Canon Leads in Sensor Tech

[unfocused]

After following the 30 pages (currently) of obscure debate over DXO ratings, I have to say this:

I am getting a little sick of the conventional wisdom that somehow Canon is "behind" in sensor technology. The more accurate statement is that Canon has placed a different emphasis in its sensor development than some of its competitors. And, it would also be correct that Canon has placed a different emphasis on its sensor development than a vocal group of participants in this forum would like.

Specifically, Canon has decided to push sensor technology that improves live view and video autofocus and has done so without compromising still image quality. Canon's competitors appear to be emphasizing marginal improvements in sensor performance for stills.

One can say Canon is "behind" only if one totally discounts the significant technological advancement that its dual-pixel sensor represents.

All technology development comes at a price and any company – Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji, etc. – must do a cost-benefit analysis to determine if the benefit outweighs the cost. All companies have limited resources and must choose where to place those resources.

I strongly suspect that Canon's management looked at the relative costs of various sensor improvements and determined that if they could develop reliable on-sensor autofocus, the potential return on investment would be greater than simply making marginal improvements in sensor performance for stills.

It doesn't take a genius to see they are probably right. As a stills photographer, it pains me to say this, but I know that the greatest growth potential for DSLRs is in video, not stills. With the 70D Canon elected to produce a potentially game-changing technology for live view autofocus and apparently did so while marginally improving stills sensor performance. No small feat.

This is analogous to the 5DIII vs. D800. In the 5DIII Canon focused on features and performance that were targeted to a specific market – wedding and event photographers. Nikon focused on sensor improvements without much consideration to any target market (except for pent-up demand from existing Nikon users).

From what can be gleaned from available resources, it looks like Canon made the better choice.

I would not be surprised if, after the 70D has been available for awhile, we see Canon's sales once again outperforming Nikon's. (Actually, the 70D is currently outperforming the D7100, but it's a little unfair to compare a newly-released body to one that has been out for quite some time, as the same pent-up demand that drove D800 sales is likely driving 70D sales right now).

My point is: declaring one company ahead or behind on sensor technology without considering all aspects of the various offerings is a selective, skewed assessment.

As an interested observer, I think it is evident that Canon has placed its emphasis on developments that will expand sales, rather than on bragging rights for tech forum readers.

 

[jrista]

I think you are missing the key underlying factor that fuels the arguments involving Canon's sensor technology: Low ISO Image Quality. From a purely technological standpoint, fabrication process and advancement are also underlying factors.

To be blunt, Canon's physical technology IS inferior. They use a fabrication process that is over a decade old, and there is no denying that at ISO 100, 200, and to some degree 400...their shadow noise is NASTY! Editing latitude suffers because of these factors, which means that photographers have less leeway to extract image quality from their cameras RAW files without additional cost (i.e. the purchase of Topaz DeNoise 5 or Nik DFine 2, both of which have effective debanding tools.) Those are the simple and basic facts. Older, inferior fabrication process, and the potential requirement to spend more money to extract the same amount of IQ as an alternative brand.

Now, I will hand it to Canon for taking the 500nm process as far as they have. They have done some pretty amazing things with it, continue to do amazing things with it...things no one would have thought possible given how truly archaic that process is in the current modern age. There probably also is considerably growth potential in the DSLR video market, not just at the professional level but also at the consumer level.

On the flip side, there are generally fixed budgets for R&D. So long as Canon spends R&D funds on video, their stills photographer customers can't really expect any technological improvements that will give them any serious incentive to upgrade to the next DSLR model. I am currently quite happy with the IQ my 7D provides for birds. If the 7D II doesn't bring anything significant to the table that would improve what the 7D does by a healthy margin, why should I spend $1800-$2200 to upgrade to a new camera that, ultimately, produces similar IQ, with the same old editing latitude? If Canon wants me to buy the 7D II, it better bring some modern technology to the table. We know Canon already has a high end AF system that could be dropped into the 7D II, or adapted for it. We know they can give us a high FPS...8fps is already excellent, 10fps should be a no brainer with the existing technology Canon has already brought to the table. Base IQ, assuming I nail focus and get the right frame (both possible with Canon's current AF and FPS technology), is now primarily affected by the sensor....so I expect them to improve the sensor.

