Canon Inc. Boss Wants to See More Innovation

Takingshots

Eos R
Feb 6, 2015
80
2
Good to innovate, but the last few "innovations" were kinda lackluster at a pace where competitor outshines with their menu of offerings. Raising "antennae" is no longer a good terminology...could be late in the game. Perhaps offering better FULL 4 K /DPAF +..etc in your camera against competitor's A7Riii would be your challenge...
Today extending your "wireless" reception and listen to what Canon consumers want is a good thing...
 

SkynetTX

EOS 90D
Jul 29, 2016
159
12
45
Budapest, Hungary
I don't want to see to much innovations as most of them nowdays make things worse and worse. We don't need cameras that can be used as
  • a camcorder
  • or microwave owen :)
  • or television
  • or ebook reader
  • or whatever.

Let a camera be a camera. What we do need is
  • a sensor that is able to decrease the effect of diffraction
  • an APS-C sensor with the same or better noise performance than the currently existing best full frame sensor
  • fast and very lightweight zoom lenses (for example, EF 100-400mm f/4, 750g or less)
  • thin compact cameras (maximum 34 mm deep) with APS-C or just a bit smaller sensors and relatively large zoom range and maximum aperture (for example, PowerShot SX900 20-300mm f/2.8-4.5)
  • better AF performance in low light conditions
  • better flare resistance and ghosting resistance.

This is what I would call innovation.
 

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
9,588
14,319
SkynetTX said:
Let a camera be a camera. What we do need is
  • a sensor that is able to decrease the effect of diffraction
  • an APS-C sensor with the same or better noise performance than the currently existing best full frame sensor
  • fast and very lightweight zoom lenses (for example, EF 100-400mm f/4, 750g or less)
  • thin compact cameras (maximum 34 mm deep) with APS-C or just a bit smaller sensors and relatively large zoom range and maximum aperture (for example, PowerShot SX900 20-300mm f/2.8-4.5)
  • better AF performance in low light conditions
  • better flare resistance and ghosting resistance.

This is what I would call innovation.

That is what I would call miracles
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,617
1,643
brad-man said:
I read "We will open up a research and development center in the U.S.'s Silicon Valley, where we will actively adopt new technology aimed at producing faster EF-M lenses." Wasn't that the gist of it?

Ha! Canon isn't offering fast EF-M glass because they haven't figured out how to do it yet!

Good one. ;D

- A
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,617
1,643
TAF said:
That reads to me as 'the camera business, which is only 30% of our business, is stable, so we're going to expand into other areas to enhance our revenue.

..which is precisely what a smart CEO would do.

Stable, mature markets tend to have very predictable returns; they don't explode in profitability all of a sudden. It makes a ton of sense to print steady money from cameras as a cash cow (maintaining their level of quality and competitiveness) and funnel the remaining profits into more lucrative parts of the business.

- A
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,617
1,643
Antono Refa said:
gsealy said:
You say why spend $6500 on that camera? ... where can I get the money to buy it.
Ah, yes, that's why.

Medium Format has a place, and that place is to be markedly better than FF. But the two current mirrorless MF offerings of late -- the Hass'y and Fuji -- are 50 MP sensored 44x33 medium format that are only marginally better than the 42-50 MP FF offerings out there.

Do they have screamingly fast glass with that larger sensor to generate smaller DOF throughout the focal length range than FF? Not really, I saw one quick portrait lens and that was it. The rest of the lenses are relatively slow to keep them from looking like weapons to TSA. ::)

Do these sensors get you more resolution than FF? 0-8 MP vs. FF, so 'no' to 'not much'.

Are these great sensors offering more DR for landscapes and studio work? Not really, unless you compare to the 5DS, which is admittedly last-gen sensor tech.

Do these cameras come with limitations on AF, throughput, etc. compared to FF? They sure do. These products don't have same-sensored peers from major manufacturers, so why offer high fps or quick AF? They don't need to!

Are the lenses for this system remotely affordable? (a) What lenses? and (b) No... unless you own some already.

Seems to me -- with those two cameras in particular -- that you are paying a TON of money for the perception of being better. You are sinking something like 3x the money into a platform whose only clear-cut advantage is leaf-shutter lenses and 'you wouldn't understand why medium format is better'. Or you are married to a sensor size to the point that the novelty of a smaller rig is worth turning a blind eye to how little you get above the smaller FF sensor sized systems in doing so.

