Competition

[BIF]

Someone please explain this to me. I dont get some things.

1) the basic premise about open economic competition is to blow your competitors away. to do that you can take a long term view or a short one.

2) with sufficient resources at your disposal, i.e. like Canon does, being a profitable company that posted strong growth, you have an incentive to leap further ahead to capture more market share and stomp out competitors by producing products that target as many market segments as possible, at the best price, with continuously better and better features.

3) to do that you listen to your consumers, watch your competitors and price aggressively.

now...i honestly find it difficult to understand why Canon would behave the way it does...Nikon has been aggressively recapturing market share in almost all segments because they actually listen to photographers and deliver...they dont seem to be afraid of including 'pro' features at really attractive prices...think the d7000 with its dual sd cards, alloy body, 39 point AF, 100% viewfinder at the price of the 60d!!!!!

a) D3s vs 1dM4...the latter is still APS-H, but actually well we can let this pass....its a stale topic
b) D700 vs outdated AF of 5DM2 which they didnt upgrade from the 5Dm1
c) D300s having the pro series AF while the 7D has a watered down (but still very capable version) system in the name of preventing product cannibalism
d) Still no Cheap FF low mp camera with great AF??
e) 60D vs D7000...sigh...you guys should have read enough QQ about this

I perfectly understand that the camera is a tool... and i enjoy shooting my canons and they give great pictures. however, electronics and lenses are mortal and they fail eventually. when it is time to upgrade, it really pains me to see a company I've invested into not keep up with the competition. people are switching purely for economic reasons...solely because the other side provides a better deal. nothing more nothing less. but for those who dont have deep pockets but drool at something more advanced...no such luck recently with Canon..

Remember Minolta, Pentax, Olympus? Competition is great. but look where these companies are now. My fear is that Canon will go their way. It used to be a 5 way fight amongst these powerhouses. Eventually if this goes on, i fear Canon going that way and nikon being the sole option. when that happens, competition, and with it, progress, will be stymied.

oh well... just letting off some steam. sigh.

 

[Inst]

Sony, Samsung. Both of these are electronics powerhouses with significant R&D and an eye for the camera market.

Canon has been fucking it up since late 2007, 3 years so far, and they haven't retaken the lead on pure performance.

It's not all bad though, the 7D is better than the D300s by leaps and bounds; it's cheaper, has better IQ on both a resolution and high ISO level, has what is probably better AF, and has a higher burst rate.

The D7000 obsoletes the 7D, but it's nice to see that Canon can compete with Nikon on a product level once in a while.

 

[Son of Daguerre]

Sony, Samsung. Both of these are electronics powerhouses with significant R&D and an eye for the camera market...

It's not all bad though, the 7D is better than the D300s by leaps and bounds; it's cheaper, has better IQ on both a resolution and high ISO level, has what is probably better AF, and has a higher burst rate.

The D7000 obsoletes the 7D, but it's nice to see that Canon can compete with Nikon on a product level once in a while.

I dunno, Samsung seems to be focusing on its NX-series.

And I see a contradiction where you say that Canon's f***ing it up and yet you say the 7D whups the D300s by "leaps and bounds". Hm...

The D7000 hasn't been compared with the 7D except spec-wise... give it time.

 

[Inst]

The 7d was better than the d300s, but there's very few other cases where canon's counterpart outmatches its nikon counterpart. Up until recently, Canon has had better sensors on APS-C vs DX due to higher resolution while retaining high ISO performance, but frequently they came in butchered packages. On FF/APS-H sensor technology, Canon had a gap at the 1D point where its Nikon equivalent had a larger sensor and thus better high ISO performance, while the 1Ds point starting at 1Ds3 could not meet its Nikon counterpart. The 5D2 and the D700 is a matter of what you intend to use it for; the 5D2 has better video and higher resolution, but poorer dynamic range and once the D700 has its battery grip attached, significantly lower shooting speeds.

Technically speaking, the D7000 cannot obsolete the 7D due to lower burst shooting rates and inferior AF, but it does have a better sensor. If Nikon updates a D400 later, or a D9000, the 7D will not be able to compete without an update.

