least thats my observation).    For example, I haven't heard very many wedding/event  togs wishing  for lower fps, worse AF, or higher MP, and I don't hear many complaints about the 5D3's IQ (including DR)  at ISO 3200. 

I view the D800 as disruptive in the sense that it might cause Canon to take a few Red Bulls and tweak  their R&D strategy in the studio/landscape arena, to be sure.  That can't be done in a few months time. Reading in between the lines, I suspect Canon may be scrambling to produce a product that segments the market further -- a camera that is optimized for studio/landscapes.  Their R&D folks are probably working overtime.  That aside   I guess I could "blame" Canon because  it appears they didn't see the D800 coming -- or by the time they did see it, it was too late.  But  that doesn't mean the CEO should resign, although it could mean they should hire a better technology strategist.  Or that Sony kept a good secret and surprised the pants off of everyone.

I still hear plenty people wishing it had more DR (and MP) and believe it or not, some of them are pros. It's quite good, but ISO100 DR a trace worse than the old 5D2 and worse than the even older 1Ds3 is kinda unfortunate. But if you think that is awesome, then Canon won't ever bother. So yeah I like it a lot, but yeah I sure often wish it had better DR and when shooting wildlife I sure wish more MP and a crop mode and for video I sure wish it had the basics like zebra and focusing aids while live shooting and raw hdmi out and crop modes for wildlife.

[dlleno]

Now that all of Canon's cards are on the table for this year...

First of all we don't know this for certain -- Canon could play another card between now and December 31 ,as unlikely as that may be.  Also, there is one card that, while it has been played, its still face down on the table -- the 6D sensor . I suspect after the real cameras appear and folks get a chance to put this puppy to the test we will know alot more regarding Canon's sensor strategy -- at least the strategy that gave birth to the 6D, however long ago that was hatched.  It will be interesting to see what this sensor reveals and what it does not. 

[dlleno]

... For example, I haven't heard very many wedding/event  togs wishing  for lower fps, worse AF, or higher MP, and I don't hear many complaints about the 5D3's IQ (including DR)  at ISO 3200. 

I still hear plenty people wishing it had more DR (and MP) and believe it or not, some of them are pros.

We all wish for better at a lower price,  but you're saying pro wedding togs are disapointed in or expecting better performance at 3200?

 It's quite good, but ISO100 DR a trace worse than the old 5D2 and worse than the even older 1Ds3 is kinda unfortunate. But if you think that is awesome, then Canon won't ever bother. So yeah I like it a lot, but yeah I sure often wish it had better DR and when shooting wildlife I sure wish more MP and a crop mode and for video I sure wish it had the basics like zebra and focusing aids while live shooting and raw hdmi out and crop modes for wildlife.

Indeed we are still left wondering what card Canon will play in the wildlife space, imho.  If Canon stays silent on this topic for the remainder of this year it will be disapointing, thats for sure.  Again, for the 5D3 I suspect they optimized the technology "in-hand" for the market they targeted, and I agree that for studio/landscape/wildlife there are (or should be) cards yet to be played.  tt would have been nice for all those things to  have come together in the 5D3 at the same price

[Philco]

So basically Canon updated and reissued the 5DII as the 6D for less than the original price of the 5DII. Maybe it's a boring move, but it's still a smart one. Considering the 5DIII is so close in key features to the 1DX, it seems foolish to complain that the 6D isn't a lot closer to the 5DIII for $2.1k. How it compares to a D600, I don't care since I trust the 5DIII and the new flash system. By the time I sold off my L glass to buy the Nikor counterparts, I'd be out a ton of money.

When I deliver a job, my client would never be able to tell if the files came from the 5DII or 5DIII, and I'm sure it would be no different with the 6D....the results can be similar, but I definitely trust the 5DIII a lot more in critical situations because it handles so well. Had they fit the 7D focusing system into the 6D, I think they'd have a big winner on their hands, but probably at the expense of the 5DIII, as other have already said.

