Canon back to the drawingboard or is there still hope?

[dak723]

Having bought an A7 II to replace my Canon 6D, I too was very interested in how they compare...But the Sony was returned. If it had taken pics that were the equal to the Canon's, then I would have kept the Sony and sold the Canon since I was really looking for a smaller, lighter camera. ..and since the kit lens of the Sony was very poor, the choice was actually pretty easy.

Many of us are still hanging around here at CR hoping (for Years) that Canon once again becomes industry-leading in sensor technology because we do love the Canon lenses, ergonomics, availability of tons of professional/lighting products, and the far superior customer service department.

Just like you, I bought a Sony A7r for its portability and DR to see if it could replace my Canon 5D III. I still have both... Both take great photos, and each does certain things better than the other. IME, one needs to be very careful when comparing Sony to Canon to have a fair fight.

Firstly, the Sony kit lens, as you said, is so-so, so one needs to employee at least the FE 55mm or 35mm to comparable Canon lenses. Same goes for AF speed.

Secondly, the two systems' default color presentation is very different, so to compare, one needs to equalize the color for both before comparing other aspects such as DR, noise because otherwise, one's color preference will bias you too much. I use Xrite products to color profile both.

I actually hope the new Sony BSI sensor isn't materially better for my shooting requirements because I'd rather keep using my 5DIII and A7r instead of wanting a $3200 body, not to mention the high-priced Sony/Zeiss native lenses.

I understand that for many folks they need to have the best camera. When I bought the cameras to compare, I didn't do it to create tests and come up with "evidence" to present to others. I did it to see which camera produced the pictures I thought were best. So, yes, the cameras have a different color "look." I prefer the Canon's color. I do not need to equalize the color to compare them. I am not planning to change the color in post production. Never. Not one time. So I choose the camera that gives me the color that I want. Same for contrast or the tone curve. Canon's was much to my preference - as I believe it is for many folks who like the "punchier" higher contrast images that has been a Canon "look" for a long time. Again, not looking to equalize anything to compare in post production. Only planning to do minimal post production of only a small percentage of pics. My guess is that this is the way the majority of folks take pics with their DSLRs. They are not pros or enthusiasts - they are people taking pics of vacations, family gatherings, other special events. Even some enthusiasts like me - who have been able to sell a few pics at summer art festivals - are looking for a camera that takes the best looking pics right from the camera or with minimal post processing. We are not into the tech, we are into the images - usually the printed image. I have never needed to do noise reduction on a pic above and beyond the RAW converter default. I have never had a pic that I couldn't lift the shadows to where I wanted with my Canon cameras. So all the fancy tests and DR ratings and high ISO charts are not important when I compare cameras and choose the one I will buy. I look at THE IMAGES. I compare them. Which camera has the color I like best, the contrast or tone curve, the higher percentage of properly exposed shots, the most accurate AF, the sharper images. Pretty simple really when you take away all the internet garbage.

 

[3kramd5]

I actually hope the new Sony BSI sensor isn't materially better for my shooting requirements because I'd rather keep using my 5DIII and A7r instead of wanting a $3200 body

Odd. I hope that every new product is materially better than what I have - if consumers didn't expect improvements, product lines would stagnate.

A new product coming along doesn't affect what I already have.

If you'd rather keep the 5DIII, keep it. I'm keeping mine when the A7R2 gets here, though I'll likely offload my A7R.

 

[Ozarker]

Shuddup and shoot.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

Canon knows its market and limits.
Canon produces excellent lenses that can produce higher level of micro-contrast that Sony lenses can't and actually can't take advantage of high MP sensors they produce.

 

[Hillsilly]

Hasselblad and Nikon will adopt the new sensor, but what will be the answer from Canon?

The only problem Canon has is that their products aren't as new, exciting or interesting as the competitors. But, deep down, most people don't really care - they just want cameras that work. Canon are the Toyota Corolla of the camera world.