 

[Son of Daguerre]

Technically speaking, the D7000 cannot obsolete the 7D due to lower burst shooting rates and inferior AF, but it does have a better sensor. If Nikon updates a D400 later, or a D9000, the 7D will not be able to compete without an update.

We don't know that yet, now do we? Why, because the D7000 can go up to ISO 25600? Specs, schmecs.

And we don't yet know about the 60D's AF vs. the D7000's. After all, the D300s crushes the 7D in terms of AF points and density, but its AF isn't really better, now is it?

Let's wait and see, ya?

 

[Inst]

Just curious? Why is that? The 7D has 19 all cross-point sensors, the D300s has 16, with an additional 25 line sensors.

And yes, we know that the D7000 seems to express better high-ISO than the 7D from known pictures in poor lighting.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Just curious? Why is that? The 7D has 19 all cross-point sensors, the D300s has 16, with an additional 25 line sensors.

An AF system isn't just about the number of points, any more than image quality is just about the number of megapixels. For example, the 7D's 19 cross-type AF points are spread across the frame, whereas all of the D300s' cross-type points are clustered in the center. Canon AF systems have a center AF point that offers increased precision when used with fast (f/2.8 or wider) lenses; Nikon's AF points are all f/5.6-sensitive. In addition to the hardware, there's also the algorithms used to control AF, especially tracking moving subjects.

 

[traveller]

Nikon has certainly thrown a curve ball with the D7000, by slotting it in to the position that the Canon XXD series used to occupy before the 60D. The problem that I've had with the 60D since its introduction, has been its price. Whilst the introductory prices of new camera gear are generally over-inflated, the 60D looks like an especialy poor deal: it's only marginally cheaper than the 7D (>10% in the UK at Warehouse Express). You'd have to really love swivel LCDs to not spend the extra and get a 7D! The price that the 60D needs to be sold at, in order to be competitive with the 7D and the Nikon D7000, is the price point that the D90 used to occupy (before current discounting).

 

[ronderick]

Why's everyone so excited over a Nikon body that's not even due for another month? I think it's better to wait until people get their hands on the new body before we start the flames. For all you know, it could be another 1D MK3...

If we're talking about price, the 60D would be a month old by the time D7000 hits the store shelves. I really doubt that it'll remain at the listed price, since it's basically grouped as an intro model. If sales don't meet expectation, what's there to prevent Canon from issuing a rebate program for the 60D as a welcome for the D7000?

My gut feeling tells me that intro users would pay more attention to the actual price tag than the number of AF the two bodies offer...

 

[traveller]

I like Canon cameras, that's why I buy them, but hats off to Nikon; they are offering a camera for the same initial price as Canon's, which is (on paper) superior in just about every single specification.

Yes, I'm sure that the price of the 60D will fall (there are signs that this is happening already, in the UK at least), but the price of the D7000 will probably fall too once it hits the shelves. Who knows, it could be that the price of the 60D can fall further than the D7000 if it is cheaper to produce; given its specifications, it needs to. I don't think that by itself the D7000 will cause many that have invested in the Canon system to switch, but ask yourself a simple question: if you had no commitment in lenses etc., which would you choose for the same price?

This is starting to look like the thin end of a wedge; Canon needs to up the ante with specifications when it releases successors to the higher level bodies, so that the features set of the lower cameras can rise without threatening their positioning in the market. That said, wouldn't it be better to lose some market share of one model to another within the Canon range, than lose that share to Nikon?

 

[L-Fletcher]

Both companies have always managed to even themselves out throughout the years - film included.

The 300D was a breakthrough for Canon and, indeed, the entire photographic community at large. Access was granted (at a considerably lower cost) to amateurs and enthusiasts wanting to enter into the digital world. Canon reigned then, in the amateur line, until Nikon caught up.

Then there was Nikon's decision to change to the route Canon took in the 80's, which was to put the AF motor in the lens instead of the body. Of course, they couldn't quite do this with all their current lens systems and pre-existing bodies, so they just implemented it in their newer cameras. Many went to Canon due to this.

Nikon, however, took over the pro field with a storm, introducing the D3 - it had a 12 million pixel sensor, as compared to that of Canon. It reigned in the ISO field, with a fast burst rate. It enjoyed much success, winning TIPA awards... as did its successors.

