Canon Confirms 70D; Future of Semi-Pro DSLR is FF

[Don Haines]

The simple fact of the matter, though, is the 7D gives BETTER IQ than the cheapest Canon APS-C. The notion that sensor is the sole factor in IQ is fundamentally flawed, and why so many on this forum do not understand the true value an APS-C camera like the 7D. There are numerous other features offered with the 7D, not the least of which are its superior AF system and higher frame rate over the xxxD and xxD lines, that lead to better results in more cases. An increase in the number of usable outcomes is a very valuable thing, and more often than not those features are in addition to the image sensor, not solely because of the image sensor.

Let's drop the notion that sensor is the end-all, be-all of image quality. It is not. I'd offer that frame rate and AF system are critical, if not the most critical, factors in IQ for a significant amount of photographic endeavors. Pretty much anything that involves automatically locking focus on non-stationary subjects, or requires actively tracking subjects in motion, can greatly benefit from the additional features the 7D offers over the xxD and xxxD lines. I'd also be willing to bet that the keeper rate for the 7D is far higher than that from either a 60D or 650D, or any other prior version of those lines, thanks to its superior features...despite the fact that the image sensor is the same.

Iv'e always regarded the lens as the most important factor in image quality.... It doesn't matter what camera you have, you need the right lens for the job if you are going to do it well. I smile to myself when I hear someone with a 5D3 and Lglass comparing themselves to a rebel with a kit lens and saying it's the sensor that gives them the better picture.... swap lenses and see what happens...

I did a bunch of comparison shots for resolving power about two years ago between a 5D2 and a 7D.... In poor light the 5D2 was always the winner. With good light and a crappy lens, the 5D2 gave better resolving power, but with a good lens, the 7D out-resolved the 5D2.... Different tool... different strengths... different weaknesses.
If one tool did it all, Canon would only have one model.... and it would be identical to the equavelent sony, nikon, panasonic, and Olympus model.

 

[jrista]

The simple fact of the matter, though, is the 7D gives BETTER IQ than the cheapest Canon APS-C. The notion that sensor is the sole factor in IQ is fundamentally flawed, and why so many on this forum do not understand the true value an APS-C camera like the 7D. There are numerous other features offered with the 7D, not the least of which are its superior AF system and higher frame rate over the xxxD and xxD lines, that lead to better results in more cases. An increase in the number of usable outcomes is a very valuable thing, and more often than not those features are in addition to the image sensor, not solely because of the image sensor.

Let's drop the notion that sensor is the end-all, be-all of image quality. It is not. I'd offer that frame rate and AF system are critical, if not the most critical, factors in IQ for a significant amount of photographic endeavors. Pretty much anything that involves automatically locking focus on non-stationary subjects, or requires actively tracking subjects in motion, can greatly benefit from the additional features the 7D offers over the xxD and xxxD lines. I'd also be willing to bet that the keeper rate for the 7D is far higher than that from either a 60D or 650D, or any other prior version of those lines, thanks to its superior features...despite the fact that the image sensor is the same.

Iv'e always regarded the lens as the most important factor in image quality.... It doesn't matter what camera you have, you need the right lens for the job if you are going to do it well. I smile to myself when I hear someone with a 5D3 and Lglass comparing themselves to a rebel with a kit lens and saying it's the sensor that gives them the better picture.... swap lenses and see what happens...

That's it exactly. The sensor on any Rebel from the last 7 years will produce phenomenal photos when paired with good glass. It's just that as pixel density has increased, so has the demand on lenses. Try out the 100-400mm lens on any one of Canon's 18mp APS-C cameras, and they will all look somewhat soft. Pop on the EF 300mm f/2.8 L II, and (assuming good light) you'll see the sharpest, clearest, most vibrant photos you could imagine. The quality of a photo from the 7D wouldn't be any different from the quality of any FF camera at the same subject distance. The 7D or any 18mp Rebel would actually capture more detail than any current FF sensor on the market from any brand.

