D800 v. 5D3 threads: What should Canon's takeaway be?
- Thread starter t.linn
- Start date
- Status
The takeaway should be that the low light race started back 2007 with the D3 and ended in 2009 with the D3s. It is a little too late to get into that saturated segment. Everybody has a low light camera (or more) these days. For 2012, the game is different.
The new race for the next generation of sensors is detail and dynamic range, color depth, possibly starting to step in to challenge medium format dominated 16 bit territory over the next few years. The D800 is Nikon's first step away from focusing on big ISO as a single metric of performance. Yet Canon is too busy playing with video and trying to wedge itself against Red and Sony so they were totally caught with their pants down.
Obviously Canon will follow Nikon's path away from higher than 102K ISO in time just as they followed Nikon in the low light game until that segment was saturated.
I think it is only a matter of time before Nikon jumps into Medium format. There were rumors of the Nikon's MX system flying around before the global recession even some leaked presentation. I wouldn't be surprised if they are dusting off those plans at this very moment. I suspect canon may consider medium format but I see them ore interested in turning all it's photographers into videographers somehow. so who knows.
The new race for the next generation of sensors is detail and dynamic range, color depth, possibly starting to step in to challenge medium format dominated 16 bit territory over the next few years. The D800 is Nikon's first step away from focusing on big ISO as a single metric of performance. Yet Canon is too busy playing with video and trying to wedge itself against Red and Sony so they were totally caught with their pants down.
Obviously Canon will follow Nikon's path away from higher than 102K ISO in time just as they followed Nikon in the low light game until that segment was saturated.
I think it is only a matter of time before Nikon jumps into Medium format. There were rumors of the Nikon's MX system flying around before the global recession even some leaked presentation. I wouldn't be surprised if they are dusting off those plans at this very moment. I suspect canon may consider medium format but I see them ore interested in turning all it's photographers into videographers somehow. so who knows.
Upvote
0
S
smirkypants
Guest
This thread is about what Canon should learn from the D800... err... situation. The D800 is better in almost every way and costs $500 less.awinphoto said:
Canon could have built a 5D3 two years ago by combining elements of the 7D and the 5D2 and getting about 80% there. That machine that it could have built two years ago, if it existed, would create a situation where the vast majority of Canon users would find the current 5D3 completely not compelling as an upgrade. Indeed, many whose sole interest is image quality already find the 5D3 not particularly compelling.
Canon is charging "wow" prices for a machine that is only a "nice upgrade." As I've said before, far fewer people would be cranky had Canon chosen to price this machine at $2799. Honestly, that's all I think it's worth. I currently have both a D800 and a 5D3. I'm a long-long time Canon shooter. I'm disappointed with the 5D3 and constantly being amazed by what the D800 can do.
But... If you're happy paying a lot of money for a nice upgrade, that's cool.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
Thanks for clearing that up... guess I need more coffee to wake up over here... As for the D800/5d3, the only was the d800 kicks the 5d3's ass is DR and MP... the rest are a wash or slight advantage canon... But that's another debate for another thread so anywho...
Upvote
0
smirkypants said:
Depends on your POV... for me, AF on the prior 5d's was atrocious... the 7d's wasn't perfect but kicked the 5d's AF every day of the week. The high ISO, the AF, the weathersealing, everything as a whole package, for me, (also considering I make my living by my photography), the 5d3 is worth it and then some... Price is higher than before but everything from consumables, gas, food, energy, cars, etc is rising over the last half decade, inflation is soaring, why would I not expect camera gear to rise as well? The d800 is a fine camera, a very fine camera, i wont dismiss that or pretend to have my head in the sand, but Canon doesn't offer a D800, they offer the 5d3, which satisfies my needs, works with my lenses/flashes/etc, and is what i'm going to buy. I dont need to have the D800 to feel like i'm a better photographer or produce better pictures, the 5d3 meets my needs as a photographer. For me, personally and professionally, cased closed, next topic.
Upvote
0
S
smirkypants
Guest
I really hope this doesn't sound rude, but this is exactly what Canon wants, right? You are invested heavily in Canon to the extent that switching becomes a non-option. You are also willing to spend big dollars to overcome the previous model's defects.awinphoto said:
As for the prices... Cameras are basically computers anymore, and the Consumer Price Index for computers and similar electronics is something that tends to run in reverse. I'm glad you feel pleased with your decision to get a 5D3. Being pleased is a good thing. Me? No.