Here is another angle. I think the 5D III does a good job for landscapes, but it could do a lot better. Landscapes are the one thing I photograph that is usually explicitly stuck at ISO 100 or 200. I usually photograph landscapes at sunset, sometimes at sunrise. Dynamic range is probably one of the most critical aspects, right next to getting as many pixels packed into the sensor as possible. Why would buy a 5D IV if they do nothing to improve low ISO DR...instead bringing some kind of dual or quad pixel setup similar to the 70D to the table, and maybe an FPS improvement? FPS doesn't help me for landscapes. Neither does improved live view focus. I could just stick with the 5D III if there isn't any significant improvement in sensor IQ.

Canon needs to stop focusing on video, and refocus in stills photography, in their photographic DSLRs. They have the Cinema line now. They could easily expand that line to provide midrange cinema-dedicated DSLRs compatible with the EF mount, and probably attract even more semi-pro and entry level pro cinematographers who would prefer Canon focuses more on cleaner, higher quality video output. Canon has done amazing things with their technology, but I think it is high time for a split, and for some dedicated focus on stills photography technology. I don't think it is good for a company to have a one-track mindset, especially in the face of significant, and growing, competition.

No one ever expected Kodak to go bankrupt, but they had a one-track mindset. As of this week, the terms of their bankruptcy effectively remove them from the consumer market entirely. I don't want Canon to eventually go bankrupt. I've invested too much money in Canon gear, switching isn't an option, and the lenses I've invested in require a very long term investment to be cost effective. I am not saying Canon could go bankrupt tomorrow, but if they don't put some effort into improving their technology for stills photographers, Canon could at the very least go the way Nikon did in the 80's and 90's, losing significant ground to the competition from Canon. Nikon had very slow, minimal growth for decades, their lenses have stagnated, they can't always maintain their supply chain and their customer service department is small and often ineffective. What happens in five years when Canon is STILL producing 500nm parts with the same 11-12 stops of DR, and a much more significant percentage of their customer base has woken up to the fact that they can get better IQ elsewhere? Another Nikon Event? Another Kodak Event?

I want Canon to compete, on all levels, not just one level at a time. Sure, their technology is good. It is quickly becoming "not good enough" for the current age.

 

[Pi]

I strongly suspect that Canon's management looked at the relative costs of various sensor improvements and determined that if they could develop reliable on-sensor autofocus, the potential return on investment would be greater than simply making marginal improvements in sensor performance for stills.

I guess that this makes every other company wrong?

I am not sure why so many people here are trying to analyze Canon's business strategy. If they flourish but do not deliver what I want, I will be unhappy and switch. I am not a Canon stock holder, I just buy and use some of their products.

 

[unfocused]

I strongly suspect that Canon's management looked at the relative costs of various sensor improvements and determined that if they could develop reliable on-sensor autofocus, the potential return on investment would be greater than simply making marginal improvements in sensor performance for stills.

I guess that this makes every other company wrong?

Based on the relative financial performance of Canon and its competitors, that may well be the case.

I am not sure why so many people here are trying to analyze Canon's business strategy. If they flourish but do not deliver what I want, I will be unhappy and switch. I am not a Canon stock holder, I just buy and use some of their products.

Well, yes, but it is in a customer's best interests for any company to be profitable. I'm not saying that Nikon is on a path to bankruptcy, but profitability has a direct impact on a company's ability to innovate and provide long-term product support, service and development. When I look at Canon's market position and sales figures it gives me confidence that my Canon lens purchases are a secure investment and don't have the potential to become expensive doorstops.

I think you are missing the key underlying factor that fuels the arguments involving Canon's sensor technology: Low ISO Image Quality. From a purely technological standpoint, fabrication process and advancement are also underlying factors.

To be blunt, Canon's physical technology IS inferior. They use a fabrication process that is over a decade old, and there is no denying that at ISO 100, 200, and to some degree 400...their shadow noise is NASTY!...