 

[Chosenbydestiny]

The simple fact of the matter, though, is the 7D gives BETTER IQ than the cheapest Canon APS-C. The notion that sensor is the sole factor in IQ is fundamentally flawed, and why so many on this forum do not understand the true value an APS-C camera like the 7D. There are numerous other features offered with the 7D, not the least of which are its superior AF system and higher frame rate over the xxxD and xxD lines, that lead to better results in more cases. An increase in the number of usable outcomes is a very valuable thing, and more often than not those features are in addition to the image sensor, not solely because of the image sensor.

Let's drop the notion that sensor is the end-all, be-all of image quality. It is not. I'd offer that frame rate and AF system are critical, if not the most critical, factors in IQ for a significant amount of photographic endeavors. Pretty much anything that involves automatically locking focus on non-stationary subjects, or requires actively tracking subjects in motion, can greatly benefit from the additional features the 7D offers over the xxD and xxxD lines. I'd also be willing to bet that the keeper rate for the 7D is far higher than that from either a 60D or 650D, or any other prior version of those lines, thanks to its superior features...despite the fact that the image sensor is the same.

Iv'e always regarded the lens as the most important factor in image quality.... It doesn't matter what camera you have, you need the right lens for the job if you are going to do it well. I smile to myself when I hear someone with a 5D3 and Lglass comparing themselves to a rebel with a kit lens and saying it's the sensor that gives them the better picture.... swap lenses and see what happens...

I did a bunch of comparison shots for resolving power about two years ago between a 5D2 and a 7D.... In poor light the 5D2 was always the winner. With good light and a crappy lens, the 5D2 gave better resolving power, but with a good lens, the 7D out-resolved the 5D2.... Different tool... different strengths... different weaknesses.
If one tool did it all, Canon would only have one model.... and it would be identical to the equavelent sony, nikon, panasonic, and Olympus model.

They can't swap lenses, the rebel's kit lens is EF-S =P Aside from my smart remark, +1. A better lens does make the entire, overall image better, even more so with an L prime.

 

[Don Haines]

They can't swap lenses, the rebel's kit lens is EF-S =P Aside from my smart remark, +1. A better lens does make the entire, overall image better, even more so with an L prime.

As long as you stay away from EF-S, the lenses swap.. All my lenses, except an EF-S 18-200, work on a 7D and a 5D2.. Some EF-S lenses, not made by Canon, do fit on the 5D2, but the vigneting is phenomenally terrible. My friend tried a Sigma 10-22 on the 5D2....like looking through a porthole

The problem with APS-C is that due to the high pixel density, you need Lglass quality to take advantage of that pixel density, yet the normal kit lenses offered fall far short of the required quality.

 

[jrista]

flawed logic.. you will always have more reach with a crop and a 1.4 TC.

And how many people are actually using a 1.4TC on an APS-C body? Its quite rare imho. I can also say add more n more extension rings if u just care about reach....flawed logic


Only advantage of APS-C is reach and price. But u dont have to save a lot more to get a better FF body than the endlevel APS-C. Yes, i hate APS-C or anything smaller than FF Still using it tough :
I just think there are too many Canon DSLR models and levels. They should have entry, advanced and pro. Why there is like super entry (xxxxD), normal entry (xxxD), upper entry (xxD) advanced (7D) upper advance (6D) end Advanced (5D) and pro (1dX)? Its just too many imho. And all APS-C produce the same image quality. mostly the rebels even produce better images then the 7D cuz they get updated more often :
I would NEVER get a 7D if it gives the same IQ as the cheapest DSLR from Canon. Paying so much money just for a better body material is ridicoulus imho. Or wow 10 FPS? Press and pray is not my style... If i wanna be somewhat professional id at least get a 5D.