Upvote
0
unfocused
Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Getting back to the original post and some of the reactions.
The single most important thing any company has to pay attention to is sales figures. People act like that's a bad thing. But, it's not.
That's the way it should be because only sales figures are reliable. I know from decades of dealing with focus groups and polling that all the information that is gathered is useful, but it is only people's opinion. People lie. They say they want something, but they really don't. What matters is people's behavior. What are you really spending your money on. Not what you say you will spend your money on.
In a political campaign, the behavior is encapsulated in the ballot the voter casts. In the consumer world, it is encapsulated in buying decisions. All the pontificating, ranting, whining and speculating that occurs on forums is meaningless unless it has some connection to buying decisions. And, I strongly suspect that the vast majority of the multiple discussions here about the 5DIII have little or no connection to buying decisions.
Understand too, that almost no one on this forum is a "persuadable" consumer. Almost everyone here has already made up their minds about their brand preferences. The cost of getting a canonrumors forum reader to change behavior is too high and the population is too small.
If you think the 5DIII is a good value, buy it. If you don't, then don't buy it. Cast your ballot with your wallet. Because all the chatter on this forum is not going to turn the 5DIII into something it is not.
The single most important thing any company has to pay attention to is sales figures. People act like that's a bad thing. But, it's not.
That's the way it should be because only sales figures are reliable. I know from decades of dealing with focus groups and polling that all the information that is gathered is useful, but it is only people's opinion. People lie. They say they want something, but they really don't. What matters is people's behavior. What are you really spending your money on. Not what you say you will spend your money on.
In a political campaign, the behavior is encapsulated in the ballot the voter casts. In the consumer world, it is encapsulated in buying decisions. All the pontificating, ranting, whining and speculating that occurs on forums is meaningless unless it has some connection to buying decisions. And, I strongly suspect that the vast majority of the multiple discussions here about the 5DIII have little or no connection to buying decisions.
Understand too, that almost no one on this forum is a "persuadable" consumer. Almost everyone here has already made up their minds about their brand preferences. The cost of getting a canonrumors forum reader to change behavior is too high and the population is too small.
If you think the 5DIII is a good value, buy it. If you don't, then don't buy it. Cast your ballot with your wallet. Because all the chatter on this forum is not going to turn the 5DIII into something it is not.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
smirkypants said:
Have to disagree, but I suppose it depends on one's PoV. Canon's deceptive claims ("2-stop improvement") aside, IQ wasn't broke on the 5DII, and it didn't need fixing. AF was pretty sad, and combining the 5DII's IQ with the 1-series AF system is more than merely 'nice' IMO.
smirkypants said:
What Canon 'wants' is to make a profit. If you don't feel that the 5DIII is a worthwhile upgrade, then don't buy one. But bear in mind that Canon has to answer to one group and one group only - not consumers, not photographers, not CR forum members - they must answer to shareholders. They obviously feel that the 5DIII is part of that answer...time (and stock prices, meaning market capitalization) will tell if they're right or wrong.
unfocused said:
+1. 'Joe' has a Rebel T1i. Joe says he's disappointed with the price of the 5DIII, look at the D800 it's $500 cheaper, he'd buy a 5DIII if it were priced at $2799 instead of $3499. But will he, really? Probably not. Meaning Canon doesn't - and shouldn't - care what Joe says.
Keep in mind that Canon has a wealth of data at their fingertips, not only from sales figures but also from warranty registrations. Why do you think they ask all those questions when you go online to register your new purchase? For any given segment, they know who their customer base is, what their average income is, what other products they own, and how frequently they purchase/upgrade.
Upvote
0
100% the DR. The D800s resolution doesn't catch me. I thought 12MP was too low. I'm shooting 21MP since 2007 on DSLRs and I'm very happy with that amount.
If Nikon had brought a D800 with 22MP and even more improved noise performance (their current sensor technology just seems to outshine current Canons), they might have made me switch over.
My 5 year old 1Ds3 is still my favorite Camera when it comes down to image quality. The 1D4 (which was praised high in the air) just cannot compete (and I own one...).
