Canon to Continue Using Canon Sensors in DSLRs

[dak723]

Canon to continue using Canon sensors?

Fine with me. I haven't had the luxury to use any Nikon or Sony cameras with the new sensors that everyone is raving about, so I can't make any type of comparison. But starting with the Original Rebel, and now with a 6D, I am very happy with the IQ of my shots. I would say Canon does an excellent job with color accuracy, color gradation and contrast. Their cameras also do very well with exposure accuracy. So, no complaints with the things I would consider most important.

And, oh by the way, I shoot mostly landscapes.

 

[ahsanford]

Once these "alternative" brands get their own lenses for the real critical key ones, like your 70-200's, a few large fast primes (300/2.8, 400/2.8, 600/4), and a few high quality wide, normal, and short tele primes (for which Sony already has a few good ones), I think the market will really open up, with better viable diversity.

I'm on the fence there, Jrista. If the lenses come, you are dead on.

Committing to (or at least prioritizing) one mount for 25+ years continues to pay dividends for Canon. They have developed a lens portfolio that no one can comprehensively match up to. I'm not saying all the lenses are modern or best in class -- they surely aren't -- but chance are, if you need a specific sort of lens, Canon has one.

So for someone to try to match even 25% of what Canon offers would represent a staggering investment in present/future development dollars. And *what* 25% needs to be made available is not a sure thing. A company could go hog wild and offer a solid roster of 'staple pro wants' (in FF equiv)...

16-35 f/2.8
24-70 f/2.8
70-200 f/2.8
35 f/1.4
50 f/1.4
85 f/1.4
100 macro
135 f/2.0
70-300 or 100-400 f/slow
300 f/2.8
400 f/2.8
600 f/4

...and folks would still find something to bemoan the lack of: a tilt-shift, a lighter weight F/4 zoom, a fish, cheaper wildlife primes, etc. As Canon people, we often can feel the sensor grass is greener elsewhere, but everyone pines for access to our glass (save perhaps the Leica crowd, who only need a few primes and a cocksure worldview ).

I want your competitive future as increased choice will only bode well for us as consumers. But I'm not convinced every rival to the Canon/Nikon dominated SLR world is prepared to or is capable of delivering that lens portfolio. Sony is certainly trying, but Samsung, Fuji and the m43 cabal seem worlds behind in the scale of their ambitions. So I'll stick the mothership for the foreseeable future.

- A

 

[jrista]

One thing to keep in mind...mirrorless cameras have much shorter flange focal distances. Canon's lens lineup is one of the primary reasons I stick with the brand. I love the diversity and the quality. I don't think I could give up my 600mm f/4 II for anything...it's the most versatile,valuable lens in my kit...I use it day and night (literally...it's also my telescope for astrophotography). I also like the MP-E 65mm, the high quality TS lenses, the zoom fisheye, etc.


Thing is...I could use every single one of those on both the A7 series or the NX1 bodies. All I need is an adapter. AF performance doesn't necessarily maintain high levels when you adapt a lens, however the MetaBones adapters for Sony's E mount have been getting progressively better over the last year or two...they are currently on the Mark IV version, and I suspect a Mark V is not that far off in the future. I believe the NX1 already has adapters.


So, if I did end up picking up an NX1, I wouldn't necessarily be wanting for a good TS lens. I could just use Canon's. The TS lenses and the MP-E are all manual focus lenses as well, so AF performance isn't a concern to start with. Canon's wide range of unique lenses are, therefor, eminently usable on any existing mirrorless that has an EF adapter (which most do.) I've used Canon AF lenses on the A7s. AF performance isn't excellent, but AF does work well enough. In the cases where AF performance was critical with say the NX1, I could just pick up a Samsung lens instead.


I also strongly believe that all the lenses you listed with maybe the exception of the 600/4 will find their way into competitors lens bodies fairly quickly. Those are all the staples, the key core lenses. Every brand should have those at some point, and in many cases, they already do.

 

[D.]

Thom Hogan put together what I consider to be a well-considered discussion of Canon sensors vs. Sony/Nikon sensors and DXO scores generally. Many of his points mirror what people on this forum have previously stated. Thom is a Nikon guy, albeit a critical one, but definitely not a Canon fan boy. See the article at http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/do-you-believe-in-dxomark.html

 

[Loswr]

Thom Hogan put together what I consider to be a well-considered discussion of Canon sensors vs. Sony/Nikon sensors and DXO scores generally. Many of his points mirror what people on this forum have previously stated.