Regarding the use of teleconverters on APS-C. I use them. Hell, I've used teleconverters with both the EF 300mm f/2.8 L II and the EF 500mm f/4 L II on my 7D. I use both the 1.4x and 2x, and if Canon made a 1.7x, I'd use that too. Primes frequently have far more to offer from an IQ standpoint than sensors do. A lot of people complain about how "soft" the 7D is...that is true, sometimes...when using older lenses. Slap on pretty much ANY Mark II lens on a 7D, and that "soft" disappears, replaced by some of the sharpest detail you've ever seen. The Canon 18.1mp APS-C sensor is a good sensor...however it is a very, very high density sensor. If you use inferior glass with it, all the flaws OF THE GLASS are revealed. The only real drawback of the 7D is noise, and then, only at ISO settings above 2500 (and even then, with the increasing availability of advanced noise removal tools, such as Topaz DeNoise 5 (which has stellar random noise removal AND debanding!), high ISO noise is becoming less and less of a problem.)

To put some images behind my claims. Below are two photos of House Finches. One is the normal red morph, the other an orange morph. Same bird, otherwise, same size (maybe a slight size benefit to the orange morph) with the same amount of base detail...feathers, beak, eye. Both of these were shot at pretty much the same distance (around 7 feet...red morph maybe a few inches farther), ISO, and aperture, although the red one was up in a tree so my focal plane was shifted a bit, thus slightly blurring the top of its head and the back of its right wing. The body feathers and beaks are in focus on both birds. Both birds were positioned within the same rough area of the lens...slightly off center towards the upper left corner. Both full-scene images below are cropped to roughly the same area (few pixels difference in width and height).

Both photos shot with my 7D, ISO 400, f/6.3, in my backyard. The red morph was shot with my EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS lens with a full stop of additional light at twice the shutter speed (1/1600s, which should be an IQ advantage!) The orange morph was shot with a rented EF 500mm f/4 L IS II. Both lenses had AFMA adjustments for this body.

Here are the full images, scaled down to 900 pixels. Even at this level, you can see the difference in quality between the two photos can be seen. The orange morph is sharper and clearer (probably thanks to better microcontrast.)

At 100% crop (1:1 zoom, PIXEL PEEPING for all you pixel peepers!), the difference in IQ is beyond clear. The 100-400mm lens produces far softer results (even ignoring the slightly out of focus crest on the red morph). This kind of softness is what I've come to expect from the 100-400mm lens at less than f/8, and beyond f/8 diffraction again softens the image. (There is roughly the same amount of noise in both photos. It is more apparent in the red morph due to the increased lens softness, which blurs detail but does NOT blur noise. Clear, sharp detail tends to trump noise. The background in the red morph also provides a greater area of <= 18% gray tone, where noise becomes most apparent...the orange morph has a greater area of pixels > 18% tone.)

Scaled down to web size, the red morph photo is good enough. Most people won't notice the slight softness. From a print standpoint, I probably would not print the red morph photo, however the orange morph photo is definitely printable. It is not only printable, it could also easily be blown up two, maybe three times larger, and still be high quality, even higher quality than the red morph photo printed at original size!

The notion that SENSOR is the only real factor in IQ is, in my opinion, fundamentally flawed. Sensor is A FACTOR in IQ, but not the most important. I would say the lens is the most important IQ factor. The AF system and frame rate are second. The image sensor is third. My reasoning for this is as follows:

[list type=decimal]
[*]If the lens is soft, then no amount of post-processing will really fix that. A soft lens produces soft pictures, and with a high density sensor, that softness just becomes more apparent.
[*]Clear detail eats noise for breakfast; Noise eats soft detail for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. You can kind of fix noise in soft detail, however beyond a certain point your just going to increase the softness of your detail thanks to the inferiority of NR vs. Better Lens ®. Better NR tools, or significant upgrades to existing NR tools, arrive on the market every few months or so. Topaz DeNoise 5 with Debanding can offer some significant NR before it starts to blur detail...but eventually, one way or another, you'll hit that threshold. Better lens will always trump better NR tools, IMO.
[*]Noise becomes most apparent in pixels with less than 18% gray tone (relative to the physical full-well capacity of the sensor's photodiodes at ISO 100, or half signal strength). Above 18% gray tone, noise quickly becomes a background factor. In other words, noise boils down to the total amount of light on the sensor. With say an expensive f/4 supertelephoto lens, you get twice as much light on the sensor as with a cheaper f/5.6 supertelephoto lens. Assuming all other exposure factors are the same, the consequence of the slower lens is a higher ISO setting. That implies a lower maximum signal strength, and thus a lower 18% gray level, relative to FWC @ ISO 100.
[/list]