Whether the technology is old or not is only relevant if it has an impact on their ability to sell cameras, which doesn't seem to be the case. There is zero evidence that the market agrees with your assessment and until the market does, Canon has no incentive to change.

Canon needs to stop focusing on video, and refocus in stills photography, in their photographic DSLRs.

Why would a company refocus on a shrinking market while ignoring a growth market? I'm a stills photographer, but let's face it...we are all along just for the ride. The growth market for both commercial and amateurs is video. It doesn't take a genius to look at the growth of YouTube, Netflix, OnDemand, Independent Networks, streaming over websites, etc. etc. to see where the growth and demand is.

The next generation of filmmakers are already out there making videos using Rebels. Canon fully intends to move them up through the system. There is no "next generation" of stills photographers to speak of.

I want Canon to compete, on all levels, not just one level at a time. Sure, their technology is good. It is quickly becoming "not good enough" for the current age.

Well, I think that is exactly the point. Canon's technology is "good enough" and the history of technology is that "good enough" almost always beats "the best."

Not trying to be argumentative. John, I respect both the depth of you technical knowledge and your skills as a nature photographer. I'm just trying to play the devil's advocate here and force people to think outside their own wants and desires and see that there is a different way to interpret the current state of the market.

 

[jrista]

I think you are missing the key underlying factor that fuels the arguments involving Canon's sensor technology: Low ISO Image Quality. From a purely technological standpoint, fabrication process and advancement are also underlying factors.

To be blunt, Canon's physical technology IS inferior. They use a fabrication process that is over a decade old, and there is no denying that at ISO 100, 200, and to some degree 400...their shadow noise is NASTY!...

Whether the technology is old or not is only relevant if it has an impact on their ability to sell cameras, which doesn't seem to be the case. There is zero evidence that the market agrees with your assessment and until the market does, Canon has no incentive to change.

It is not the case yet, but on all of the relevant forums, including CR, the sentiment that Canon sensors do not provide enough low ISO DR definitely exists and is growing. Sure, people vote with their pocket books. I guess the sales numbers of Canon cameras over the next few years will really tell the story, and there will always be die-hard loyalists who will never switch brands. I would also be interested to see if Nikon's sales would increase if they could produce enough supply to meet demand in markets where it is really high, and expand their customer support team to be large enough to deal with the technical issues they have in a way that pleases their customers.

No, not any concrete market information yet...however I do believe there is some pretty strong sentiment in all the major forums on the internet regarding Canon sensor technology.

Canon needs to stop focusing on video, and refocus in stills photography, in their photographic DSLRs.

Why would a company refocus on a shrinking market while ignoring a growth market? I'm a stills photographer, but let's face it...we are all along just for the ride. The growth market for both commercial and amateurs is video. It doesn't take a genius to look at the growth of YouTube, Netflix, OnDemand, Independent Networks, streaming over websites, etc. etc. to see where the growth and demand is.

The next generation of filmmakers are already out there making videos using Rebels. Canon fully intends to move them up through the system. There is no "next generation" of stills photographers to speak of.

I think you may be mistaken about the DSLR market. DSLR sales, for photography, have been increasing at higher rates than mirrorless cameras, and in cases where DSLR sales dropped, they dropped less than mirrorless sales:

http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/panasonics-mirrorless-claim.html
http://petapixel.com/2012/04/26/dslr-sales-surging-despite-onslaught-from-camera-phones/
http://ezinearticles.com/?Digital-Camera-Sales-Trend-Moving-Through-2013&id=7440714
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/08/08/nikon-cuts-2013-sales-forecast-citing-poor-mirrorless-camera-sales

There is a specific article that talked about changing trends that I cannot find at the moment (I've posted the link on this site before) that discussed the shift towards DSLR is being fueled by increased use of smartphone cameras, claiming that once users get a taste for photography, they inevitably want higher quality photos. The article seemed to jive with what I've heard from the people I know as well...a growing number of them are buying entry level DSLRs (rather than mirrorless or other compact cameras) as counterparts for their smartphone cameras. That jives with Nikon's missed targets and cuts in their sales forecasts for the 1-series, as well as the rumors that Nikon will be releasing some kind of entry-level DSLR to compete with Canon's new 100D.