Thanks for sharing.

To be fair, his views mirror statements by some members of this forum, which have been vehemently argued against by others. For example (emphasis is mine):

[quote author=Thom Hogan]
So, for example, the 7DII has a landscape dynamic range of 11.8EV, the D7100 a range of 13.7EV. Before moving on, I should note that these aren’t exactly what you’d get out of the camera in images (e.g. 12 stops of data on the 7DII, 14 on the D7100). DxOMark’s numbers are closer to engineering DR than usable dynamic range, even with their adjustments for “print” and “screen." Engineering DR is measured between the lowest value that hits a signal-to-noise ratio of 1:1 (which we’d never use) and the highest saturation value of the sensor. Pragmatic DR has no agreed upon definition. When I report dynamic range numbers, as I do in my books, these are based upon my own personal standards, which have some fairly strict observed guidelines towards visibility of noise of any kind.
[/quote]

We've had the 'engineering DR is the only DR measure that's real and has any relevance to photography' mantra spouted by some people here for quite some time. Interesting that someone well known in the field – and definitely not a 'Canon fanboy' – disagrees.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I think there are some market share losses, but in my experience, I still see way more Canon than anything else. I shoot at a lot of press events for big companies and a lot of trade shows, and Canon easily accounts for two-thirds, if not closer to three-quarters, of the cameras I see overall. It varies by event, of course, but out of dozens in the last couple years, I can't recall any event in which Canons weren't at least half the field.

What's very interesting to me is this-- the video scene at these events is still dominated by Canon. I've noticed a few internal PR teams have switched to Nikon gear, and last year at CES, Black Magic cameras had a small but noticeable presence. As someone who will be fairly outraged if the 5D Mark IV (or some other 2015 $2000 - $4000 Canon DSLR) doesn't have a great 1080p implementation and a decent internal 4K implementation, I find Canon's resilience in this market interesting. I used to see more Sonys (e.g. FS100s) among the people who weren't using Canon DSLRs for video; now, I see more C100 and C300 bodies in this group. That said, most of the Canon bodies I see are at least a few years old-- i.e. lots of 5D Mark IIIs, some C100s, even a few t3is and 60Ds. Not seeing any 70Ds yet and it's still too early to have expected a 7D Mark II sighting-- but the reason I bring up the prevalence of older models is this: When I do see photo/video combos that aren't Canon, they're usually micro four thirds, not Sony. This is all anecdotal, of course-- but since we're talking about demographics in which Canon is retaining users, I thought I'd add another set of observations.

I think whether you see a market transition very much depends on the type of shooting you do and correspondingly the type of shooters you are around. What I encounter is in a space best described as travel and landscape, areas where DR and resolution are extremely important. Nearly everyone I see in that space is abandoning Canon and most have headed to Nikon.

Canon has put a great deal of emphasis on the video space over the last few years following the positive response to the video capabilities of the 5D2. It seems that they see that as there play for growth vs the FF still shooter. We've seen a lot of movement on the APS-C gear as well as in the video space but pretty much nothing in the FF still space for nearly 3 years. For those who say 'what about the 6D', I've always thought of that as not much more than a repackaged 5D2.

The video people seem to think Canon has now stagnated in video even more than the landscape high DR folks actually.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

...Canon has pretty much stagnated in the Full Frame DSLR space for pretty close to 3 years now.

As opposed to Nikon, who has released three new FF bodies in that period to fix problems with their predecessors – the D610 (D600 oil spots and banned for sale in the world's most populous country),

lefit

the D810 (unify D800/E production lines to save internal costs due to loss of corporate revenue), and the D750 (because neither the D610 nor the D810 were bona fide competitors to the very successful 5DIII and 6D).

wow, that is reaching beyond reaching, good grief

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Canon to continue using Canon sensors?

Fine with me. I haven't had the luxury to use any Nikon or Sony cameras with the new sensors that everyone is raving about, so I can't make any type of comparison. But starting with the Original Rebel, and now with a 6D, I am very happy with the IQ of my shots. I would say Canon does an excellent job with color accuracy, color gradation and contrast. Their cameras also do very well with exposure accuracy. So, no complaints with the things I would consider most important.

And, oh by the way, I shoot mostly landscapes.

All the same they are 2-3 stops behind on contrast and their color discrimination has faded over the years (although the latter is a tricky, complex thing to dive into).

 

[privatebydesign]

Canon to continue using Canon sensors?

