Canon did everything it could in 5D3

[poias]

I sincerely believe that Canon did everything it could to 5D3. Its AF is dramatically improved, its body is improved, and its shooting is improved. There is no question that if Canon had improved sensor, they would have made it part of 5D3. So, if/when Canon has a modern sensor, it will make it part of 5D4 or 5D5.

Canon just does not have a modern sensor or technology for the price point, thus 5D3 had to be content with 5D2 sensor.

That above was our conclusion and the factor in not completely switching to Nikon. We will hang on to our Canon gears (lenses and flashes mostly) for a year or two.

 

[BillyBean]

I'm sorry, I don't buy this theory for a nanosecond.

I think the most likely reason that the 5D3 has the specification it has is that it is designed for wedding and event photographers. If you look at this market, the price, image quality and framerate is pretty well perfect, from what I understand.

Later in the year, likely a studio camera will come out with high MP, lower frame rate, perhaps worse autofocus.

For those with less cash (enthusiasts and amateurs), there is the 5D mk 2.

Nikon is a smaller company who don't have the resources of Canon, which is why they have to buy in sensors. Canon have already proven in the 7D sensor that they can make high density excellent sensors, and even allowing for lower yield of the larger die (dye?) it is still feasible to produce circa 50MP sensors.

Canon produce cameras for markets, in order to make money.

Is this annoying to some? Sure, but don't mistake it for incompetence. Head over to bythom.com to read about how Nikon create great cameras, and then cannot make anywhere near enough lenses OR bodies to satisfy demand - now THAT my friend is incompetence...

"I've noted many times, supply is not meeting demand for many items, and that's a dangerous proposition as you always leak sales to competitors when that happens." - Tom Hogan...

 

[poias]

I'm sorry, I don't buy this theory for a nanosecond.

I think the most likely reason that the 5D3 has the specification it has is that it is designed for wedding and event photographers. If you look at this market, the price, image quality and framerate is pretty well perfect, from what I understand.

Later in the year, likely a studio camera will come out with high MP, lower frame rate, perhaps worse autofocus.

For those with less cash (enthusiasts and amateurs), there is the 5D mk 2.

Nikon is a smaller company who don't have the resources of Canon, which is why they have to buy in sensors. Canon have already proven in the 7D sensor that they can make high density excellent sensors, and even allowing for lower yield of the larger die (dye?) it is still feasible to produce circa 50MP sensors.

Canon produce cameras for markets, in order to make money.

Is this annoying to some? Sure, but don't mistake it for incompetence. Head over to bythom.com to read about how Nikon create great cameras, and then cannot make anywhere near enough lenses OR bodies to satisfy demand - now THAT my friend is incompetence...

"I've noted many times, supply is not meeting demand for many items, and that's a dangerous proposition as you always leak sales to competitors when that happens." - Tom Hogan...

So you don't believe that Canon is severely lagging behind (or incompetent, to use your terminology) in sensor technology? Even "excellent" 7D's IQ is horrible. Basically, Canon is lacking in sensor, be it incompetence or indifference.

But I agree that Nikon cannot keep up with the demand, so it could be due to a horrible supply chain (incompetence) and/or unexpected demand (circumstantial). We are living proof of that -- 3 D4 shipped, but 5 D800/D800e no clue at all.

 

[V8Beast]

No one will know for sure where Canon stands in terms of sensor tech until the 1Dx goes on sale. It's possible that Canon may have gimped the 5DIII's sensor instead of it's other features (AF, sealing, burst rate, etc.). We'll see.

 

[BillyBean]

So you don't believe that Canon is severely lagging behind (or incompetent, to use your terminology) in sensor technology? Even "excellent" 7D's IQ is horrible. Basically, Canon is lacking in sensor, be it incompetence or indifference.

No I don't. Sure, the megapixel is less than the D800 - but it's where it needs to be for the market in question.

But I agree that Nikon cannot keep up with the demand, so it could be due to a horrible supply chain (incompetence) and/or unexpected demand (circumstantial). We are living proof of that -- 3 D4 shipped, but 5 D800/D800e no clue at all.