Don't get me wrong, I see value in Medium Format -- value to offer more DR, more resolution and thinner DOF than FF. But those two cameras aren't delivering that, unless I'm missing something. I think they need to get that implement something like that PhaseOne IQ3 sensor (100 MP, more DR) and put FF more clearly behind MF in the rear view mirror -- I just don't know how they do that for less than $10k.

Please educate me, folks, b/c at face value I see the Fuji / Hass'y value proposition as rather crap at first glance. Please straighten me out on what I'm missing.

- A
 

CanonFanBoy

Planet FUBAR.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,730
4,155
A lab in the Ozarks.
ahsanford said:
Antono Refa said:
gsealy said:
You say why spend $6500 on that camera? ... where can I get the money to buy it.
Ah, yes, that's why.

Medium Format has a place, and that place is to be markedly better than FF. But the two current mirrorless MF offerings of late -- the Hass'y and Fuji -- are 50 MP sensored 44x33 medium format that are only marginally better than the 42-50 MP FF offerings out there.

Do they have screamingly fast glass with that larger sensor to generate smaller DOF throughout the focal length range than FF? Not really, I saw one quick portrait lens and that was it. The rest of the lenses are relatively slow to keep them from looking like weapons to TSA. ::)

Do these sensors get you more resolution than FF? 0-8 MP vs. FF, so 'no' to 'not much'.

Are these great sensors offering more DR for landscapes and studio work? Not really, unless you compare to the 5DS, which is admittedly last-gen sensor tech.

Do these cameras come with limitations on AF, throughput, etc. compared to FF? They sure do. These products don't have same-sensored peers from major manufacturers, so why offer high fps or quick AF? They don't need to!

Are the lenses for this system remotely affordable? (a) What lenses? and (b) No... unless you own some already.

Seems to me -- with those two cameras in particular -- that you are paying a TON of money for the perception of being better. You are sinking something like 3x the money into a platform whose only clear-cut advantage is leaf-shutter lenses and 'you wouldn't understand why medium format is better'. Or you are married to a sensor size to the point that the novelty of a smaller rig is worth turning a blind eye to how little you get above the smaller FF sensor sized systems in doing so.

Don't get me wrong, I see value in Medium Format -- value to offer more DR, more resolution and thinner DOF than FF. But those two cameras aren't delivering that, unless I'm missing something. I think they need to get that implement something like that PhaseOne IQ3 sensor (100 MP, more DR) and put FF more clearly behind MF in the rear view mirror -- I just don't know how they do that for less than $10k.

Please educate me, folks, b/c at face value I see the Fuji / Hass'y value proposition as rather crap at first glance. Please straighten me out on what I'm missing.

- A

Pentax 645z (It isn't mirrorless). I might be wrong, but the larger sensor with an f/2.8 lens might be faster than f/2.8 in a 35mm FF. The 645Z is far less than $10k (About $5,600 I think). I think I read it uses the same sensor as the Hasselblad. I'd love to have one. That and the 90mm lens. There are very reasonable lens offerings, though, for that camera. The 90mm isn't one of the reasonable lenses though.
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,693
6,121
CanonFanBoy said:
Pentax 645z (It isn't mirrorless). I might be wrong, but the larger sensor with an f/2.8 lens might be faster than f/2.8 in a 35mm FF. The 645Z is far less than $10k (About $5,600 I think). I think I read it uses the same sensor as the Hasselblad. I'd love to have one. That and the 90mm lens. There are very reasonable lens offerings, though, for that camera. The 90mm isn't one of the reasonable lenses though.

F2.8 is f2.8, so they are the same speed and will realise the same exposure, however from a dof perspective the Pentax has a 0.79 crop factor so gives the equivalent of a ‘ff’ camera of f2.2. Nothing to write home about, and certainly there is nothing in medium format glass that will get close to the ‘ff’ f1.4 and f1.2 primes for dof isolation.
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,617
1,643
CanonFanBoy said:
Pentax 645z (It isn't mirrorless). I might be wrong, but the larger sensor with an f/2.8 lens might be faster than f/2.8 in a 35mm FF.

Not faster in light gathering, but yes, for a given aperture it would have shallower DOF compared to FF.

But I'm used to seeing 'quick' for FF being f/1.4 or f/1.2, and I generally see f/2.8, f/3.2, f/4 for the medium format lenses I've seen. Fuji I believe has a 110mm f/2, which for MF would be similar to an 87mm f/1.6 if my equivalence calculator skills are correct. Good... but not better on this front.