FWIW, I don't think Canon need to be too worried about Hasselblad's involvement in the FF mirrorless market.

 

[MxM]

Hasselblad and Nikon will adopt the new sensor, but what will be the answer from Canon?

The only problem Canon has is that their products aren't as new, exciting or interesting as the competitors. But, deep down, most people don't really care - they just want cameras that work. Canon are the Toyota Corolla of the camera world.

FWIW, I don't think Canon need to be too worried about Hasselblad's involvement in the FF mirrorless market.

How many Toyota's do you see on the road? ???
True, people just want cameras that work, but not for the prices that Canon currently put on their products. There are much cheaper (and maybe better) alternatives.

Sony listens to their customers that's what i'm trying to say, all the people at Canon can't read or are deaf...

The A7(R)II surely is a game changer, First Nikon, then Sony and who or what's next? Just fancy words don't cut it anymore.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Sony listens to their customers that's what i'm trying to say, all the people at Canon can't read or are deaf...

Sony listens to people who post frequently on the internet, Canon listens to people who buy cameras.

 

[wyldeguy]

Here's a look at how the game-changing world-beating A7II compared with the Nikon D750:
http://www.soundimageplus.com/soundimageplus/2015/6/14/sony-a7-ii-compared-to-nikon-d750
The author was not impressed, finding it worse in almost every way. Decided to keep his D750 and sell the A7II. Let's hope the A7RII is better.

So, if I understand it, a fan boy got in a a7II so he could "slap it down" and reinforce his belief in Nikon?

You know a "review" is disingenuous when it starts off by attaching a battery grip and a huge Nikon lens on the Sony to kill off the size and weight advantage for Sony to begin the article. Ever heard of carrying an extra (small) battery for Sony? What about the nice and small native Sony/Fe lens like FE55 f/1.8 and FE35 f/2.8?

Well I can understand why a reviewer would want to put a Nikon lens on the Sony. This would make the review about the camera itself and not have a lens give an unfair advantage to one or the other. I'm not saying Nikon lenses are better than the Sony ones, even though that is generally the case. The battery grip makes sense if you know that the Sony has a small battery and dies quickly, which can be the case with mirrorless, and don't want to be changing batteries constantly. If the only thing you can attack a review for is that they have removed the, constantly mentioned, benefit of mirrorless then I'd say it's a fair review. Besides, the camera is still smaller and lighter and the overall system is still smaller and lighter. They haven't removed your precious size and weight advantage that all mirrorless lovers cling to like lampreys.

 

[wyldeguy]

Sony listens to their customers that's what i'm trying to say, all the people at Canon can't read or are deaf...

Sony listens to people who post frequently on the internet, Canon listens to people who buy cameras.

I think Sony listens to their shareholders more. They change hardware designs faster than any other company, knowing that their fans will probably buy the newer version. Just look at the playstation. The PS3 went through something like 5 generations in 8 years, some changed hardware, form factor or software. The playstation portable is another example. I bought the original when it came out. Within 3 years they had completely changed their minds on the design and made mine useless. Both products still named the same had changed completely from the original offering with no thought given to the original users. Sony doesn't care about their "fans" they only care about profit. They know their fans will re-buy products because they have a feature they want/need. I will probably still buy a PS4 at some point, despite being screwed by them on both of the afore mentioned products, because they have games I want to play. Until they have the games I want I will continue to play Xbox. Once I'm done with Sony I will go back to playing xbox. Before people call me a Microsoft fanboy I will say this. Microsoft wasn't immune to changing its system over the same 8 years but they didn't make the original Xbox 360 obsolete like Sony did with the PS3 and PSP.