Please Canon, get your gear back in order. At this moment I even fear that the 1DX will be no step forward for me (in terms of pure image quality). Their 18MP sensor needs to seriously kick the 5D3s behind to make me upgrade.
On a sarcastic note: Maybe Canon should buy the sensors from Nikon :
If Nikon had brought a D800 with 22MP and even more improved noise performance (their current sensor technology just seems to outshine current Canons), they might have made me switch over.
My 5 year old 1Ds3 is still my favorite Camera when it comes down to image quality. The 1D4 (which was praised high in the air) just cannot compete (and I own one...).
Please Canon, get your gear back in order. At this moment I even fear that the 1DX will be no step forward for me (in terms of pure image quality). Their 18MP sensor needs to seriously kick the 5D3s behind to make me upgrade.
On a sarcastic note: Maybe Canon should buy the sensors from Nikon :
Upvote
0
smirkypants said:
Please dont confuse me with complacent or "trapped"... it's just one of those things... If I knew that by buying the D800 and switching all my gear and relearning a whole new system, if i knew by doing such would make me a better photographer and would be cost effective, then I would do it. But simply, the D800, other than adding more hard drive space, more MP, more time to process and develop the 14 stops of DR, and a very pissed off wife, it wouldn't make me any better of a photographer or give me any better of a product for my clients than what I can get with the 5d3. It's just one of those things, the D800 is nice and shiney and on paper looks quite impressive and something for nikon to be proud of, and they should. Is it enough for me to lose sleep over buying a 5d3? Nope. Is it enough for me to want to switch systems? heck no. Is it enough to make me personally demand a refund, demand canon to get their act together and give us an even better product? No way... The D800 is a very good camera, but that doesn't diminish the 5d3 in any way shape or form. Case in point, if the D800 wasn't so over spec'd... heck if canon intro'd the 5d3 BEFORE the D800, if they came out with the 5d3 and had no D800 to compare it to, every canon shooter would be singing canon's praises, but since it was second out of the gate and the sensor and only the sensor seemed slightly underspec'd and at a higher price point than the D800, that is why all the overraction is taking place. It's silly... Choose a system, shoot that system, be happy and take pictures... It isn't the end of the world.
Upvote
0
Camera bodies come and go. I like to buy bodies that work with my lenses, not the other way around.
Upvote
0
You, and many others that raise this claim don't take into account that many people actually prefer Canon's lineup of lenses. Personally, like I stated before, the benefits that the D800 offers over the 5D3 are far from enough for me to abandon my 50L, 85L and MP-E 65. The big whites are another example of better Canon glass. The TS-E lineup is also more complete (Nikon did a file a patent recently for a 17mm one). On the other hand, Nikon do have the 12-24 which is nothing short of amazing. Basically, what I am saying that the issue is not black and white and for some people, taking the system into account, the 5D3 is actually both the better product and better value.smirkypants said:
Isn't that what everyone does when they upgrade pretty much any product?
Upvote
0
So from my perspective these are the things I would like to see on a next generation 5D, without changing form factor or remove functions of the current 5D3:
- get the DR up for low ISO, minimum 1 stop in RAW, for better details in shadows
- f/8 AF capable (to make use of extenders for wildlife)
- make EF-S lenses usable on FF
- include GPS, build in
- include Wifi, build in, or at least USB3, I would prefer LightPeak...
- include an AF assist light, build in
- include flash, for highlighting
my 2 cents
- get the DR up for low ISO, minimum 1 stop in RAW, for better details in shadows
- f/8 AF capable (to make use of extenders for wildlife)
- make EF-S lenses usable on FF
- include GPS, build in
- include Wifi, build in, or at least USB3, I would prefer LightPeak...
- include an AF assist light, build in
- include flash, for highlighting
my 2 cents
Upvote
0
For me, the art of photography is about getting the most out of the equipment you have. If it was easy, everyone would be doing it and there wouldn't be any reason for professionals to exist and there certainly wouldn't be any profit in it. Of course, as a business, the likes of Canon, Nikon, Sony and the rest wouldn't worry about that, as they'd potentially sell more cameras. I'm not really convinced by the dynamic range argument either. Yes, there are situations where more dynamic range would be nice, however, the reality is, without processing, images tend to look flat, so would need more processing time. Also, I feel that most of the DR would be wasted anyway in terms of professional use. Currently, the main markets for selling images are as fine art prints (either as true fine art portraits/landscapes etc or as wedding/event prints) and the various forms of stock. Most professional printers and paper has less dynamic range than can be produced by DSLRs, so having more dynamic range would be pointless in my view. Likewise, most stock photographic licences are purchased for printing, either in a magazine/newspaper etc. or on a billboard, again, the DR is wasted. There are more images being licenced for web use, but again, viewing on most browsers gives limited DR.