Photography, including in the case of DSLRs, is still a growth market. Depending on the source of the numbers, DSLR sales will grow anywhere from 17-26% this year, which is significant. Video makes sense for entry level gear as well, for the very reasons you specify...but does it still make sense for professional grade DSLR cameras when Canon also has the Cinema line? If someone is professionally looking to do cinematography with a DSLR, the C-line is better suited, and could use some entry-level and mid-level parts. It also seems that if a consumer wants something for video, a mirrorless camera is the easier device to use...yet sales of mirrorless have been growing slower than sales of DSLR cameras and in some cases fallen considerably...which also makes me think it is photography people are interested in.

I want Canon to compete, on all levels, not just one level at a time. Sure, their technology is good. It is quickly becoming "not good enough" for the current age.

Well, I think that is exactly the point. Canon's technology is "good enough" and the history of technology is that "good enough" almost always beats "the best."

Not trying to be argumentative. John, I respect both the depth of you technical knowledge and your skills as a nature photographer. I'm just trying to play the devil's advocate here and force people to think outside their own wants and desires and see that there is a different way to interpret the current state of the market.

Sure. Sorry, I know I come off strong. I don't dispute the current state of the market. Based on the Market, Canon is king. They are a fiscally sound company as well, and I applaud them for that. I just read about Kodak's bankruptcy filing and the final status today, and I guess the conditions of their bankruptcy agreement, which restructures the company to completely remove them from the consumer market, has made me wonder about Canon's strategy. Sure, video is a growth market. It is a growth market both at the professional level as well as the consumer level. It seems logical to me that entry level DSLR's get some "fancy" video features, but it also seems more logical to me that professionals would demand truly professional video features. Things like RAW output, full HDMI output, better support for external audio equipment, so on and so forth. They ARE demanding those things (which is clear from the video-centric reviews of high end DSLR cameras like the 5D III.)

My concern is that Canon is too focused, and is going to focus so hard on ONE thing that they miss the opportunities in other areas. My concern is that if they do that, they WILL start to lose customers in the stills market. The thing about the professional, semi-professional, and enthusiast amateur DSLR market is it is largely saturated...if those consumers start looking for better IQ (and it's clear more and more of them ARE), market share can only shift from one brand to another.

I understand there is a bigger picture. Canon is a very fiscally sound company, and they have taken a very old process very far. Does Canon see the bigger picture, though? I mean, I can only evaluate the potential future based on what I do. I understand that other people have their own demands...but maybe some market segmentation is in order. Video vs. Stills, rather than Video and Stills. Canon apparently has only so many R&D resources, and they seem to all be focused on video. Is my significant investment (over $25,000) in Canon equipment going to last for the duration it needs to (measured in decades) in order to be cost effective? Or will I wake up in five years and realize I have to switch brands, likely at a significant loss, because I haven't seen any reason to buy a new Canon camera because their IQ is still fundamentally the same as it is today, while their competitors are pushing 16 stops of DR, with more resolution, and better IQ overall?

Canon Leads in Sensor Tech

Also, last, while I did respond to some of the things inside the body of your post, I guess I was mostly responding to the title. From a technological (tech) standpoint, Canon really doesn't lead. I know they have done some good things with their tech, but it is definitely not leading...from a technology standpoint alone. Just about every other sensor manufacturer has superior technology...superior fabrication techniques, superior light gathering capability facilitated either by light pipes or BSI designs, superior quantum efficiency, greater dynamic range, often even at smaller (sometimes much smaller) pixel pitch, etc.

From a marketing standpoint, I don't think there is any question Canon is the leader. Their market share and sales numbers clearly indicate that. But in terms of Sensor Tech...I just don't believe that is the case. They definitely have better FPPDAF technology, but that is one feature in a bucket of around a dozen or so fundamental technologies that determine the technological maturity, and superiority, of a sensor.