The last point is probably the most sensor-dependent point. Noise is a factor of photons per full well, and the number of photon strikes per pixel (thanks to poisson distribution). Assuming a technologically level playing field...i.e. all of the same Q.E. enhancing technology is employed in sensors of all sizes: In a smaller sensor with smaller pixels, FWC is reached with fewer photons than in a larger sensor with larger pixels. Assuming an 18mp sensor in both APS-C and FF formats, FWC in an APS-C sensor might be around 30,000 electrons, while an FF sensor might be around 90,000 electrons. The larger pixels give the FF sensor a greater light gathering capacity in any given unit time, so assuming an identical exposure value, both sensors should saturate to FWC in the same exposure time. The difference is that the FF sensor has three times as many electrons to convert into the same number of digital levels (2^14, or 16384 digital levels, to be exact). Since most noise is photon shot noise (random noise that follows poisson distribution), the more photons per pixel you have to work with the better your noise performance at higher and higher ISO settings (or for pixels below the 18% gray tone threshold). The same would go for sensors of identical size and pixel density but different Q.E. If you had one APS-C sensor with 40% Q.E. and one with 80% Q.E., the latter would gather twice as many photons per pixel, even though the pixels are the same size.

 

[Dylan777]

I can see fuji and sony will take a BIG bite in smaller body models build with ff and crop sensors - X100(s) and RX-1 are great gear on the market.

 

[Hillsilly]

I can see fuji and sony will take a BIG bite in smaller body models build with ff and crop sensors - X100(s) and RX-1 are great gear on the market.

I agree. In particular, in the $600 to $1200 price range, there are so many good cameras around that I'm amazed Canon maintains such market dominance. But they must be getting a little worried. And this is one of the reasons why Canon will (hopefully) return the 70D to its roots - a more rugged, feature packed, well built, action and wildlife orientated camera for those with around $1200-$1400 to spend.

Great autofocusing capabilities is the only significant advantage Canon holds over many competitors. I'm pretty sure it will be the foundation of their camera bodies and marketing efforts in coming years. That way, when people go into a shop to buy their first serious camera, the salesperson will agree that the new Sony or Olympus or Panasonic or Fuji takes great photos. Just not of anything that moves. The 70D, however, not only takes great photos, but also has a state of the art AF system. They'll never miss an important shot again. Add in weather sealing, WIFI, GPS, dual card slots etc etc and, as long as it comes in different colours, Canon can lock in another three years as market leader.

Also, it must have hurt Canon's feelings for everyone to say the D7000 was better than the 60D - especially given that it was cheaper. I doubt they want a repeat of that.

 

[Marsu42]

Also, it must have hurt Canon's feelings for everyone to say the D7000 was better than the 60D - especially given that it was cheaper. I doubt they want a repeat of that.

I doubt Canon's feeling can be hurt, only their profits. They knew exactly what they were doing with the 60d - obviously people rather "upgrade" (to the better 7d) than switch to Nikon. And they just did repeat it, with the 6d/5d3/600d combination...

 

[Don Haines]

The problem with APS-C is that due to the high pixel density, you need Lglass quality to take advantage of that pixel density, yet the normal kit lenses offered fall far short of the required quality.

Compact cameras have far greater pixel density than APS-C.

I think it is fundamentally flawed to claim that "designing good lenses for high pixel density is hard/expensive". Just like it is fundamentally flawed to claim that "designing good lenses for large image circles is hard/expensive". What seems to be the case is that designing good lenses for high pixel density and large image circle simultaneously (i.e. "many megapixels") is hard.

I dont think that a good lense for a (12MP) 5D classic ought to be all _that_ different in price from that for a good (12MP) m4/3 camera (aside from economy of scale, shipping and such things). The FF lense would have to cover a relatively large image circle with moderate MTF, while the m43 lense would have to cover a smaller image circle with higher MTF.

-h

Take a peek at Jrista's excellent post above...