But that's not to say that Canon has fallen considerably behind. The release of the 7D and the 1D MK IV shows this. The D300 and D300s have been very popular, but as neuroanatomist pointed out above, the AF systems are good in the 7D. The 1D Mark IV has a faster burst rate of 10 fps vs the D3s' 9 fps - and this is outstanding considering the 4 million pixel difference between the two sensors and bodies.

Canon does disappoint a lot of the time. Personally, they've done that with the 60D. Nonetheless, I feel they'll push on and continue to provide a healthy competition for the photography market alongside Nikon as well as the other smaller brands.

 

[Joe J]

Both companies have always managed to even themselves out throughout the years - film included.

Nah, only when it came to film; things have changed drastically since '01.
Canon owned high-end digital SLR's, until the 1D MKIII series came out, and the D3 was released. Since then NIkon has had leaps and bounds over Canon in every aspect of high end DLSR photo abilities, and it's a safe bet when the D800/ D4 are released, Nikon's video will be surpassing Canon too.

But that's not to say that Canon has fallen considerably behind. The release of the 7D and the 1D MK IV shows this. The D300 and D300s have been very popular, but as neuroanatomist pointed out above, the AF systems are good in the 7D. The 1D Mark IV has a faster burst rate of 10 fps vs the D3s' 9 fps - and this is outstanding considering the 4 million pixel difference between the two sensors and bodies.

(I'm not talking about video- strictly still photography)
The 1D Mark IV? How can a camera, which was released in the last year, still have comparisons to a camera design from over 3 years ago (with the exception of the D3S video addition), and not measure up (not FF, files are junk above 3200, compared to 12,000 usable on the D3, etc)? I'd definitely consider that falling behind.
Same goes with the 7D- some tests have shown the files aren't as good as some fo the newest G series point and shoot cameras, or even 5 year old Canon digi bodies. That is definitely considered falling behind in my eyes.
Also, the 5D Mark II seems to be a really good video camera, but what about its primary function- photos? Not very good. (I don't care about MP's- if someone reading this is, get a medium format digi back for true resolution, or don't debate about what you aren't involved in/ are really concerned about consumer-grade toys; I'm talking about real tools for real professionals) 1/200 flash sync- are you kidding me? How can the T90, released almost twenty-five years ago, have a better sync speed? Oh, wait, I forgot about the marketing geniuses at Canon, who are soo afraid of "market share cannibalism." Get real; those bozos are going to put Canon out of business.
I won't even get started on what they could be doing to make them better... Nikon seems to be beating them to it anyway.

Canon does disappoint a lot of the time. Personally, they've done that with the 60D. Nonetheless, I feel they'll push on and continue to provide a healthy competition for the photography market alongside Nikon as well as the other smaller brands.

Only in the video field, my friend. Canon seems to have forgotten that there are plenty of advancements needed in the DLSR still-photo realm yet to be achieved, and that video isn't everything, no matter how many 5D Mark II's and 7D's they sell (thanks to videographers, not photographers). Nikon on the other hand, seems to have a good memory (no pun intended)... I believe their next wave of high-end camera releases from Nikon might put Canon down into the Minolta/ Pentax/ Olympus level of high-end SLR's .

 

[L-Fletcher]

Nah, only when it came to film; things have changed drastically since '01.
Canon owned high-end digital SLR's, until the 1D MKIII series came out, and the D3 was released. Since then NIkon has had leaps and bounds over Canon in every aspect of high end DLSR photo abilities, and it's a safe bet when the D800/ D4 are released, Nikon's video will be surpassing Canon too.

Have they really? You seem to have pointedly ignored most of my post.

You'll find that people struggle to pick between Canon and Nikon when entering into the field. Why? Because both offer a great standard of bodies and lenses alike.

You can say what you want to say, but essentially, that doesn't make it true. I also hate to say this, but: if you're so against Canon, I'm just wondering what you're doing on a Canon Rumors forum.

(I'm not talking about video- strictly still photography)

Strangely enough, neither am I.