It actually blows my mind that some companies are already pushing the 900nm (0.9µm) pixel pitch. That is small enough that it is intrinsically filtering out far IR. The next logical step would be around 750nm (0.75µm) pixel pitch...and that would basically be the limit! At that level, you would already be filtering out near-IR and a small amount of deep red light...you would no longer need an IR cutoff filter...its rather extreme. What some sensor manufacturing companies have done even at 1100nm (1.1µm), and the IQ and noise levels they have been able to maintain with such incredibly small pixels, is amazing. (Realize that a 1.1µm pixel on FF would be a 714 megapixel sensor!)

 

[tcmatthews]

Canon Leads in auto focus. They are also a leader in Lens design. Almost all of the other sensor manufactures beat them at APC, but Canon is good enough.

I have been primarily using my Nex with old manual primes so Auto focus is not really priority but really good focus peeking is. With Canon it is necessary to install Magic lantern to get this capability. The biggest difference is the Sony has way less noise. I almost never apply noise reduction with my Sony shots. It is also a very different style of photography. It is a really bad idea to ETTR with a Sony it handles under expos and push up to 3 stops much better.

I shoot wildlife with my Canon 60D and it is a indispensable tool for this. I just wish it had better High ISO. In fact if it had ISO equal to my Nex 6. That is a tall order as the Nex 6 sensor is bigger and only has 16 megapixels. It looks like the 70D is close I will need to rent one.

 

[Loswr]

I am not sure why so many people here are trying to analyze Canon's business strategy. If they flourish but do not deliver what I want, I will be unhappy and switch. I am not a Canon stock holder, I just buy and use some of their products.

I don't own Canon stock, and I've never been to a shareholders' meeting or analyst call for a Japanese company. But I've been to such meetings for US companies, in multiple industries including tech. When profits are down, some of the questions that are almost always put on the table at such meetings are, "Why are we spending so much on R&D? What is the return on that investment? Can that money be more profiably spent in areas with a higher rate of return?"

R&D in many industries is a long term investment. How long does it take to develop a new camera body, get it to market, and have it start to generate revenue? I know it takes 8-12 years for a drug to be developed and launched (assuming it succeeds, most don't). The problem is that many investors have a short term mindset, and cuts to R&D expenditures are very common these days.

Personally, I want Canon to continue to develop innovative products, and hope that some meet my needs/wants as a consumer. Whether or not they are able to continue to develop innovative products, and the pace at which they do so, depends in large part on R&D spend, and R&D spend is often tied directly to corporate business strategy. I could switch, but the grass isn't always greener, and in fact, if switching to a less profitable company with less market share, the grass is more likely browner than greener.

That's why I care, at least.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

To fill the vacuum left by He who loves DR, is this a time to mention it in large capital letters.

 

[tcmatthews]

I think that we really need to realize that with the basic death of the point-and-shoot as a cash cow there are a number of players moving into the middle ground enthusiast cameras. This is mostly in the mirrorless camera sector. They are moving up market. They (the rangefinder esque cameras) are also increasing in quality.

SLR used to have a huge advantage you could see the same view as the film. With today's sensors and EVF that advantages is disappearing for the vast majority of uses.

There are currently too many camera makers in the current market. There will be casualties soon as the point dries up further.

For this Canon is in relatively good health. But likely need new markets to replace there P&S sales. Sony does not have to worry about this because are selling smartphone sensors.

If worst comes to worst there is nothing but pride keeping Canon from using a Sony manufactured sensor. In truth most of us complain to much about the sensor.

Some times I pop popcorn and head on over to Amazon to read the D600 reviews. There are just as many people who claim to be Nikon fans screaming this is the last straw I am buying a Canon. Then head over to SonyAlphaRumors and read all the Idiots screaming I going to go by X unless they make a 35 f1.4 E mount full frame pancake for $300.

Ignoring physics always put a smile on my face

 

[unfocused]

Canon Leads in Sensor Tech

Also, last, while I did respond to some of the things inside the body of your post, I guess I was mostly responding to the title.