We have reached the point where the resolving power of high megapixel FF cameras and APS-C cameras are approaching the manufacturing limits of lenses. A series 2 prime chunk of Lglass exceeds this limit, most GOOD Lglass primes are around the limit, and just about everything else below.... with kit glass way below. We are using manufacturing tolerences and polishing techniques where it is getting down to the point where they are talking about layers of atoms being removed....it is almost insane how precise they can be made.....but it comes down to what cost...

To make a lens down to the level of a single layer of atoms would involve price tags of $100,000's.... more than the market will bear... They make them to resolution of tens of atoms and charge in the $1000's. Even at that "sloppy" level, expansion of the glass due to fluctuating temperatures and pressure of mounting it is measureable. There really is a reason why lens calibration is to be done at room temperature.. Even if you managed to make that perfect lens at a reasonable price, get to around f* or so and your limit will be the defraction of light... and as densities increase, that f number drops...

The higher pixel densities of cell phone cameras and p/s cameras has largely become meaningless. The resolution of the sensors far exceeds the glass (or plastic) and improvements in image sharpness actually decrease at a pixel level. Very few people in the mass market understand that a 5 megapixel sensor would out-resolve the lens of thier camera and the merrily buy into the more pixel hysteria... It has more... it must be better...

 

[fman]

And my last input, considering Canon sensors. What I learned from different articles is, that Canon is still using a 0.5um process for their CMOS sensors, while Sony has already upgraded to 0.18um. This is one reason why Canon lacks behind in sensor technology. But this is not a technology Canon has to develop, these are just machines they buy from other companys to produce their sensors. Canon already owns machines that are capable of a 0.18um process, but does not use them for CMOS sensors yet. So I expect Canon will make the switch pretty soon (maybe the high megapixel camera is a hint for that; Canon also said that at the moment 18MP APS-C sensors are ideal for them, which makes sense in this context).

I fear that it's not just the 0.5um process but Canon generally lacks behind sensor technology.
They are missing key inventions like e.g. this from Panasonic:
http://panasonic.co.jp/corp/news/official.data/data.dir/2013/02/en130204-6/en130204-6.html

Canon is simply forced to push their customers to FF because they cannot compete in the APS-C arena (or in general with DSLR bodies with high pixel density=small pixels).

With equal pixel size Canon cannot compete with sensors using more inventive technology...

 

[jrista]

The problem with APS-C is that due to the high pixel density, you need Lglass quality to take advantage of that pixel density, yet the normal kit lenses offered fall far short of the required quality.

Compact cameras have far greater pixel density than APS-C.

I think it is fundamentally flawed to claim that "designing good lenses for high pixel density is hard/expensive". Just like it is fundamentally flawed to claim that "designing good lenses for large image circles is hard/expensive". What seems to be the case is that designing good lenses for high pixel density and large image circle simultaneously (i.e. "many megapixels") is hard.

I dont think that a good lense for a (12MP) 5D classic ought to be all _that_ different in price from that for a good (12MP) m4/3 camera (aside from economy of scale, shipping and such things). The FF lense would have to cover a relatively large image circle with moderate MTF, while the m43 lense would have to cover a smaller image circle with higher MTF.

-h

One thing you are missing is how easy it is to optimize glass for a given sensor size. Optimizing lenses for a small sensor is actually fairly easy, as the surface area and volume of the lens elements themselves is fairly small. It is quite easy to get optimal center-to-corner performance with a micro lens for the tiny sensors you might find in a cheap P&S, Phone cam, etc. Optimizing glass for optimal center-to-corner performance for larger sensors becomes more and more difficult the larger the sensor gets. That is why high quality glass for MFD cams is so expensive...it really requires a lot of expertise and precision and high-end technology to achieve.