Fine with me. I haven't had the luxury to use any Nikon or Sony cameras with the new sensors that everyone is raving about, so I can't make any type of comparison. But starting with the Original Rebel, and now with a 6D, I am very happy with the IQ of my shots. I would say Canon does an excellent job with color accuracy, color gradation and contrast. Their cameras also do very well with exposure accuracy. So, no complaints with the things I would consider most important.

And, oh by the way, I shoot mostly landscapes.

All the same they are 2-3 stops behind on contrast and their color discrimination has faded over the years (although the latter is a tricky, complex thing to dive into).

Talk about reaching, what in the hell is "their color discrimination has faded over the years" supposed to mean, that the cameras they made got worse, or others now do better? And by what measure do you consider Canon cameras to deliver poor colour? Because when I profile mine I have absolutely zero issues with colour.

 

[jrista]

the D810 (unify D800/E production lines to save internal costs due to loss of corporate revenue), and the D750 (because neither the D610 nor the D810 were bona fide competitors to the very successful 5DIII and 6D).

wow, that is reaching beyond reaching, good grief

Agreed. I don't think that Nikon's problem has ever been their technology. Nikon too often exhibits schizophrenia, in their product naming scheme (which, at this point, who knows what the next model will be), in many of their management choices (Df? Gold plated cameras? Lots and lots of niche items that don't sell much, but still cost to R&D), and refusal to acknowledge issues and resolve them in a timely manner.


Canon has had their fair share of problems. Does no one remember the AF debacle of the 1D III? I think Canon refused to acknowledge that issue, for a long time, it pissed a lot of pros off. If the D810 is the "technological fix" for the broken D800/E, then the 1D IV is the technological fix for the 1D III (only it came MUCH later, and LONG after a lot of photographers were well and thoroughly irate, than the D810 came to the D800).


I think Nikon has perfectly good products. I think they just don't manage as well as Canon does on as regular a basis.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Thom Hogan put together what I consider to be a well-considered discussion of Canon sensors vs. Sony/Nikon sensors and DXO scores generally. Many of his points mirror what people on this forum have previously stated. Thom is a Nikon guy, albeit a critical one, but definitely not a Canon fan boy. See the article at http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/do-you-believe-in-dxomark.html

I think he downplays the low ISO DR a bit too much.

And I have to totally disagree with " However I’d point out that neither camera is likely to be able to hold extreme landscape situations in a single exposure: I’d still be bracketing and applying HDR type techniques to construct images in such cases. Thus, whatever the actual numeric difference in dynamic range between the 7DII and D7100 is at base ISO, it really wouldn’t make much of a difference to my workflow. I might adjust my bracket sets on the Canon to be a bit different than the Nikon to account for the difference in how they handle shadows, but that’s it. Bottom line, I’d get the same image."

I often find just another 2-3 stops would allow a one shot snap and that is pretty big.

The other stuff about ignoring the overall scores and looking at the plots is, as you say, what most of us have been saying for ages. The overall score is impossible to construct in a way that would be sensible for everyone and likely even for anyone. The D300s vs 7D2 score is one of the best (or maybe worst) examples. It gives a very, very distorted impression. The 7D2 also has a ton more MP which gives a lot more reach which is a main point for using APS-C for many. I'd dare say even the 7D might be the overall preferred sensor for wildlife over the D300s sensor never mind the 7D2 sensor. (Of course there is no doubt, other than for the few who prioritize the, somewhat crippled version, of DPAF video AF, that had they used a SOny APS_C sensor from today that the 7D2 would not have been better. The Sony aps-c sensor of today is definitely better than the one in the 7D2 at lower ISO if you ever hit any higher DR scenarios and it's even slightly better at moderate high ISO.)

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Thom Hogan put together what I consider to be a well-considered discussion of Canon sensors vs. Sony/Nikon sensors and DXO scores generally. Many of his points mirror what people on this forum have previously stated.

Thanks for sharing.

To be fair, his views mirror statements by some members of this forum, which have been vehemently argued against by others. For example (emphasis is mine):

[quote author=Thom Hogan]
So, for example, the 7DII has a landscape dynamic range of 11.8EV, the D7100 a range of 13.7EV. Before moving on, I should note that these aren’t exactly what you’d get out of the camera in images (e.g. 12 stops of data on the 7DII, 14 on the D7100). DxOMark’s numbers are closer to engineering DR than usable dynamic range, even with their adjustments for “print” and “screen." Engineering DR is measured between the lowest value that hits a signal-to-noise ratio of 1:1 (which we’d never use) and the highest saturation value of the sensor. Pragmatic DR has no agreed upon definition. When I report dynamic range numbers, as I do in my books, these are based upon my own personal standards, which have some fairly strict observed guidelines towards visibility of noise of any kind.