The challenge for me is the ability to capture the dynamic range and the scene as a whole in such a way that I can capture it without endless hours in Photoshop (I simply don't have the time) in a way that no-one else can. If I'm shooting landscapes, then I'll use grad filters to compress the DR to a usable range, it doesn't always work, but for most scenes it gives me enough to work with. I think this gives a much better look and I feel that smooth tonal gradations and nice contrast are far more important than a large DR. Lenses then become equally important, if not more so. Larger sensors are usually better in this regard than smaller ones, hence why full frame sensors have a certain "look" and why landscapes shot with larger format sensors tend to look better. Often it is an indefinable quality that gives a certain "look" and it is certainly down to more than just DR. Others have mentioned that they prefer the look of Canon cameras to Nikon and it is the overall sensor design that achieves this. When it comes to Wildlife DR is often more of a problem than landscapes, particularly birds with significant areas of black and white, but sometimes CPLs can be handy and most wildlife photographers are looking for soft lighting anyway, where there is less DR required. In fact for me, good lighting is far more important than improved DR, unfortunately, camera manufacturers haven't yet found a way of getting nice soft lighting throughout the day.
For hobbyists who are probably more inclined to look at their images digitally, perhaps on a high DR monitor, then I can see where they might want more DR, but for most professionals or anyone who is trying to sell their work, then print is still the major medium, so more DR is less important, as they will use technique to achieve the results they want. Very few pros are interested in the detailed specifications of cameras, they just want to know if they can get the images they want, for most it is simply a tool and they will get the best toolkit for the job. The photographic toolkit is a combination of body, lenses, filters and other accessories. Similarly, while there are some uses for large format printing, the vast majority of prints are easily achievable with 22 MP. CPS class the 5D series as a professional camera, so that is obviously Canon's prime target market, it's just that the original 5D and the MkII were also popular amongst hobbyists and semi-pros.
Personally, if I have to push images or part images more than a stop or so, then I made an error and it is discarded. Often on a shoot, even if I know I can process it to get it looking good, I will still reshoot with the correct exposure, even if it is only half a stop out. I also know that I can usually work better with highlights than shadows on my 5D MKII, so I will expose slightly to the right to compensate, as long as I don't go too far. My style though, does rely on shadows, detail isn't always necessary in smaller areas and it can add to the feel of an image. Using the whole dynamic range is important to me and I will often make use of shadows, despite criticism, as it is an artistic statement for me. I feel that increasing the available DR too much would lessen the impact of many of my images. In short, how an image looks is more important than what the specs say. Art isn't a science and data doesn't tell the whole story. I'm always reminded of the saying "Lies, lies and statistics" and I often think that specification lists and camera tests fall into the same category as statistics.
The challenge for me is the ability to capture the dynamic range and the scene as a whole in such a way that I can capture it without endless hours in Photoshop (I simply don't have the time) in a way that no-one else can. If I'm shooting landscapes, then I'll use grad filters to compress the DR to a usable range, it doesn't always work, but for most scenes it gives me enough to work with. I think this gives a much better look and I feel that smooth tonal gradations and nice contrast are far more important than a large DR. Lenses then become equally important, if not more so. Larger sensors are usually better in this regard than smaller ones, hence why full frame sensors have a certain "look" and why landscapes shot with larger format sensors tend to look better. Often it is an indefinable quality that gives a certain "look" and it is certainly down to more than just DR. Others have mentioned that they prefer the look of Canon cameras to Nikon and it is the overall sensor design that achieves this. When it comes to Wildlife DR is often more of a problem than landscapes, particularly birds with significant areas of black and white, but sometimes CPLs can be handy and most wildlife photographers are looking for soft lighting anyway, where there is less DR required. In fact for me, good lighting is far more important than improved DR, unfortunately, camera manufacturers haven't yet found a way of getting nice soft lighting throughout the day.