Yes. I am totally guilty of baiting people with the title.

I do appreciate that you and others are discussing this intelligently. I was motivated in part by watching the back and forth on the DXO thread and seeing that most of it amounted to schoolyard taunts from both sides.

I certainly hope the next generation of 7D will have all the things you mentioned (better autofocus, better frame rate, etc. including sensor improvements over the 70D). I think Canon does have a challenge ahead of themselves – they need to produce a 7DII that is enough better than the current model to convince current owners to upgrade because I do believe that the bulk of their sales of the 7DII will come from 7D owners.

I do agree with some of what you've said about DSLR video. On a much earlier thread I suggested that video and stills, having converged for the past several years, may be at the point where they start to diverge again. I don't know enough about the technology, but I suspect it is unlikely that Canon can continue to improve their DSLRs in both video and stills without one starting to conflict with the other.

Sometimes I dream that the next 7D will not have a dual pixel sensor and instead Canon will use what they learned in developing that technology to make a sensor that performs better for stills photographers. I can dream can't I?

 

[Pi]

I am not sure why so many people here are trying to analyze Canon's business strategy. If they flourish but do not deliver what I want, I will be unhappy and switch. I am not a Canon stock holder, I just buy and use some of their products.

I don't own Canon stock, and I've never been to a shareholders' meeting or analyst call for a Japanese company. But I've been to such meetings for US companies, in multiple industries including tech. When profits are down, some of the questions that are almost always put on the table at such meetings are, "Why are we spending so much on R&D? What is the return on that investment? Can that money be more profiably spent in areas with a higher rate of return?"

R&D in many industries is a long term investment. How long does it take to develop a new camera body, get it to market, and have it start to generate revenue? I know it takes 8-12 years for a drug to be developed and launched (assuming it succeeds, most don't). The problem is that many investors have a short term mindset, and cuts to R&D expenditures are very common these days.

Personally, I want Canon to continue to develop innovative products, and hope that some meet my needs/wants as a consumer. Whether or not they are able to continue to develop innovative products, and the pace at which they do so, depends in large part on R&D spend, and R&D spend is often tied directly to corporate business strategy. I could switch, but the grass isn't always greener, and in fact, if switching to a less profitable company with less market share, the grass is more likely browner than greener.

That's why I care, at least.

You actually agree with me. I replied to a post basically saying - they are making profits and growing, they must be doing it right? I do not care how profitable they are unless they are in the danger of failing.

I will give you again an example from the audiophile world. Sony is a huge player in audio (among the rest). This does not make it a hot brand when it comes to higher end equipment. They tried hard to distance themselves from the image of a toy making company, created the Sony SE line, which is quite good. But their success with mass market, medium quality, whistles-and-bells equipment damages their image among the enthusiasts. I am afraid that with the emphasis on video, Canon might be going that way. To please the masses, at the expense of the true enthusiasts.

Same thing with cars: Toyota sells the most cars in the US and is growing. Does it mean that I have to like their cars? They are bland, nothing to get excited about. Enthusiasts, even those on a budget, do not want what the public wants.

 

[Loswr]

To fill the vacuum left by He who loves DR

You actually agree with me.

See how congenial it is around here, now?

But seriously, I do agree. We can go around and around about the 5DIII vs. the D800 or the 1D X vs. the D4, but it's the Rebels/xxxD/xxxxD and D3xxx/D5xxx that put the yen in the coffers, and ultimately what funds the R&D that yields the products in which many CR members are interested.

I think both companies (Canon/Nikon) are making decisions at the higher end that are influenced by factors that differ from what (some) enthusiasts want. Video AF was a novelty in the xxxD line (and IIRC, Nikon was the first to offer it, in a D3xxx body). Now it's trickled up, albeit in better form, to the xxD line. That's great for video shooters who want AF...but for me, well, I may have shot a grand total of 1.5 minutes of dSLR video footage in my life - and dual pixel AF in a 1-series body won't change that.