We've had the 'engineering DR is the only DR measure that's real and has any relevance to photography' mantra spouted by some people here for quite some time. Interesting that someone well known in the field – and definitely not a 'Canon fanboy' – disagrees.
[/quote]

Actually we have no been saying that it gives you the usable DR, it's just a relative comparison point and Hogan went on to say that the difference in the exmor vs canon actually IS there that much (although he claims to not have it be enough for many of his shots, I totally do not find that to the case though, 2-3 stops makes all the difference in a ton more shots from what I see).

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Canon to continue using Canon sensors?

Fine with me. I haven't had the luxury to use any Nikon or Sony cameras with the new sensors that everyone is raving about, so I can't make any type of comparison. But starting with the Original Rebel, and now with a 6D, I am very happy with the IQ of my shots. I would say Canon does an excellent job with color accuracy, color gradation and contrast. Their cameras also do very well with exposure accuracy. So, no complaints with the things I would consider most important.

And, oh by the way, I shoot mostly landscapes.

All the same they are 2-3 stops behind on contrast and their color discrimination has faded over the years (although the latter is a tricky, complex thing to dive into).

Talk about reaching, what in the hell is "their color discrimination has faded over the years" supposed to mean, that the cameras they made got worse, or others now do better? And by what measure do you consider Canon cameras to deliver poor colour? Because when I profile mine I have absolutely zero issues with colour.

I mean the CFA filters have become more and more color blind and the metamerism scores have become worse, same is true for many DSLRs these days. It's a very complex to get into what that means exactly as it may mean something under some color tempertures of light and nothing under others and something for certain parts of the color spectrum and nothing or even better for colors in another part of the spectrum.

 

[privatebydesign]

Canon to continue using Canon sensors?

Fine with me. I haven't had the luxury to use any Nikon or Sony cameras with the new sensors that everyone is raving about, so I can't make any type of comparison. But starting with the Original Rebel, and now with a 6D, I am very happy with the IQ of my shots. I would say Canon does an excellent job with color accuracy, color gradation and contrast. Their cameras also do very well with exposure accuracy. So, no complaints with the things I would consider most important.

And, oh by the way, I shoot mostly landscapes.

All the same they are 2-3 stops behind on contrast and their color discrimination has faded over the years (although the latter is a tricky, complex thing to dive into).

Talk about reaching, what in the hell is "their color discrimination has faded over the years" supposed to mean, that the cameras they made got worse, or others now do better? And by what measure do you consider Canon cameras to deliver poor colour? Because when I profile mine I have absolutely zero issues with colour.

I mean the CFA filters have become more and more color blind and the metamerism scores have become worse, same is true for many DSLRs these days. It's a very complex to get into what that means exactly as it may mean something under some color tempertures of light and nothing under others and something for certain parts of the color spectrum and nothing or even better for colors in another part of the spectrum.

And where, exactly, do you think that impacts 99.99999% of people, ever? I shoot colour critical artwork for magazines and books and never have metamerism issues of any consequence, I also make prints that are hung in every kind of light. Metamerism used to be a serious issue with some ink sets and certain lighting conditions.

Now you can get all esoteric on a metric, you can say we 'don't understand', and 'it is very complicated' etc etc, but if people are not seeing it, and it doesn't impact their images, it is too esoteric to bother about in my book.

 

[Loswr]

Actually we have no been saying that it gives you the usable DR,

Perhaps you haven't, but others have. Saying it over and over and over. You know what it's called when something is said over and over and over, right? :

 

[privatebydesign]

Canon has had their fair share of problems. Does no one remember the AF debacle of the 1D III? I think Canon refused to acknowledge that issue, for a long time, it pissed a lot of pros off.

That was because there wasn't a pro on the planet who could reproduce the issue reliably under test conditions. It isn't difficult to see three tons of crap on your sensor, which is why the D600 was banned from sale in China, unfortunately it proved impossible for anybody to reliably re produce the 1D MkIII focus issues, and however bad that camera was, or is, I am still using them, though not for white shirted sports players play in 75º+ clear weather when they are running towards me.

Context.

 

[dgatwood]

Actually we have no been saying that it gives you the usable DR,

Perhaps you haven't, but others have. Saying it over and over and over. You know what it's called when something is said over and over and over, right? :

If I remember my politics correctly, it's called a "fact".