The 1D Mark IV? How can a camera, which was released in the last year, still have comparisons to a camera design from over 3 years ago (with the exception of the D3S video addition), and not measure up (not FF, files are junk above 3200, compared to 12,000 usable on the D3, etc)? I'd definitely consider that falling behind.
Same goes with the 7D- some tests have shown the files aren't as good as some fo the newest G series point and shoot cameras, or even 5 year old Canon digi bodies. That is definitely considered falling behind in my eyes.

Because it doesn't matter whether a camera is compared with another camera with years between them. It's a matter of the current lines. Perhaps you could see this another way - Nikon is taking so long to update their pro line, and when they do, they barely do anything ('the exception of the D3S video addition'). Well, I'm definitely not pushing this, but you have to understand that the argument can work both ways. And 1.3x is useful for the camera, actually. If you consider that the 1D MK IV requires a smaller lens to get the equivalent FOV of a lens on the D3S, you'll find it helps. Yes, technically the extra 'reach' is merely cropping - but then, regard the resolution of both the two sensors used and you'll find that the D3S is quite lacking for any opportunity to crop at all.

And at the end of the day, you can talk about tests all you want; but it's how these lenses perform in the field and in practical usage that counts. The 1D MK IV actually produces fantastic images at ISO 3200, dealing with noise considerably well when noting the MP count.

Also, the 5D Mark II seems to be a really good video camera, but what about its primary function- photos? Not very good. (I don't care about MP's- if someone reading this is, get a medium format digi back for true resolution, or don't debate about what you aren't involved in/ are really concerned about consumer-grade toys; I'm talking about real tools for real professionals) 1/200 flash sync- are you kidding me? How can the T90, released almost twenty-five years ago, have a better sync speed? Oh, wait, I forgot about the marketing geniuses at Canon, who are soo afraid of "market share cannibalism." Get real; those bozos are going to put Canon out of business.
I won't even get started on what they could be doing to make them better... Nikon seems to be beating them to it anyway

Again, not quite sure what you're doing here if you're so keen on Nikon. You do have to realise that there's a reason that there are so many people using Canon and the 5D Mark II, and if you're talking about specs, fine. But there are working pros out there (and I have rented the 5D MK II aplenty of times) who do use it, and they appreciate it. Sure, the AF's not perfect, but there are always going to be compromises, and you have to think about the sensor. It's absolutely fantastic. I also hate to mention it, but your idea of 'just get a medium format back because I don't care about MP' idea is rather ignorantly said. A digital back costs a lot more - and if you do get one, a medium format camera itself will add further cost - without the availability of Canon's lens range. And of course, the total cost would be much more (thousands) than what a 5D MK II, and what it offers: an excellent full frame camera for a very affordable price.

 

[Joe J]

You'll find that people struggle to pick between Canon and Nikon when entering into the field. Why? Because both offer a great standard of bodies and lenses alike.
You can say what you want to say, but essentially, that doesn't make it true. I also hate to say this, but: if you're so against Canon, I'm just wondering what you're doing on a Canon Rumors forum.

I'm on the forum because I'm interested in the direction Canon will go with their still photography products. Please forgive me, I didn't realize this is for Canon lovers who will not tolerate any criticism of their holiness Canon. I'm not "against" Canon- I've been shooting primarily Canon 35mm SLR's/ DSLR's for 15 years, over a decade of that professionally. I have a lot invested in Canon products, and not ready to switch brands, unless Canon leaves me no choice. There is nothing wrong with critiquing the direction of Canon in the still photography realm, like you seem to believe, unless you either have some personal issues, or work for Canon, of course. ;-)