The Nikon supply problems are not just following recent introductions - they date back years. I've never had any issue getting hold of Canon glass, except immediately after release. According to Tom Hogan, Nikon have a much deeper routed and long lasting problem.

The thing that really does annoy me about Canon is that their strategy - creating products tightly aligned to a specific market - means that they do the most annoying things to hobble a specific product and prevent it reaching it potential and competing with a product designed for a different market, so for example screwing up the 5D2 autofocus to prevent it competing with the 1D range, and so on. This I find intensely annoying. And now we have the whole pro video thing, which results in further compromises.

So I'm not saying I'm not annoyed - I'm as annoyed as you are. But you don't get to be as successful as Canon are in imaging and incompetent in sensor design - it just doesn't make sense.

Wait until the end of 2012. If they don't have a high MP sensor product out by then, maybe you will convince me...

 

[Neeneko]

So you don't believe that Canon is severely lagging behind (or incompetent, to use your terminology) in sensor technology? Even "excellent" 7D's IQ is horrible. Basically, Canon is lacking in sensor, be it incompetence or indifference.

While I often criticize the 5D3 and some of Canon's moves, I do not believe they are 'behind' in sensor technology. They are not putting out wiz bang, innovative, or experimental stuff (which Sony is looking at) they are putting their R&D where it gives the best gains for their particular market focus. This might be 'indifference', but indifference from a perspective of it just not mattering to them or their primary markets.

But I agree that Nikon cannot keep up with the demand, so it could be due to a horrible supply chain (incompetence) and/or unexpected demand (circumstantial). We are living proof of that -- 3 D4 shipped, but 5 D800/D800e no clue at all.

For small embedded companies this is always a delicate balancing act and has to take multiple years into account. Setting up additional manufacturing is costly and risky, it takes years or even decades for it to pay off, so they have to weigh the supply/demand problem of today against using that capability tomorrow. They probably ran the numbers and found that it was less risky to have supply issues then to overbuild.

 

[tomscott]

No I don't. Sure, the megapixel is less than the D800 - but it's where it needs to be for the market in question.

It might be where it needed to be, but cramming 18mp on the digic 4 was a bad idea, in fact it crippled a great camera same with the 550D, 600D and 60D because they just recycled technology. The IQ is worse than the older cameras such as the 40D. They did the same with the 50D and that turned out to have worse IQ than the 40D a third more pixels on the same sensor technology will lead to nothing but poor IQ. All for the MP race.

They arent struggling in the sensor category just not innovating as much as they could, im not really sure what they have been doing for the past 4 years, but sitting on the fence and seeing what the competition do is the wrong thing to do. Innovation is the way forward, otherwise you get left behind! I don't know whats happened, have they got a new CEO? The strategy has definitely changed.

For me the 5D MKIII is like the perfect camera so im not in the complaining crowd. But I wont buy until things simmer down and they sort the niggles out. Hopefully they are all just firmware problems.

In terms of whether they did everything they could. Nope. The camera is an homologation of used parts, put together to create not only a great camera but also to do it cheaply. The profit on these cameras will be really good I assume, the cost of R&D on this camera is minimal, slightly updated sensor to keep the frame rate up and slight improvement to noise and DR, AF system moved from 1DX, body does have some ergonomic changes which is nice and a little more weather sealing. They just raided the parts bin instead of truly innovating this product which is fine by me, but for a £1000 premium... kind of annoying but what do you do?

 

[RunAndGun]

In terms of whether they did everything they could. Nope. The camera is an homologation of used parts, put together to create not only a great camera but also to do it cheaply. The profit on these cameras will be really good I assume, the cost of R&D on this camera is minimal, slightly updated sensor to keep the frame rate up and slight improvement to noise and DR, AF system moved from 1DX, body does have some ergonomic changes which is nice and a little more weather sealing. They just raided the parts bin instead of truly innovating this product which is fine by me, but for a £1000 premium... kind of annoying but what do you do?

