Canon Confirms Development of High Megapixel Camera
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
They can:
1. Improve hardware by changing their production line to make sensors that compete with SONY. OK this is EXPENSIVE but I guess it will put Canon to top again (and in that way pay itself in the long run).
2. Improve hardware by implementing their patent with dual amplification channels ( Dual-Scale Column-Parallel ADC Patent I think).
3. Improve software by implementing everything ML has done up to now.
1. Improve hardware by changing their production line to make sensors that compete with SONY. OK this is EXPENSIVE but I guess it will put Canon to top again (and in that way pay itself in the long run).
2. Improve hardware by implementing their patent with dual amplification channels ( Dual-Scale Column-Parallel ADC Patent I think).
3. Improve software by implementing everything ML has done up to now.
Upvote
0
adventureous said:
You know, if Nikon wanted to kill Canon tomorrow—and I mean completely end them, in all likelihood—all they would have to do is formally license their autofocus protocols to Zeiss. Canon would suddenly be facing a company with better cameras and better lenses, and they'd have to either compete or die (or both).
Upvote
0
Perhaps "expand the eos line" refers to the addition of a medium format camera line...
If true, Canon might keep the 5D line growing by incorporating advanced processor features within the body, rather than mucking it up with higher resolution sensors.
If true, Canon might keep the 5D line growing by incorporating advanced processor features within the body, rather than mucking it up with higher resolution sensors.
Upvote
0
dgatwood said:
What unmitigated hyperbole.
Anybody that believes "the best possible combination of digital available today" is a 135 format Nikon needs to get out more, there is a very reasonable digital medium format market that makes D810 files look like P&S's, but it costs, and that is the reason a Nikon/AF Zeiss combo wouldn't impact anything, there are very few people, some but very few, who would happily pay that kind of money for an incremental step in IQ that nobody could see at most reproduction sizes.
People are generally motivated by a cost/IQ payoff, I could give my clients 10% more for 4 times the money, but none of them want that.
Upvote
0
There are quite a few in this thread that, if they bought stock according to their own predictions, would be piss poor sooner than my shutter stops working.
Upvote
0
Haha. You forgot one important fact in your equation. Nikon is based on photography, only. Canon is a huge company where photography is just a minor part of the income. That's also a reason why they don't focus on everybodys body-wishes all the time. And to be honest, Nikon already gave up at the sensor-war. They couldn't compete.
There is an old phrase...Why should the oak tree care if the pig is scratching on it's trunk?
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
vscd said:
Haha. You forgot one important fact in your equation. Nikon is based on photography, only. Canon is a huge company where photography is just a minor part of the income. That's also a reason why they don't focus on everybodys body-wishes all the time. And to be honest, Nikon already gave up at the sensor-war. They couldn't compete.
There is an old phrase...Why should the oak tree care if the pig is scratching on it's trunk?
+1
There are quite a few people on these boards compared to whom that oak tree-scratching pig has better business acumen.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:LetTheRightLensIn said:
Sounds like Canon – a company that spends a significant amount of ¥ on market research – seems to think those clamoring for more low ISO DR are a minority. I think I've heard that stated elsewhere...here, perhaps? :
1.
I wouldn't be smiling over such things, since it's hardly a good thing for a Canon user if all 100% true. In fact, it's a rather bad thing.
2.
They also thought that their was zero market for the SONY RX100 camera and a Canon executive scoffed and laughed at such a camera and said that their team had clearly determined that there was no market for such a camera and that they had no plans.....
.....well until now, after the Sony RX100 series has proved to be a run away success and they suddenly come out with a clone, two years too late and a dollar short.
It's hardly like their research marketing department is infallible.
3.
It may not have anything to do with what their marketing discovers that people want, but just with what they are able to bring to the table without investing too much money and what they can manage to get away with doing. It's very common for companies to start acting like this once they hit the top. A great many of them eventually fail. Of course cameras are an unusual business so they may have more leeway.
4.
They have already given up a lot of the low-mid end video DSLR revolution market that they themselves had created just a few years back.
5.
Who is to say that their sales would not have been far more dominant and climbing instead of declinging had they pushed things forward more?
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
LetTheRightLensIn said:neuroanatomist said:LetTheRightLensIn said:
Sounds like Canon – a company that spends a significant amount of ¥ on market research – seems to think those clamoring for more low ISO DR are a minority. I think I've heard that stated elsewhere...here, perhaps? :
1.
I wouldn't be smiling over such things, since it's hardly a good thing for a Canon user if all 100% true. In fact, it's a rather bad thing.
2.
They also thought that their was zero market for the SONY RX100 camera and a Canon executive scoffed and laughed at such a camera and said that their team had clearly determined that there was no market for such a camera and that they had no plans.....
.....well until now, after the Sony RX100 series has proved to be a run away success and they suddenly come out with a clone, two years too late and a dollar short.
It's hardly like their research marketing department is infallible.
3.
It may not have anything to do with what their marketing discovers that people want, but just with what they are able to bring to the table without investing too much money and what they can manage to get away with doing. It's very common for companies to start acting like this once they hit the top. A great many of them eventually fail. Of course cameras are an unusual business so they may have more leeway.
4.
They have already given up a lot of the low-mid end video DSLR revolution market that they themselves had created just a few years back.
5.
Who is to say that their sales would not have been far more dominant and climbing instead of declinging had they pushed things forward more?
1. Smile:
Eye roll: : See the difference?2. – 5. Discussed to death, why bother?
Upvote
0
dgatwood said:
Nope - Zeiss will never, ever make anything to compete with the Big Whites.
Besides - all Canon would have to do to counter such a move by Nikon is likewise.
Upvote
0
dgatwood said:
I thought the Zeiss MF zealots claimed that AF was left off because it compromised image quality? I don't think you can just slot in AF motors/algorithms (or IS/VR for that matter) into an existing - supposedly near-perfect - MF design. Tech guys, right?
Upvote
0
scyrene said:
You can test the lens and the sensor independently, the lens on an optical bench and the sensor by the numbers, you can also work out theoretical limits for both, but when used together they interact and mean that you can never achieve 100% of the lowest capacity item in the system.
People saying this or that lens is only good for xMP are idiots, if you put a higher MP sensor behind it you will get more resolution, how much more and if it is worth the trade off is the lesson all those clamouring for a high MP 135 format body will learn once they get one.
I believe Canon have held off on a high MP body because they know they will be a comparative disappointment, they know the sweet spots for the formats. Just look at the outright resolution difference between any same generation crop and FF camera, the crop cameras put down over twice the pixels per area but the resolution difference, even in optimal conditions (that we practically never shoot in), is small at best. I have asked people many times to show me same generation crop vs cropped FF images and with a touch of optimal processing to both (that is, not the same processing to both) it is practically impossible to tell them apart, I have shown my own too.
If 35 or 50MP would actually give me something tangible then I'd be all for it, I know it won't so I'll be keeping my money when and if one does come out.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:Keith_Reeder said:
Really?
Do you think Canon will ever make anything to compete with the Zeiss 1700mm f/4?
I wouldn't say there is any "competition" going on between that Zeiss and Canon lenses at all. Look at that Zeiss thing...that's a funktastically wackadillyc monstrosity of a lens there...and it was a special order design that required very special focusing mechanisms and only works with one particular Hassy 6x6. That isn't a mainstream product that has regular availability. If Canon wanted to, they could special-order something up like that as well (that's basically what the 1200mm lenses were.) I think the comparison here is irrelevant.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