Because it doesn't matter whether a camera is compared with another camera with years between them. It's a matter of the current lines. Perhaps you could see this another way - Nikon is taking so long to update their pro line, and when they do, they barely do anything ('the exception of the D3S video addition'). Well, I'm definitely not pushing this, but you have to understand that the argument can work both ways. And 1.3x is useful for the camera, actually. If you consider that the 1D MK IV requires a smaller lens to get the equivalent FOV of a lens on the D3S, you'll find it helps. Yes, technically the extra 'reach' is merely cropping - but then, regard the resolution of both the two sensors used and you'll find that the D3S is quite lacking for any opportunity to crop at all.
And at the end of the day, you can talk about tests all you want; but it's how these lenses perform in the field and in practical usage that counts. The 1D MK IV actually produces fantastic images at ISO 3200, dealing with noise considerably well when noting the MP count.
Again, not quite sure what you're doing here if you're so keen on Nikon. You do have to realise that there's a reason that there are so many people using Canon and the 5D Mark II, and if you're talking about specs, fine. But there are working pros out there (and I have rented the 5D MK II aplenty of times) who do use it, and they appreciate it. Sure, the AF's not perfect, but there are always going to be compromises, and you have to think about the sensor. It's absolutely fantastic. I also hate to mention it, but your idea of 'just get a medium format back because I don't care about MP' idea is rather ignorantly said. A digital back costs a lot more - and if you do get one, a medium format camera itself will add further cost - without the availability of Canon's lens range. And of course, the total cost would be much more (thousands) than what a 5D MK II, and what it offers: an excellent full frame camera for a very affordable price.

Excellent in who's eyes? Yours? Your eyes aren't everyone else's. You can appreciate art made of trash, but it doesn't mean it has the same value as gold. I'm talking about real advancements, like the D3 when it was released. Name one flagship camera from Canon since the 1D and the 1D/1DS MKII (amazing cameras for their time period) that made serious advancements from it's predecessor- it doesn't exist. 1 or 2 FPS more here and some more MP there are not real advancements in the still photo realm. I can't include the 1D MKIV since it's 1.3 crop, and once again, the files are junk ABOVE 3200, as I stated before.
In reference to the MKIV's APS-H sensor- believe it or not, not everyone finds the 1.3 crop "useful." The entire line of EF lenses (not EF-S of course) were designed for 35mm cameras/ now FF sensors. You CANNOT utilize the lenses to their full potential with a 1.3 sensor. Ever use a 15mm on a FF camera? Beautiful. On 1.3? Substandard. If you don't understand the difference, well, can't help you there. If Canon wanted to please the few that find a 1.3 crop advantageous, they could have simply built in a 1.3 crop mode on a FF sensor. Nikon does a DX mode option with the D3. Not rocket science. If you want increased focal length, get a tele-extender- they work great (with no loss of resolution like cropping a photo or sensor cropping option). But don't build a flagship camera around that concept- it's straight up silly (I'm obviously being facetious there). End of story.
Compromises? Should not be necessary, if you're shelling out over 2K for ANY camera body. I don't recall any "compromises" in camera bodies ten years ago when 1V's were the flagship camera. Just because Canon (Nikon is no better with the release of the D3X) decide to splinter the flagship camera market into two separate markets ("sports/ wildlife" and "studio"), doesn't mean consumers should now settle for "compromises", ESPECIALLY at $8K for a 1Ds (which also has plenty of compromises) (I know they go for under 6500 now, but the camera was 8K when released).
So you're trying to say a 5D Mark II is comparable to a Medium Format digital back (non-tethered models 20 MP and above) and camera system/lenses, only cheaper? No offense, but that is a silly statement. No explanation needed.
Once again, I'm not "against" Canon, just evaluating their current direction, which affects my investment in their products. If you have that much of a problem with someone honestly criticizing their current line, you should stop trolling this forum get back to work in the R&D department at Canon, or re-evaluate why you love Canon so much...

 

[L-Fletcher]

I think you really need to calm down and evaluate how wisely you're dealing with this. And particularly, as to what you're saying.

If you take the time to read my post, I'm obviously not comparing medium format cameras to the 5D MK II. But no DSLR can be compared to a medium format camera, as they're completely different. You actually raised the issue of the medium format camera being an option - I pointed out that they're in entirely different fields. Please read what I (and others) have written before launching into misdirected criticism.

I find it rather humourous that you mention 'excellence - in whose eyes?'; it's exactly the point that you yourself should be taking in.

I have no qualms in anyone pointing out some disappointments in any brand. There are faults in Canon just like there are faults in every single brand and company on this planet. But they way you're portraying it is frankly unjust and my posts have clarified many points which you have left out or warped.

I think you've lost the idea, here, regarding the flagship cameras. Just as Nikon has shifted their D3 into two different bodies now (the D3X, with 24+ MP, and the D3S, which is practically the same as the D3), so has Canon: the 1D and the 1Ds series, that are targeted to two different types of photographers - sports/wildlife photographers and studio photographers respectively. And the D700, comparable to the 5D MK II, is targeted as a backup camera, or also available to those who are looking for a good but relatively cheap full frame body.