I'm not sure I would consider a COMPLETELY new AF system that's only on TWO cameras "used parts", especially when it beat the camera it was "taken" from to market. How many people would have loved to have had the "used" AF system out of the 1DsMKIII in the 5DMKII? Hell, I know I would have. Almost EVERY manufacturer shares parts across products. Go look at almost any brand of vehicle in different models and you'll see things like steering wheels, control knobs, door handles and engines being used across multiple platforms.

 

[Orion]

In terms of whether they did everything they could. Nope. The camera is an homologation of used parts, put together to create not only a great camera but also to do it cheaply. The profit on these cameras will be really good I assume, the cost of R&D on this camera is minimal, slightly updated sensor to keep the frame rate up and slight improvement to noise and DR, AF system moved from 1DX, body does have some ergonomic changes which is nice and a little more weather sealing. They just raided the parts bin instead of truly innovating this product which is fine by me, but for a £1000 premium... kind of annoying but what do you do?

I'm not sure I would consider a COMPLETELY new AF system that's only on TWO cameras "used parts", especially when it beat the camera it was "taken" from to market. How many people would have loved to have had the "used" AF system out of the 1DsMKIII in the 5DMKII? Hell, I know I would have. Almost EVERY manufacturer shares parts across products. Go look at almost any brand of vehicle in different models and you'll see things like steering wheels, control knobs, door handles and engines being used across multiple platforms.

I just want to add that, the AF on the 1Dx is revolutionary for Canon, and to expect a better AF than 1Dx on a mkIII is ludicrous for the money. . . . Nikon has been spoling thier customers with adequate to good AF for years, and Canon has taken a BIG jump in ISO, AF, and with an ALL AROUND amazing WOREKHORSE of a camera, which is the 5DmkIII guys and gals! We have to look at things in context of Canon's past, v. NOW, instewad of comparing NOW to Now, you know. We have a baby 1Dx . . .. goo goo gaah gaah!

It will only get better! I just came back from shooting a wedding, btw! The mkIII is anything BUT soft! The only time it is soft is when you fail to properly expose and use your AF. WHich is why knowing this I took several images of the same scene to prove it to myself and to make sure I get the shot I want (almost like bracketing for AF ) The camera is amazing! I kid you not. It was my first wedding . . and my first pro camera SINCE the 30D. It is tack sharp camera/AF.

 

[unfocused]

I'm sorry, I don't buy this theory for a nanosecond.

I think the most likely reason that the 5D3 has the specification it has is that it is designed for wedding and event photographers. If you look at this market, the price, image quality and framerate is pretty well perfect, from what I understand... Canon produce(s) cameras for markets, in order to make money.

Exactly. I started a thread with a similar thought a few weeks back. I absolutely agree that Canon very shrewdly analyzed the market, figured out what event and wedding photographers needed and calculated a price point that would maximize both profits and sales to this market. And, frankly, wedding and event photography is about the only remaining large professional market in photography.

When Canon was just an upstart going against Nikon 40 years ago, they targeted the sports and wildlife markets and rode that to dominance in the industry. Now, they have focused on the wedding and event market and it's clear that they intend to make Canon the tool of choice for these photographers.

Nikon may have produced a very nice camera, but high test scores don't guarantee a market.

 

[jouster]

So you don't believe that Canon is severely lagging behind (or incompetent, to use your terminology) in sensor technology? Even "excellent" 7D's IQ is horrible. Basically, Canon is lacking in sensor, be it incompetence or indifference.

It's hard to take anything you say seriously if you believe that about the 7D

 

[moreorless]

My guess is that the truth maybe a bit of both.

The 7D sensor does seem to suggest that Canon have the technical know how to produce a 40+ MP camera but DR does seem to be a problem(and its I'd guess a greater issue for the landscape market that high MP's caters to) so perhaps they desided to delay such a camera until they could overcome this issue?

To me the 5D mk3's resolution seems likely not to be the product of Canon's inability to up MP's anymore but rather than belief that 22 allows them to also increase FPS and offer superior video performance. The end result seems to be a camera thats targeted specifically to certain pros(I'd guess one of the largest areas of pros aswell) given that many event photographers are becoming videographers.