But there certainly seem to be more 'fast' primes for FF in more focal lengths from those MF lenses I've seen. For instance, you can get f/1.4 (or faster) primes in Canon and Nikon from 24mm to 85mm, and third parties unlock 20 f/1.4, 105 /1.4, 135 f/1.4 - 1.8, etc. I could be mistaken, but the MF equivalent of those working DOFs for those FLs are not available.

I'm not arguing FF is 'better' on this front -- I'm just saying that MF does not distinguish itself as being clearly better here (at least on this front). MF has other virtues, but 'boatloads of high quality glass that doesn't cost a mint' isn't necessarily one of them.

- A
 

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,617
1,643
CanonFanBoy said:
Canon FF vs Pentax 645z sensor size comparison.

Yep, that's the comparison. But all that extra real estate should net you some combination of:

  • More detail
  • Better high ISO performance
  • More DR

...and from the testing I've seen, the improvement for the jump to that 50 MP 44x33 isn't that big. Now were it 100MP or 50 MP with 2+ stops of base ISO DR or 2 more stops higher ISO at the same output, etc. it would warrant the price that it is asking for. But at present offering, other than leaf shutters -- which are no doubt useful -- I'm not seeing the give-to-get being worth it, esp when you think about lens costs.

But in all fairness to MF fans, I've never shot one and I'm looking at this like a Maytag Washer on Consumer Reports and not like an artist. What the hell do I know?

- A
 

CanonFanBoy

Planet FUBAR.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,730
4,155
A lab in the Ozarks.
ahsanford said:
CanonFanBoy said:
Pentax 645z (It isn't mirrorless). I might be wrong, but the larger sensor with an f/2.8 lens might be faster than f/2.8 in a 35mm FF.

Not faster in light gathering, but yes, for a given aperture it would have shallower DOF compared to FF.

Well, I have always heard that a full frame camera performs about a stop better than a crop sensor camera. So while a stop is a stop, the better sensitivity of the larger sensor makes the "equivalent" f/stop different.

This from DPreview:

"Full-frame sensors are 1.2/1.4 stops better in signal to noise ratio than Nikon/Canon crop sensors. That means that a crop-sensor camera at ISO 100 is like a full-frame at ISO 250.

The formula is LOG( SQRT( FF-Area / Crop-Area ) ) / LOG( SQRT( 2 ) )

That’s the sensor only. To finish equating the shooting conditions you need to multiply the F-number of the crop camera by the crop factor. So f/2 on the FF camera is like f/3.2 on a crop-frame. Shutter speed remains the same.

So ISO 100, f/2, 1/60s on a crop camera is like ISO 250, f/3.2, 1/60s on a FF camera."

So one should be able to use a faster shutter speed when using a camera with a larger sensor at the same f/stop as a smaller sensored camera.

So, while we might not see "quick" lenses in medium format, I don't think a medium format camera necessarily needs to be that quick or that an f/2 equivalent is that slow. In the bright desert sun I don't think I can use my 35 at f/1.4 anyway. Also, for tight indoor spots (aka house or apt) the depth of field is just about too shallow to be any good. From what I can tell, the medium format cameras are mainly used for landscape, portrait and fashion shoots. For those uses a very fast lens isn't required and the lenses are usually stopped down... no matter the lens or sensor.

I understand the larger sensor also gives more detail too. There was a marked difference in detail between my former 70D and my 5D Mark III.

But just like you, what do I know? :) I've not used a medium format camera either. I do know the lens is just one part. Sensor size is important too.

The Pentax has many lenses available in the $1,000 to $2,000 range. In fact, most of them are in that range.

Anyway, I might completely misunderstand what I found on DPreview. I'd still like the Pentax if I could get one. :) I don't see the huge price downside or value downside. With the Hasselblads and such I plainly see it. I don't when it comes to the Pentax. I think that is really my point. That's just what I think. Nobody has to agree. It's all opinion, isn't it?

If I had the choice between a 5DSr and the Pentax and I was shooting portraits or landscapes... I'd choose the Pentax. The Canon, though, has a richer feature set by far. Larger lens selection too.
 
Jul 19, 2017
57
50
Prague
CanonFanBoy said:
So one should be able to use a faster shutter speed when using a camera with a larger sensor at the same f/stop as a smaller sensored camera.

Not true. You would use exactly the same shutter speed and ISO when shooting FF vs crop with both f/2. The difference is that crop ISO 100 is like FF ISO 250 in terms of noise and maybe dynamic range. Not exposure as the crop sensor camera internally compensates it with hidden internal "ISO".
 