These series have not merely gone up '1 or 2 MP' - they've improved resolution drastically, and I might add that sensor technology has been improved by Canon to 'defray' what would otherwise result in noise problems.

You absolutely can't compare the 1D MK IV as being terrible to the D3s. They've got a difference of some 4 million pixels in resolution, and the 1D MK IV is still faster in terms of burst rate. Admittedly, the D3s is slightly better in noise handling, but the 1D MK IV holds its ground extremely well considering the resolution.

RE your idea that the 1.3x FOVCF is not useful for some photographers - perhaps make yourself more acquainted with Canon's professional lineup. They have a 1Ds MK III (which should have a successor in the next year or so) that caters for full frame. The 1D MK IV is targeted, as I've said above, to those capturing fast movement (ie; sports, wildlife, etc.).

I'd also recommend that you familiar yourself better with sensor technology and general physics that is relevant to cameras if you want to talk about such things. You speak very assertively, but unfortunately, you're very wrong when you mention:

If you want increased focal length, get a tele-extender- they work great (with no loss of resolution like cropping a photo or sensor cropping option). But don't build a flagship camera around that concept- it's straight up silly (I'm obviously being facetious there). End of story.

It's plain wrong. Cropping doesn't reduce any resolution when talking about crop sensors, as you factor in the pixel density as higher. You can compare a 15MP APS-C (ie, a crop factor body) and a 24MP full frame body, and that works. They come around to the same resolution if you crop the equivalent image from the full frame body. But we're talking about 16MP vs 21MP, between Canon's top two models. You also must consider the idea that a smaller focal plane gives a larger depth of field, whilst the idea that a great focal length provides less DOF has been proven false. So, for those wanting to get in really closely, there's extra DOF without sacrificing speed in relation to aperture.

And frankly, saying that a tele-extender won't affect the resolution, while correct, is ignorant in that ignores the detriment it brings to image quality. CA, sharpness, affects on aperture and other side effects are seen when using a tele-extender.

And Nikon's DX mode on their FF cameras leaves an enormous vignette around the image. At a reduced resolution. It's not the same.

 

[unfocused]

This thread was started on a falty presumption.

The basic premise about open economic competition is NOT to "blow your competitors away."

The basic premise is to earn sufficient profit to attract investors by giving them a competitive return on their investment, while at the same time reinvesting sufficient profits in the company to allow you to maintain and improve your competitive position. Market share is important, but capturing market share just for the sake of capturing market share is a good way to go broke.

Technological superiority is a poor predictor of market success (Betamax anyone?)

From what I can tell, Canon seems to be more than holding its own in terms of profitability and market share. Sure, the numbers fluctuate a little and vary by country, but overall Canon seems to be in very good shape. And, while I've said technological superiority isn't everything, Canon is no slouch when it comes to innovation.

Yes, there are differences between the specific feature sets of individual Canon and Nikon cameras, but most of these differences are minor and they constantly change as new models are introduced.

If Canon is f**king it up, I only wish I could f**k it up with the same financial success they have had.

 

[Joe J]

Financial success doesn't necessarily mean a company is producing the best products possible with the technological resources they have at their disposal; only making products similar to their competitors, better marketed, etc.
I don't believe anyone said Canon isn't successful; that would be a pretty foolish statement. Canon is "f-cking it up" by not keeping the edge of technological advances they had above Nikon and all other DSLR producers five years ago.

 

[Joe J]

I think you really need to calm down and evaluate how wisely you're dealing with this. And particularly, as to what you're saying.

I'm quite calm, thank you. Hope you are too. This is just a forum discussion of opinions of Canon products and the direction new ones on the horizon, not a Canon board meeting.

If you take the time to read my post, I'm obviously not comparing medium format cameras to the 5D MK II. But no DSLR can be compared to a medium format camera, as they're completely different. You actually raised the issue of the medium format camera being an option - I pointed out that they're in entirely different fields. Please read what I (and others) have written before launching into misdirected criticism.