 

[Loswr]

Two years ago, Canon had the technology to make a 52 MP sensor that could still achieve 8 fps. Unfortunately, the technician who developed the plans accidentally dropped them on the floor of his Area 51 workroom, and the US Government locked him out, not to hurt to the photography industry, but rather as part of a broader effort to restrict technology to promote the military-industrial complex - in particular, "they" don't want us to have gasoline-powered 150 mpg cars, the iPhone 7, etc. Canon was just caught in the fray, and as a result, they had to spend two years coming up with what has now been released as the 5DIII. It's not the best they can do, it's just the best they will do without Area 51 research.

We now return you to your regularly-scheduled programming.

 

[prestonpalmer]

Canon held back significantly.

 

[Daniel Flather]

for a year or two.

So you'll switch to Nikon then? What is the point of your thread?



EDIT: Typo.

 

[pete vella]

I think canon did the best they could. the big debate over the sensor tech is not the mp but the way it handles shadows. sony sensor had to be designed to give great shadow detail becuase of the loss of light from the fixed mirror in the slt cameras. no other dslr ever had to deal with that kinda light loss. that why the sony sensor handles light the way it does. its a good thing for us because now canon has to improve to compete. I have a strange feeling thats why the 1dx was delayed. a top of the line camera has to be just that. and at the 1000 premuim over the d4 a frame or two per second over low iso dr lower read noise issue is not gunna cut it. the 1dx should been in the hand of the pros that are going to use it in the olypics by now. thats why the af manuals are already printed.
BTW
Area 51 is closed
all engineers have been moved to an undisclosed location.

 

[peederj]

They gave it good AF and other decent stills things, but they purposefully crippled the video and there's no getting around that fact. This could have been the definitive 1080p cine camera, but they felt their oats and launched a whole cine division of underpowered, overpriced beauty queens instead. Over the next year they will have their heads handed to them and no one in film will even think about them anymore. This is the punishment for having low IQ managers lording over high IQ staff, soon to depart.

 

[stevenrrmanir]

I do not think so. I am sick and tired of seeing incremental upgrades... they like to milk as much as possible!

 

[Radiating]

I sincerely believe that Canon did everything it could to 5D3. Its AF is dramatically improved, its body is improved, and its shooting is improved. There is no question that if Canon had improved sensor, they would have made it part of 5D3. So, if/when Canon has a modern sensor, it will make it part of 5D4 or 5D5.

Canon just does not have a modern sensor or technology for the price point, thus 5D3 had to be content with 5D2 sensor.

That above was our conclusion and the factor in not completely switching to Nikon. We will hang on to our Canon gears (lenses and flashes mostly) for a year or two.

After talking to a lot of Canon insiders I have to disagree with your statement.

The 5D Mark III was in development and ready for a long time. They delayed the release for a long time to make sure 5D Mark II stocks were really low so they didn't have to lower the price. They also didn't put their best pixels in the camera. The G1X is about a quarter stop better in ISO and has an even better AA filter. The camera also received virtually unchanged video which is pretty much the same as the 5D2 so they could start selling their 16k video cameras and 1Dc at a huge mark up. The camera was easily capable of twice the video throughput and even more with simple upgrades.

Canon built the camera for profit. Nikon built their camera to capture market share.

In the end Canon ended up with a camera that has better iso and similar or equal resolution (lens limited in most cases, according to both Canon's tech guys and many tests), and Nikon ended up with a camera that has better DR and can sometimes acheive 27% more resolution with the best primes between f/4.0-f/8.0.

If Canon built a camera to truely acheive epic performance and value it would have a third of a stop better ISO and much better video.

 

[GL]

I do not think so. I am sick and tired of seeing incremental upgrades... they like to milk as much as possible!

Easy - just skip generations if you want bigger jumps. FWIW I think the 5D3 is anything but incremental - the sensor maybe, but the rest of te camera is like a 1-series at half the price. Nothing incremental about that.