The car analogy is relevant, but perhaps not the best - when you buy a car, you aren't locked in to that brand's 'system' for add-ons (I've got a Thule bike rack, Britax car seats, etc.). Not sure about high-end audio equipment, but I'm pretty sure that a Sony amp will work with an Krell preamp and Klipsch speakers, with no worries about compatibility issues. With a Canon dSLR, for full functionality you will likely want Canon flashes, in many cases Canon lenses (although there, at least, 3rd party options are recently quite good), etc.

In the case of a dSLR, looking at the 'system' (including compatible 3rd party options) becomes very important. That's really the main issue I have with all the endless discussions about DR, low ISO IQ, etc. - they focus on one aspect of a system. An important aspect, to be sure, but just one aspect. Such discussions often ignore the other factors of system performance . For some people, one particular factor truly is the most important, but for most people, there are many factors involved, and choices are made accordingly.

That's actually central to the point of this thread - Canon's sensors aren't 'antiquated' or 'not modern' they have just been developed with an emphasis on different factors.

 

[distant.star]

The next generation of filmmakers are already out there making videos using Rebels. Canon fully intends to move them up through the system. There is no "next generation" of stills photographers to speak of.

Interesting thread, but that is the most compelling thing to me. I've been saying for a long time that video will eventually obliterate stills. However, I've never heard it put so vividly.

As someone who has spent a lifetime with and around stills photographers, it's pretty damning to think we're the last of the Mohicans. No next generation!!

I'm beginning to feel like an auto mechanic looking for a place to use his dwell meter and timing light.

 

[Pi]

Speaking about emphasis: I find the recent news that Nikon is patenting an adjustable AA filter really exciting. I wish that was Canon.

 

[Loswr]

The next generation of filmmakers are already out there making videos using Rebels. Canon fully intends to move them up through the system. There is no "next generation" of stills photographers to speak of.

Interesting thread, but that is the most compelling thing to me. I've been saying for a long time that video will eventually obliterate stills. However, I've never heard it put so vividly.

As someone who has spent a lifetime with and around stills photographers, it's pretty damning to think we're the last of the Mohicans. No next generation!!

I'm beginning to feel like an auto mechanic looking for a place to use his dwell meter and timing light.

Makes you wonder...did Canon develop a 1D X, then turn it into a more expensive 1D C for the cinema crowd, or did they develop a 1D C, then turn it into a cheaper 1D X for the stills crowd?

Speaking about emphasis: I find the recent news that Nikon is patenting an adjustable AA filter really exciting. I wish that was Canon.

That's a patent that I hope sees the light of day as a product. How many DO lens patents does Canon have now? Well over 10, I think.

 

[tcmatthews]

Speaking about emphasis: I find the recent news that Nikon is patenting an adjustable AA filter really exciting. I wish that was Canon.

I wish they would just remove the AA filter and be done with it. Solve the problem in software and down scale. But the movie crowd and some landscape photographers would scream bloody murder. And insist software is just not good enough.

 

[Pi]

Speaking about emphasis: I find the recent news that Nikon is patenting an adjustable AA filter really exciting. I wish that was Canon.

I wish they would just remove the AA filter and be done with it. Solve the problem in software and down scale. But the movie crowd and some landscape photographers would scream bloody murder. And insist software is just not good enough.

Maybe because it is not. Undersampling is a loss of information and no post-processing can restore what is lost. Downscale dos not help much when you have large scale aliasing.

An adjustable AA filter would be great even for stills.

 

[takesome1]

Another debate on sensors, and now Nikon is / or is not crushing Canon's sales because of it. The sensor is just a small part of the big "picture", so to speak.

If you haven't figured it out by Canon's actions with DSLR's in the last few years they seem to think Video is the future.

I doubt the sales lost or gained from Nikon are significant compared to the sales Canon lost to the iPhone and other phone manufactures. Canon should have gotten a clue from these companies. Where are the Canon phones built in to their cameras? The dedicated P&S is dead, add a smart phone to the back of it and people will come back. I would think seriously about buying a T5i phone, it would be smaller than bag phone I had in 1988. How about a new M model 1/8" wider with an iPhone on the back. I might pre-order.