Jan 9, 2018
3
0
oh... i had already sold off all my canon gear. I believe they are too late to innovate, and will always be 1-2 steps behind competitor.
 

C-A430

Powershot C-A430
Apr 16, 2016
42
0
Europe
sunnyboy said:
oh... i had already sold off all my canon gear. I believe they are too late to innovate, and will always be 1-2 steps behind competitor.

So you think we believe that you used Canon gear and never came here, only to come to CanonRumors now and have your first post be "I SOLD MY CANON GEAR"? I know I dont believe it.
 

C-A430

Powershot C-A430
Apr 16, 2016
42
0
Europe
angrykarl said:
CanonFanBoy said:
So one should be able to use a faster shutter speed when using a camera with a larger sensor at the same f/stop as a smaller sensored camera.

Not true. You would use exactly the same shutter speed and ISO when shooting FF vs crop with both f/2. The difference is that crop ISO 100 is like FF ISO 250 in terms of noise and maybe dynamic range. Not exposure as the crop sensor camera internally compensates it with hidden internal "ISO".

f2 will not give same depth of field on crop and FF. Larger sensor will produce blurred images, small sensor the sharp one.

Bokeh was usually just an UNDESIRABLE side-effect before smartphones. Now it is the easiest, laziest and most popular way to distinguish pro-photos from small-sensor-shots made by smartphones and point'n'shoots.

Lack of understanding of ISO equivalence is not the problem. The problem is that 90% of photographers use Auto mode and 9% are afraid to go over 800ISO. That leaves only 1% to use f-stop for depth-of-field rather than a way to ease the fear of noise.
 
Jul 19, 2017
57
50
Prague
C-A430 said:
f2 will not give same depth of field on crop and FF.

Correct. But I wasn't talking about depth of field, right. ;)

C-A430 said:
Bokeh was usually just an UNDESIRABLE side-effect before smartphones. Now it is the easiest, laziest and most popular way to distinguish pro-photos from small-sensor-shots made by smartphones and point'n'shoots.

Bokeh is the quality of out of focus areas caused eg. by more aperture blades, not just the fact that you have smaller depth of field. The smaller depth of field was always desired for some genres, eg. portrait. And besides, there used to be compact cameras and polaroids with small apertures and big depth of field. Smartphones are not new in this.

C-A430 said:
Lack of understanding of ISO equivalence is not the problem. The problem is that 90% of photographers use Auto mode and 9% are afraid to go over 800ISO. That leaves only 1% to use f-stop for depth-of-field rather than a way to ease the fear of noise.

You're making numbers up just to prove... what exactly?
 

C-A430

Powershot C-A430
Apr 16, 2016
42
0
Europe
angrykarl said:
You're making numbers up just to prove... what exactly?

I was asking WTF is this supposed to mean:

angrykarl said:
Not true. You would use exactly the same shutter speed and ISO when shooting FF vs crop with both f/2. The difference is that crop ISO 100 is like FF ISO 250 in terms of noise and maybe dynamic range. Not exposure as the crop sensor camera internally compensates it with hidden internal "ISO".

ISO values are designed in such a way that the film-era light meter will suggest the same shutter speed for the given ISO/f-stop/scene combination regardless of film/CCD/CMOS choice and regardless of sensor size. This was designed loooong time ago and became a norm 70-ish years ago. Its goal is that light meters can be universal for every camera and "crop sensor camera internally compensates it with hidden internal "ISO"" makes NO sense. There is no such thing as cameras internal ISO compensation
 
Jul 19, 2017
57
50
Prague
That's precisely what I said: The same exposure means the same aperture, shutter speed and ISO.

But how do you reckon a camera with eg. crop factor 10 manages the same exposure as a fullframe camera when the latter receives ten times more light over the whole sensor area? Sure, both receive the same amount of photons per 1mm², but crop cameras usually have smaller pixels so each pixel receives less light. How come they have the same brightness as full frame ones? The crop must digitally boost the signal to provide the same exposure with the same ISO. And boosting a signal clamps dynamic range and amplifies noise.

Now what happens when you double the ISO on any camera? It cannot magically catch more photons, so it digitally boosts the signal, which suprisingly clamps dynamic range and amplifies noise...

That's what I meant by (I agree not exactly ideal term) "internal ISO".

But I am no camera engineer, so if you understand the field better, I am all ears. ;)