I took the time to read your post, and yes you did compare:

"...A digital back costs a lot more - and if you do get one, a medium format camera itself will add further cost - without the availability of Canon's lens range. And of course, the total cost would be much more (thousands) than what a 5D MK II, and what it offers: an excellent full frame camera for a very affordable price."

I find it rather humourous that you mention 'excellence - in whose eyes?'; it's exactly the point that you yourself should be taking in.

Glad to bring a smile to your face.
I have taken that point in, and that is why I'm talking about the quality of tools Canon sells for professionals.

I have no qualms in anyone pointing out some disappointments in any brand. There are faults in Canon just like there are faults in every single brand and company on this planet. But they way you're portraying it is frankly unjust and my posts have clarified many points which you have left out or warped.

Sorry, but to me, you display time and time again that you have serious qualms with anyone pointing out any disappointments in Canon. Unjust? To what? I'm critiquing a CAMERA COMPANY'S current products and the direction of future ones. Think about it. Unfortunately, I have yet to see anything valid in your posts to un-"warp" my view:

I think you've lost the idea, here, regarding the flagship cameras. Just as Nikon has shifted their D3 into two different bodies now (the D3X, with 24+ MP, and the D3S, which is practically the same as the D3), so has Canon: the 1D and the 1Ds series, that are targeted to two different types of photographers - sports/wildlife photographers and studio photographers respectively. And the D700, comparable to the 5D MK II, is targeted as a backup camera, or also available to those who are looking for a good but relatively cheap full frame body.

Please read my post- I said I have a problem with Canon and Nikon shifting to two separate bodies in the DLSR realm, not that I didn't understand what each did or why they did it. What I don't understand is why you are wasting your time typing that...?
The majority of people aren't buying the D700 or 5D MKII prosumer cameras as "backup cameras"; they are buying them because that is what is in their budget.

These series have not merely gone up '1 or 2 MP' - they've improved resolution drastically, and I might add that sensor technology has been improved by Canon to 'defray' what would otherwise result in noise problems.

(Sigh) Once again... please read my post before replying in haste. I said more MP's here and there, not '1 or 2 MP'. Please don't put words in my mouth. At least scroll through my post. Obviously 4-8-10-16 (1D series) 11-16-21 (1Ds series) and 12-21 (5D) is more than one or two. I said "1 or 2" FPS. And your rebuttal to a non existent point was a moot point anyway; every other company has been doing the same evolution with their sensors.

You absolutely can't compare the 1D MK IV as being terrible to the D3s. They've got a difference of some 4 million pixels in resolution, and the 1D MK IV is still faster in terms of burst rate. Admittedly, the D3s is slightly better in noise handling, but the 1D MK IV holds its ground extremely well considering the resolution.

RE your idea that the 1.3x FOVCF is not useful for some photographers - perhaps make yourself more acquainted with Canon's professional lineup. They have a 1Ds MK III (which should have a successor in the next year or so) that caters for full frame. The 1D MK IV is targeted, as I've said above, to those capturing fast movement (ie; sports, wildlife, etc.).

Obviously they are both flagship "sports cameras" from each manufacturer. Once again, read my replies- I never said the MKIV was "terrible". The MK IV would be an amazing camera, except the 1.3 crop, and useless higher ISO settings above 3200 due to junk file quality. For those two reasons alone, I think the D3S is much better (and I can list other reasons too). It's that simple. 4 MP more, 1 FPS more (though the D3s does shoot 11 FPS in DX mode, if you want to be particular) and 1080 video doesn't make up for the other shortfalls. If it was FF at least, I might have a more favorable opinion of the MKIV (and probably own one).
You're using the term "admittedly"? What are you admitting to? You really must work for Canon... ;-)
And I'm very acquainted with Canon's professional lineup- that's WHY I have issues with it!! I also said 1.3 is useful for some, but not everyone. Most certainly not a reason to base one of the top of the line cameras off of. According to your logic of Canon's cameras, if you shoot sports/wildlife, you shouldn't want FF, only 1.3 crop. Um, yeah, right. 1Ds MKIII would also be an amazing camera (the image quality is superb) if it shot more than 5 FPS (even if it was JPEGS at 9 FPS, which would not be hard to add in) and had higher ISO. Not too much to ask, especially considering it was $8000 when released.
And once again... I take issue with Canon AND Nikon splitting their flagship camera from the film 1V/ F5 days to two separate camera "markets", when all it really means is pro photographers who want the best all-around DSLR in their camera bag, need to buy (and lug around) two different models instead of one. Not a hard concept to understand.