Sensors, who's is better? Unless Canon sensors crash I don't care. I have my good glass, in a year or two this debate will be about a completely different set of specs on sensors and I will still have my good glass.

 

[jrista]

Canon Leads in Sensor Tech

Also, last, while I did respond to some of the things inside the body of your post, I guess I was mostly responding to the title.

Yes. I am totally guilty of baiting people with the title.

Haha! You did indeed.

I do appreciate that you and others are discussing this intelligently.

Well, it seems we'll be able to, finally.

I was motivated in part by watching the back and forth on the DXO thread and seeing that most of it amounted to schoolyard taunts from both sides.

Yeah...DXO is a real pain point in the Canon community (and not just because of the DXO scores...DXO definitely seems to have some issues with brand weighting, which is even more visible with their lens reviews.) Their scalar "score" is an atrocity...and it would be so even if Canon cameras didn't score badly. Their measurement data is useful, but trying to linearly rank cameras is just a bad idea IMO. I prefer the DPR approach, bucketing cameras into gold, silver, bronze buckets. Little looser and general, but it fits the extremely diverse set of measurable data points better.

I certainly hope the next generation of 7D will have all the things you mentioned (better autofocus, better frame rate, etc. including sensor improvements over the 70D). I think Canon does have a challenge ahead of themselves – they need to produce a 7DII that is enough better than the current model to convince current owners to upgrade because I do believe that the bulk of their sales of the 7DII will come from 7D owners.

Totally agree. I guess around this time next year, we'll learn what Canon meant when they said they would be doing something interesting with the 7D II sensor. I'm very curious to know if that interesting thing has a video or stills bent...

I do agree with some of what you've said about DSLR video. On a much earlier thread I suggested that video and stills, having converged for the past several years, may be at the point where they start to diverge again. I don't know enough about the technology, but I suspect it is unlikely that Canon can continue to improve their DSLRs in both video and stills without one starting to conflict with the other.

Sometimes I dream that the next 7D will not have a dual pixel sensor and instead Canon will use what they learned in developing that technology to make a sensor that performs better for stills photographers. I can dream can't I?

I don't think it is impossible for Canon to achieve that. I do, however, think they need to spread the R&D spending around a bit more. I can't really remember the last time there was a significant still photography innovation. The 61pt AF system might be the last thing I've heard that seriously improved still photography IQ in the Canon world...and that was quite a while ago now, couple years at least.

I've tried to use the video capabilities of my 7D a few times to record some of the interesting things I see out in nature, the stories that a few still photographs just can't tell. I've come to the conclusion that outside of your basic shaky-camera gig with quirky focus, you can't really use a DSLR for good quality video without investing in some of the tools that actually make it practical. A focus puller, a fluid-filled tripod head, a proper screen magnifier and shroud, etc. Once you get those things, and really want to start producing some higher quality cinematography, you start to realize you can't really do it all on your own, and you realize you need even more gear...maybe a dolly for smoother panning, and at least one other person to pull focus while you focus on everything else. Then you start thinking abut audio, the need for some external microphone jacks, cleaner video output, RAW video output, so on and so forth. Its just another rabbit hole.

You can do some basic things with DSLR video, and software like Adobe Premier helps (especially with its post-process image stabilization features...however then you really wish you had the full 4k 4096x3112 resolution so you have some extra pixels to support the cropping that comes along with that stabilization)...but anything more, and a simple DSLR just doesn't cut it, and it is an R&D funding black hole...

I find the viability of DSLR video in professional DSLR cameras to be limited without a lot of extra gear, and a growing number of additional features that would need to be added to stills cameras to make it really viable. Even for something as simple as filming the local fowl and fauna to make a short, but quality, video. So I totally agree...I think it is time the technologies diverge...at least at the professional level. I honestly couldn't really care what Canon does with their consumer grade products. ;P

 

[jrista]

Speaking about emphasis: I find the recent news that Nikon is patenting an adjustable AA filter really exciting. I wish that was Canon.

Ditto!! :\

...I would LOVE an AA filter I could disable for my landscapes, and enable for my birds.