[dilbert]

I still hear plenty people wishing it had more DR (and MP) and believe it or not, some of them are pros. It's quite good, but ISO100 DR a trace worse than the old 5D2 and worse than the even older 1Ds3 is kinda unfortunate. But if you think that is awesome, then Canon won't ever bother. So yeah I like it a lot, but yeah I sure often wish it had better DR and when shooting wildlife I sure wish more MP and a crop mode and for video I sure wish it had the basics like zebra and focusing aids while live shooting and raw hdmi out and crop modes for wildlife.

Exactly. The 5D3 is not really an upgrade from the 5D2 in all areas and one of those where it is not, the sensor, is perhaps the most important. Yes, it does address some of the shortcomings but not all.

Similarly, the 6D does not appear to be an upgrade for 5D2 users either. For one, there are fewer MP in the sensor and in another, although there are 2 more AF points, the quality of the AF sensor has not been upgraded. And whilst there is now electronic leveling, it's only in one direction (WTF?!)

Also part of the point was to bring in newbies to FF and pricing it the same as the D600 which has better features and most likely a better sensor.... that is the issue.

It's a good idea, just given the competition it seems a bit under spec or over priced. That is the problem.

(with the 5D3 dipping to $2750 now at Adorama that is getting close to 6D price and offers a TON more)

Then again, I suppose there is a chance the GPS/wifi might entice newbies more than talk of image quality and AF and such, I guess Canon will see.

Yup! By itself, the 5D3 and 6D are good cameras but when you look at what else exists in the marketplace, it's a question of "huh?!" It's like the cameras were designed in a vacuum rather than than to compete with other companies.

Hmmm...  let me think.  Should the head of the extremely profitable, market leading DSLR division resign?

In what way is Canon a market leading DSLR division?

Innovation? No.
Image quality? No.
Features? No.
Ripping off customers? Yes.

[tron]

It is NOT our business! In fact Canon is a nice business (no pun intended!). What we can do is buy or not buy their products...

[hambergler]

I feel the 6D is pretty underwhelming.  I think 19 point AF system like that of the 7D and this would have been perfect.  Without it than it is really lackluster and I think there would be clear product deliineation between the 6D and the 5D MK III.

The inclusion of the GPS and Wi-Fi is off putting to me as a 5D Mark III user since it costs us what $1000 to add these features in?  I think those should have been included into the 5D Mark III and 1DX as well as a RF flash commander built-in to control the new line of flashes.  I think it would have made people feel there was a lot of value added to the 5D Mark III and with those I would say a better value than the Nikon D800E even if the Nikon has a better sensor.

At current prices and current feature set it is better to stick with whatever you have lenses for and I don't think either company delivered a game changer though the D800E is close.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

... For example, I haven't heard very many wedding/event  togs wishing  for lower fps, worse AF, or higher MP, and I don't hear many complaints about the 5D3's IQ (including DR)  at ISO 3200. 

[/quote]

yeah not at ISO3200 at ISO3200 it has very good DR (only 1DX and D4 and D3s are better and the D3s is so much lower res it doesn't really count) it's at ISO100-200 or 400 where the DR is bad. The high iso DR on the 5D3 is better than any camera other than the 1DX and D4 basically.

[Meh]

I feel the 6D is pretty underwhelming.  I think 19 point AF system like that of the 7D and this would have been perfect.  Without it than it is really lackluster and I think there would be clear product deliineation between the 6D and the 5D MK III.

The inclusion of the GPS and Wi-Fi is off putting to me as a 5D Mark III user since it costs us what $1000 to add these features in?  I think those should have been included into the 5D Mark III and 1DX as well as a RF flash commander built-in to control the new line of flashes.  I think it would have made people feel there was a lot of value added to the 5D Mark III and with those I would say a better value than the Nikon D800E even if the Nikon has a better sensor.

At current prices and current feature set it is better to stick with whatever you have lenses for and I don't think either company delivered a game changer though the D800E is close.

Yep, a 19-point AF as good as in the 7D would make the 6D much more meaningful to Rebel shooters moving up because then they're moving 'up' in the sensor and the AF.

GPS, WiFi, and built in wireless flash trigger would not likely work very well through the full magnesium body of the 5D3 or 1DX.   I'm not stating that as a fact just speculation.  Someone else may know with more certainty.