It's plain wrong. Cropping doesn't reduce any resolution when talking about crop sensors, as you factor in the pixel density as higher. You can compare a 15MP APS-C (ie, a crop factor body) and a 24MP full frame body, and that works. They come around to the same resolution if you crop the equivalent image from the full frame body. But we're talking about 16MP vs 21MP, between Canon's top two models. You also must consider the idea that a smaller focal plane gives a larger depth of field, whilst the idea that a great focal length provides less DOF has been proven false. So, for those wanting to get in really closely, there's extra DOF without sacrificing speed in relation to aperture.

Of course- for lenses designed for that specific sized chip. Unfortunately, you forgot to acknowledge there are no lenses specifically designed for APS-H chips, which was my whole point, if you understood my post.

And frankly, saying that a tele-extender won't affect the resolution, while correct, is ignorant in that ignores the detriment it brings to image quality. CA, sharpness, affects on aperture and other side effects are seen when using a tele-extender.

So do substandard chips, i.e. anything smaller than full-frame.

And Nikon's DX mode on their FF cameras leaves an enormous vignette around the image. At a reduced resolution. It's not the same.

I don't believe I said it was the best option, merely an example of an option. Once again (hopefully I don't have to keep repeating myself), I was taking issue with the fact that Canon doesn't make the perfect products for some people (when they very well have the technology to do so). And you tirelessly defend Canon, for what reason? Are they paying you? Does your future depend on Canon's success? If you answered no to both of those questions, please lighten up, and maybe consider that Canon isn't perfect nor make the perfect products for everyone (nor does any company at the moment). If you answered yes, well, at least acknowledge you do so; it would probably clear a few things up with some people reading this.

 

[L-Fletcher]

I didn't compare, actually - I just pointed out that your initial idea of just getting a medium format camera for the resolution was impractical. Based on those very reasons.

RE the MP issue: very true, my apologies for that, though not every company is doing the same with their cameras. Olympus halted at 12MP, and only one of Nikon's flagship cameras are raising the resolution.

Yes, the D3s can have 11fps at DX mode, but then the resolution drops even further.

Regarding 'admittedly' - we're having a civil debate here, aren't we? Concession is always (normally) taken in well, not pointed out as someone working for a company. : Just for the record, I don't work for Canon; simply (and this ties in with your questioning what I stated to be unjust) that I feel what you're saying doesn't really give credit to Canon's lineup. Your reasoning/arguments were unjust, not a critique in general.

Some people who buy D700s/5D MK IIs actually do look for a second body. And yes, some do look for it as a cheap (relative) FF body. And I mentioned that, in the very bit you quoted me on.

You say there aren't any lenses designed for APS-C sensors - yes there are. Perhaps you mean 1.3x? And no, there aren't. But it provides, for the sake of wildlife and sports, the further reach whilst removing a lot of potential corner softness, vignetting, etc. Obviously those using a 1D MK IV probably wouldn't be interested in the 8-15mm.

And no, a smaller sensor doesn't affect image quality at all. Noise isn't brought into it until high ISO is used, and the idea is a straight-off reduction in image quality. Yep, a smaller sensor affects aperture (due to DOF), but that's different to the way a tele-extender affects aperture.

By the way, I'm not saying that 1.3x crop factor is the best or the worst. But it works, and the many people who use the 1D MK IV like it. You don't have to like it of course. I'm just stating my view on it, and when I can, pointing out potentially misleading comments.

You asked me to consider that Canon isn't perfect? I hate to say this, having read and said this so many times already - but read my posts.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Of course- for lenses designed for that specific sized chip. Unfortunately, you forgot to acknowledge there are no lenses specifically designed for APS-C chips, which was my whole point, if you understood my post.

I thought that Canon's line of EF-S lenses and Nikon's line of DX lenses lenses were specifically designed to project an image circle corresponding to an APS-C sensor. But, maybe I'm replying in haste and I do not understand your post.