 

[privatebydesign]

...
I think Sony listens to their shareholders more. They change hardware designs faster than any other company, knowing that their fans will probably buy the newer version. Just look at the playstation. The PS3 went through something like 5 generations in 8 years, some changed hardware, form factor or software. The playstation portable is another example. I bought the original when it came out. Within 3 years they had completely changed their minds on the design and made mine useless. Both products still named the same had changed completely from the original offering with no thought given to the original users. Sony doesn't care about their "fans" they only care about profit. They know their fans will re-buy products because they have a feature they want/need. I will probably still buy a PS4 at some point, despite being screwed by them on both of the afore mentioned products, because they have games I want to play. Until they have the games I want I will continue to play Xbox. Once I'm done with Sony I will go back to playing xbox. Before people call me a Microsoft fanboy I will say this. Microsoft wasn't immune to changing its system over the same 8 years but they didn't make the original Xbox 360 obsolete like Sony did with the PS3 and PSP.

It's not quite that simple. And Sony aren't the only ones that have done this, Apple also have done this. Did you ever own a Nintendo?

Digital cameras are in the same generic category as the PS/Xbox: consumer electronics.

In consumer electronics, the market is still going through quite significant change and at a rate that is quite unlike anything else in human history. The rate of change means that if you want to deliver the best outcome then it may be best to jettison baggage that is going to hold you back (compatibility for old games can go this through requiring old APIs to be present that may in turn require older hardware to be present or even present security issues.) The place to make money is on the bleeding edge where you have new and exciting products using the latest components. Being safe does not win you new customers and as long as there are more new customers than old customers lost due to being disgruntled about compatibility, it is all good.

Er, unless you are a forward thinking company, one that can make a painful decision on something core, like a lens mount once every few decades, but design it with enough future proofed capacity in it to remain competitive whichever way the market goes. Somebody that designed a lens mount, for instance, that was able to transition from film cameras to digital cameras, from 135 to APS-C and APS-H, and even a small mirrorless, as well as to various movie and video formats; a mount that has proven to be the best design with no mechanical linkages, that came to be weather sealable, with spare electrical contacts to allow for image stabilization in many generations, to encompass new features like focus distance information for advanced metering.

A company that could protect their customer base like that, that appreciates lenses are the key to taking unique images and are the heart of a photographic system, now that is the kind of company I would be happy to spend my hard earned money on.

 

[psolberg]

canon isn't going to do anything. Their entire business relies on a legacy lens system designed for the times where mirrors were essential. But today they have basically no lenses for the modern full frame miror-less future and even if they started today, they are already playing catchup, a position they don't know how to play. So they will play to the past and do what they can to prevent people from going to sony by matching some of the specs with the same old DSLRs they have always relied on to carry the bulk of their sales: low-mid end bodies.

However ultimately they lose because their system is not going to work as well as sony's a system designed from the ground up for the future where mirrors are only useful in your car and bathroom. Even if they go Thom Hogan's DSLR: basically keep the mount the same and remove the mirror, these bulky cameras will still be at a disadvantage with their film-era gargantuan mounts and extreme mount to sensor distance. Sure, they may keep the few sport and action shooters out there that are loading lenses on mules, but their vast market is basically experiencing an iphone moment: canon is blackberry and they realized the keyboard isn't needed because touch is finally good enough. Mirror-less is finally good enough it seems, and if not today, it is inevitably going to be better.

Canon needs to re-invent themselves and that means something they probably could do, but management will not do or will not do well. One only has to see their APSC offering. Basically they know they must do this but they are resisting it so much they killed it and worse yet, did it wrong being unable to ship a full frame camera with this new mount. Nikon is probably doing the same thing with the nikon 1, but at least they try to market as if they want to sell it.

So like blackberry before them, and we already see this, they are basically going to double down on their legacy and spread FUD (today's equivalent to BB's "you can't type on glass") in regards to mirrorless. Probably their fans will sing in lockstep (as did BB users).

So while I think canon has what it takes to make a comeback as does Nikon, I think japanese managers are simply too proud to move forward when their tactical advantages of the past are no more and they are forced to play as challengers again. If 10 years down the road I saw companies are still doing big ass DSLRs for the few people who shoots sports and that is all they amount to, while wedding, portraits, landscape and basically everybody else is with another OEM, I wouldn't be surprised. This is a new era.