Yes, pixel density in small form factor sensors is very high, as much as 2x higher than the pixel density of the 7D. However the total sensor area of the 7D can be many times larger than that of a small form factor sensor, thus putting a much greater "load" on the lens, especially at the edges and corners. The sample photos I posted are mid-way between center and corner. I chose those pictures because the performance of pretty much any lens at the very center is usually quite ideal...lens performance trends away from optimal as you head towards the corners. When you get close enough to a bird, for example, and actually fill the frame with your subject, the difference between center and corner performance can be quite meaningful, especially if a non-centered composition is ideal. I don't believe there is any question about the quality of top-end L-series glass on the 7D, relative to low-end L-series glass. The difference in sharpness, clarity, microcontrast, etc. is pretty remarkable.

 

[jrista]

The problem with APS-C is that due to the high pixel density, you need Lglass quality to take advantage of that pixel density, yet the normal kit lenses offered fall far short of the required quality.

Compact cameras have far greater pixel density than APS-C.

I think it is fundamentally flawed to claim that "designing good lenses for high pixel density is hard/expensive". Just like it is fundamentally flawed to claim that "designing good lenses for large image circles is hard/expensive". What seems to be the case is that designing good lenses for high pixel density and large image circle simultaneously (i.e. "many megapixels") is hard.

I dont think that a good lense for a (12MP) 5D classic ought to be all _that_ different in price from that for a good (12MP) m4/3 camera (aside from economy of scale, shipping and such things). The FF lense would have to cover a relatively large image circle with moderate MTF, while the m43 lense would have to cover a smaller image circle with higher MTF.

-h

Take a peek at Jrista's excellent post above...

We have reached the point where the resolving power of high megapixel FF cameras and APS-C cameras are approaching the manufacturing limits of lenses. A series 2 prime chunk of Lglass exceeds this limit, most GOOD Lglass primes are around the limit, and just about everything else below.... with kit glass way below. We are using manufacturing tolerences and polishing techniques where it is getting down to the point where they are talking about layers of atoms being removed....it is almost insane how precise they can be made.....but it comes down to what cost...

Aye, I would say that Mark II L Primes definitely exceed the limit. Based on what I have seen with the Mark II telephoto primes I've rented, Canon is probably set for a march up to 60 or 70 MP FF sensors, if not more. That would in the 2-3 micron pixel size range at the top end, which is getting down to the realm of large-pixel small form factor pixel densities (2 microns or so). I believe that, if the next Canon APS-C is around 24.4mp, then we would be approaching the limit again...that would be the equivalent of a 63-64mp FF sensor. I can't see FF sensors reaching that high of pixel density for the next 5-10 years, though...and if Canon really is pushing for a broader range of FF DSLR cameras with a diminishing APS-C footprint over the years, then I think the new Mark II lens generation is setting Canon up for the next decade of high density, high IQ large form factor image sensors.

 

[Hobby Shooter]

And my last input, considering Canon sensors. What I learned from different articles is, that Canon is still using a 0.5um process for their CMOS sensors, while Sony has already upgraded to 0.18um. This is one reason why Canon lacks behind in sensor technology. But this is not a technology Canon has to develop, these are just machines they buy from other companys to produce their sensors. Canon already owns machines that are capable of a 0.18um process, but does not use them for CMOS sensors yet. So I expect Canon will make the switch pretty soon (maybe the high megapixel camera is a hint for that; Canon also said that at the moment 18MP APS-C sensors are ideal for them, which makes sense in this context).

I fear that it's not just the 0.5um process but Canon generally lacks behind sensor technology.
They are missing key inventions like e.g. this from Panasonic:
http://panasonic.co.jp/corp/news/official.data/data.dir/2013/02/en130204-6/en130204-6.html

Canon is simply forced to push their customers to FF because they cannot compete in the APS-C arena (or in general with DSLR bodies with high pixel density=small pixels).

With equal pixel size Canon cannot compete with sensors using more inventive technology...

That must be why Panasonic is the largest manufacturer of DSLRs, oh wait they're not.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I fear that it's not just the 0.5um process but Canon generally lacks behind sensor technology.

Canon is simply forced to push their customers to FF because they cannot compete in the APS-C arena (or in general with DSLR bodies with high pixel density=small pixels).

With equal pixel size Canon cannot compete with sensors using more inventive technology...

