Tugela said:
Stu_bert said:
ahsanford said:
Tugela said:
The market is shrinking because new bells and whistles are just that, they don't substantively improve IQ in a way that is noticeable to the average user, so the need to upgrade isn't there. Lower demand = lowering sales.
The challenge for manufacturers is to provide significant functionality that doesn't currently exist in cameras in a meaningful way. That is increasingly difficult to do as time goes by. At the moment the biggest single thing a manufacturer can do to enhance the overall utility of a camera is to improve the video capabilities. Stills are mature these days, but video is not, and that is why there is so much emphasis on video in newer models.
Yep. And unless a camera lives or dies based on an evolving ecosystem that forces you to upgrade it often -- cell phones, I am looking at you -- people will just hang on to their very nice cameras that work just fine.
I look at the sensor scores that just got published on the 5DS rigs, and hate on crazy DXO all you want, they basically state what we expected -- the 5DS gets you pixels and little else. I recognize cropping is a powerful tool and more pixels are not a bad thing, but as I don't do many enlargements and I am not a pro who needs all competitive edge they can get, I'll be keeping my 5D3 and not upgrading.
But I don't say that in anger at Canon --
I love my 5D3. We're just not in an age of spectacular advancements with (dedicated) cameras, so buying in every 2-3 years for a new body is a wretched return on investment. I'll save my money for lenses.
- A
To be fair to Canon, the review says their best sensor to date, which given it has over twice the MP of the MK III isnt that shabby. But if you want better ISO DR akin to the D810, then it's not there. But I agree, the most recent "leap" in photography was probably the smartphone, and that was more in terms of portability, usability and flexibility, not the photography tech. Digital sensors are now in the same state as microprocessors. They're on a plateau until some major advancement in science comes along.
Two other interesting points from that review, the DR advantage goes by ISO 800, and lessens in print.
DR is being addressed leveraging their Dual-ISO tech and will be first seen in the 1Dx MK II. Canon would never give us both (a subject much discussed elsewhere here)
Sensors are mature technology now, there isn't much on the horizon that will radically advance them in themselves.
The big changes in the future are going to come from the processor and supporting logic, because that will allow the camera to do so much more with the sensor. The camera is going to increasingly become more and more computer like. That is where the performance in the future is going to come from. Which is why time is on the side of the manufacturers with strong capabilities in silicon, such as Sony and Samsung, which is largely leveraged by their business interests in the phone market. The Canons and Nikons of the world have their strength in mechanical aspects and optics, not silicon, and they are eventually going to be left behind because of that.
I agree with a number of your points - computing is indeed one important element what will accelerate photographic capabilities, and that Sony & Samsung have an advantage in terms of knowledge and cost efficiency...
However, I think you overlook the fact that the reason Nikon squeeze more out of the same sensor than Sony, and how Canon still manage to squeeze a tiny bit more from essentially the same sensor tech as they've had in the past 10 years is indeed their supporting logic aka Digic processors.
Secondly, if Canon and Nikon are reduced to producing optics only, it will shrink their revenue, but not obliterate their market share (which btw I dont think will be the case on the basis)
Thirdly, changes to sensor design (3 layer, different compounds) once perfected may still yield a step up in improvement over current tech.
I agree that there is a shift, and I agree that Nikon, Fuji, Olympus, Pentax and Canon (+ others) need to adapt rapidly. I personally think Canon should acquire a small development company with such expertise, but again that doesnt seem to be their way (cant say if that is generally a Japanese thing, or more specific)...
Finally, I also think that Canon et al have a lot to fear from Apple and Google, who have far more experience in software development than Sony or Samsung, and I think the software will influence the acceleration as much as the underlying hardware...
So long as I can keep my investment in Canon glass, although I like the ergonomics, build and reliability of Canon bodies, I am not so wed to them that I would not consider a migration if there was a powerful enough reason. But as Tom Hogan re-iterated last week, if you can't take a good picture with any of the current generation of cameras then the problem is not with the camera...