 

[bdunbar79]

<So while I think canon has what it takes to make a comeback as does Nikon, I think japanese managers are simply too proud to move forward when their tactical advantages of the past are no more and they are forced to play as challengers again.>

Odd statement. You realize Sony is a Japanese company right?

 

[neuroanatomist]

canon isn't going to do anything. Their entire business relies on a legacy lens system designed for the times where mirrors were essential. But today they have basically no lenses for the modern full frame miror-less future and even if they started today, they are already playing catchup, a position they don't know how to play.

Yeah, mirrorless killed the dSLR right on schedule, last year. Somehow we all missed it – what silly, unobservant people we are. Today, it seems Canon really has missed the boat since unit sales of mirrorless cameras are growing dramatically...arent they?

 

[bdunbar79]

canon isn't going to do anything. Their entire business relies on a legacy lens system designed for the times where mirrors were essential. But today they have basically no lenses for the modern full frame miror-less future and even if they started today, they are already playing catchup, a position they don't know how to play.

Yeah, mirrorless killed the dSLR right on schedule, last year. Somehow we all missed it – what silly, unobservant people we are. Today, it seems Canon really has missed the boat since unit sales of mirrorless cameras are growing dramatically...arent they?

2009: mirrorless is gonna finish off DSLR's!
2010-2014: each year was surely the year!
2015: this is the year man, I can feel it!

 

[privatebydesign]

Well a link to senior Canon Japan personnel stating the EF mount is now a limitation would be a damn sight more interesting than the totally superfluous Wikipedia link you did supply.

Now look into the limitations and compatibility issues those companies that kept their mounts have. Nikon is far and away the worst offender, indeed it is easier to use older Nikon lenses on an EOS body than on a Nikon. http://www.nikonians.org/reviews?alias=nikon-slr-camera-and-lens-compatibility

Or I could point out the Sony lens compatibility farce, you know, the cutting edge company that has been making interchangeable lens cameras for what, nine years, and has two completely separate mounts, two versions of each mount and numerous crossover issues, they obviously copied Nikon with their lens mount strategy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Sony_A-mount_lenses
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_E-mount

 

[Tinky]

Well a link to senior Canon Japan personnel stating the EF mount is now a limitation would be a damn sight more interesting than the totally superfluous Wikipedia link you did supply.

Ah, you failed to notice that Canon has the most different lens mounts (5) of all the companies listed?
No fewer than three full frame mounts?

And then there is this patent:
http://www.canonrumors.com/2015/05/patent-canon-12-35-f2-3-5-for-43-sensor/
... which effectively would be a 6th Canon lens mount.

Or I could point out the Sony lens compatibility farce, you know, the cutting edge company that has been making interchangeable lens cameras for what, nine years, and has two completely separate mounts, two versions of each mount and numerous crossover issues, they obviously copied Nikon with their lens mount strategy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Sony_A-mount_lenses
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_E-mount

Sony's A mount is the equivalent of Canon's EF mount.
Sony's E mount is the equivalent of Canon's EF-M.
Can you mount an EF-M lens on the Canon 5D? Or what about an EF-S lens on a 5D?
Oh, neither the EF-M or EF-S are compatible with EF?
The same restriction is true with both Nikon and Sony.
And just like Sony has an adapter to mount A on E, so too does Canon have one for EF on EF-M.
So did Sony copy Canon or did Canon copy Sony or did they both happen to arrive at the same solution themselves?

Point of pedantry.

Nikon were ahead of the game when it came to cropped lenses. Their DX (croped image circle) lenses mount fine on their FX cameras. The cameras detect they are DX lenses and crop the image accordingly.

You can't mount a stock EF-s lens on a canon EF mount body, regardless of whether its a 10D with a cropped sensor, a 1D with a different crop or full frame.