Defiine 'compete'. Last time I checked, none of the manufacturers you're discussing sell naked sensors to consumers - they all sell cameras. Since Canon sells more cameras than any other dSLR maker, I'd say they're winning the competition.

 

[darkhound]

it wouldn't be a problem to produce only full frame for DSLRs but FF cameras are very expensive (entry level starts above $2000), and the 1.6x crop factor is something many people like in ASP-C.

lol.... canon 6D selling for $1630. nikon d600 selling for $1500

 

[K-amps]

Defiine 'compete'. Last time I checked, none of the manufacturers you're discussing sell naked sensors to consumers - they all sell cameras. Since Canon sells more cameras than any other dSLR maker, I'd say they're winning the competition.

Neuro... I seldom disagree with you... but this seems to me like the guy who jumped off the empire state building and all the way down yelled, see I am ok, I am still winning.... untill... SPLATT!

I for one hope Canon can licence tech that gives them a 1 stop RAW advantage like this Pana patent seems to indicate.

 

[honsten]

With this ongoing wait we seem to be in, I'm starting to get the impression that Canon will release the 7D2 and 70D simultaneously, or near enough, with the same new sensor. 700D will get it at some point in summer.

If they were going to release it as a warmed-over 60D, they would have done it already to coincide with the 650D.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see. If its a big enough let-down, the 6D should be a fair bit cheaper by then anyway.

 

[aznable]

That must be why Panasonic is the largest manufacturer of DSLRs, oh wait they're not.

Panasonic is selling their real estate, like sony, to have some cash to continue their business

anyway a great achievement, but i guess the sensors using this need a lot of reworking

 

[jrista]

Defiine 'compete'. Last time I checked, none of the manufacturers you're discussing sell naked sensors to consumers - they all sell cameras. Since Canon sells more cameras than any other dSLR maker, I'd say they're winning the competition.

Neuro... I seldom disagree with you... but this seems to me like the guy who jumped off the empire state building and all the way down yelled, see I am ok, I am still winning.... untill... SPLATT!

I would offer that it seems that way because you hang out in forums where the majority of members obsess over meaningless minutia that 90% or more of the camera-bearing world really doesn't give the first flying rat's ass (even the ass of the rat that jumped off the empire state building ??? ) about.

People primarily care about taking pictures, and it is only a fleeting minority that care so deeply about IQ or DR that they spend a significant percentage of their lives debating the merits of "Sensor A" vs. "Sensor B". Every camera on the market today is so good it puts the majority of cameras from the prior generation to shame. The complaints about things like low ISO banding noise may be valid in microniches, but for the very vast majority of photographers, they never push or pull exposure around by more than a stop, maybe two at most. Most photographers simply reject a photo that is improperly exposed, rather than expending any time and effort, which is usually just a synonym for money, trying to salvage it.

In that respect, Canon does a better job making cameras for photographers, rather than refining technology for obsessive-compulsive minutia-entwined techno-babbling batshit-crazy should-be-out-photographing-something wackos like myself and so many others on this forum. ;D

 

[Hobby Shooter]

That must be why Panasonic is the largest manufacturer of DSLRs, oh wait they're not.

Canon seems to be in a comfortable position right now. The generate sales and money. Most may not read (or value) the DXO numbers.

The danger of being in that position is that you may become defensive. Why spend $1 billion on R&D/upgraded manufacturing processes if you can be a dominant player without it?

I think there are some signs that Canon are on the defensive (pre-releasing cameras/lenses by a year, a mirror-less camera that seems like they want to tag along but not lead), but I think it would be wrong to claim that "With equal pixel size Canon cannot compete... "

-h

I do agree with that, very sensible comment. I'm bored with people saying Canon as a company is doomed because of this and that. Being a market leader is not the easiest thing, management could start to lose their sense of urgency - becoming complacent. It wouldn't be the first time in corporate history. Toyota focused too much on being number one and over a couple of years started to take shortcuts in product quality which used to be their top selling argument.

I don't know enough history in this business about who used to be the market leader and why that company lost it etc, but surely it must have happened.

But going back to what many smart people are saying on this forum; the sensor is only one of many important components going into a camera system.