I once again detect a hint of 'full frame or nothing at all'. Ok it's a gear forum. Not everybody is shooting or aspires to shoot full frame. I think Canon have generally got it right. Lots of lovely EF lenses that fit all EOS users, a small selection of EF-m and EF-s lenses that play to the unique strengths of those systems.

As discussed before and ad infintum.. EF is the key to Canons system. They should, in my opinion concentrate on making great lenses can be adapted for use by all EOS users... they might want to play to the strengths of the EF-m and make a couple more pancakes, but overall I think they have got it right.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

I understand that for many folks they need to have the best camera.

No, the want the "best" camera (by which they mean the one which supposedly has a miracle sensor) because off-the-shelf sensor bragging rights are easier to acquire than talent.

And in the meantime, many of us continue to take fantastic pictures with our Canons anyway...

 

[privatebydesign]

Point of pedantry.

Nikon were ahead of the game when it came to cropped lenses. Their DX (croped image circle) lenses mount fine on their FX cameras. The cameras detect they are DX lenses and crop the image accordingly.

You can't mount a stock EF-s lens on a canon EF mount body, regardless of whether its a 10D with a cropped sensor, a 1D with a different crop or full frame.

I once again detect a hint of 'full frame or nothing at all'. Ok it's a gear forum. Not everybody is shooting or aspires to shoot full frame. I think Canon have generally got it right. Lots of lovely EF lenses that fit all EOS users, a small selection of EF-m and EF-s lenses that play to the unique strengths of those systems.

As discussed before and ad infintum.. EF is the key to Canons system. They should, in my opinion concentrate on making great lenses can be adapted for use by all EOS users... they might want to play to the strengths of the EF-m and make a couple more pancakes, but overall I think they have got it right.

Your points are not pedantic, they are germane.

However your opinion of them is not necessarily shared.

Yes you can mount DX lenses on FX cameras, but many wouldn't consider that an advantage, how does a compulsory crop actually help? Now can that FX body actually focus that DX lens? Some can, some can't. OK, but can that FX body meter with that DX lens? That isn't a give. How about aperture control? Again, not a given.

So your opinion is it is better to be able to mount a lens that gives you a compulsory crop, might not focus, have no aperture control, or be able to meter, than it is to not be able to mount the lens. Given the choice I would prefer a system that doesn't allow me to mount the lens.

Being able to mount the lens is one thing, actually retaining the functionality of the lens so you can take a picture is another.

 

[Tinky]

What FX bodies (fx meaning full frame digital) will not AF or control aperture on a dx lens?

If I had said full frame then fair enough, but I was specifically careful to say fx...

Ok lets ignore fx/dx, lets look at Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Samyang, who all make lenses specifically for canon aps-c cameras, but using the EF mount. It's a 12 year old debate right enough, but I sometimes wonder why canon couldn't do the same?

If canon concentrate on making high quality 'affordable' lenses in ef mount then every eos user wins. Although for hobby shooters a canon body and 10-250mm trio of lenses for under a grand is actually very difficult to argue with.

 

[Rocky]

What FX bodies (fx meaning full frame digital) will not AF or control aperture on a dx lens?

If I had said full frame then fair enough, but I was specifically careful to say fx...

Ok lets ignore fx/dx, lets look at Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Samyang, who all make lenses specifically for canon aps-c cameras, but using the EF mount. It's a 12 year old debate right enough, but I sometimes wonder why canon couldn't do the same?

If canon concentrate on making high quality 'affordable' lenses in ef mount then every eos user wins. Although for hobby shooters a canon body and 10-250mm trio of lenses for under a grand is actually very difficult to argue with.

Canon still holds the patent right for the EF-S mount. Therefore non body dares to make lens with EF-S mount. The patent right for EF mount has expired. Therefore it is free for all. Also it is easier to make APS-C lens than the FF lens. That is why Canon makes EF mount and EF-S mount (cost saving and/or better performance).