For hobbyists who are probably more inclined to look at their images digitally, perhaps on a high DR monitor, then I can see where they might want more DR, but for most professionals or anyone who is trying to sell their work, then print is still the major medium, so more DR is less important, as they will use technique to achieve the results they want. Very few pros are interested in the detailed specifications of cameras, they just want to know if they can get the images they want, for most it is simply a tool and they will get the best toolkit for the job. The photographic toolkit is a combination of body, lenses, filters and other accessories. Similarly, while there are some uses for large format printing, the vast majority of prints are easily achievable with 22 MP. CPS class the 5D series as a professional camera, so that is obviously Canon's prime target market, it's just that the original 5D and the MkII were also popular amongst hobbyists and semi-pros.
Personally, if I have to push images or part images more than a stop or so, then I made an error and it is discarded. Often on a shoot, even if I know I can process it to get it looking good, I will still reshoot with the correct exposure, even if it is only half a stop out. I also know that I can usually work better with highlights than shadows on my 5D MKII, so I will expose slightly to the right to compensate, as long as I don't go too far. My style though, does rely on shadows, detail isn't always necessary in smaller areas and it can add to the feel of an image. Using the whole dynamic range is important to me and I will often make use of shadows, despite criticism, as it is an artistic statement for me. I feel that increasing the available DR too much would lessen the impact of many of my images. In short, how an image looks is more important than what the specs say. Art isn't a science and data doesn't tell the whole story. I'm always reminded of the saying "Lies, lies and statistics" and I often think that specification lists and camera tests fall into the same category as statistics.
Upvote
0
This Canon complacency argument reminds me of Microsoft vs. Apple.
The former has huge marketshare and does enough to keep their customers coming back. The latter actually innovates. (within relevant time spans of course)
I see different philosophies between these 2 big camera companies. One is market share and profit driven and doles out technology in measured doses to accompish that. The other expends more effort to engineer better photographic tools; even to the detriment of their own sales volume it seems.
Unless you're a one-camera-body shop, what's the big deal in ADDING a competitive mfr's camera system to your inventory? You likely have a backup camera body and some glass you usually use with it. Can you sell it and fund a D800 and use it with a lens or 2 for the applications where it would excel over your Canon gear? Canon pro gear holds its value very well so not a big loss.
That's what I'm doing and I don't even make my living from photography at this time.
I can sell my 5D2 and the 70-200 I recently bought and that covers a new D800 and then some. I can sell my 7D and the 100-400 and that would cover a nice new 70-200 Nikkor. I'll have fewer pieces of gear but the D800 will kill the 5D2 in IQ for landscape and in crop mode will perform adequately compared to the 7D for the occasional birding I used it for.
If Canon ever brings out a hi-DR and hi MP body in the future then I'll have a good excuse to pair it with one of their tilt-shift lenses if it'll outperform the D800 in landscapes.
You have a 5D3 and 5D2 as backup?.. sell the latter and the lens(es) you use with it and buy a D800 and some glass and learn how to use it.
Pros really ought to be using the best tools for the job, brand loyalty be damned. If your work doesn't required the few benefits the D800 can provide then no worry. If you can use it, GET it. This is the kind of voting with your wallet that may spur Canon to provide us with a little more tech than they're otherwise planning to sell us for the next iteration.
As much as I prefer USING Canon gear, I'm also tired of being frustrated by a few serious shortcomings with it at times. That's enough to spur me to learn some of Nikon's user interface ideosyncracies to get better results when I need them. I think I'd rather complain about their quirky firmware and get some great shots with their gear than have a slick, easy-to-use system that can't provide the shot I want.
Having both to choose from gives me more creative options.
The former has huge marketshare and does enough to keep their customers coming back. The latter actually innovates. (within relevant time spans of course)
I see different philosophies between these 2 big camera companies. One is market share and profit driven and doles out technology in measured doses to accompish that. The other expends more effort to engineer better photographic tools; even to the detriment of their own sales volume it seems.
Unless you're a one-camera-body shop, what's the big deal in ADDING a competitive mfr's camera system to your inventory? You likely have a backup camera body and some glass you usually use with it. Can you sell it and fund a D800 and use it with a lens or 2 for the applications where it would excel over your Canon gear? Canon pro gear holds its value very well so not a big loss.
That's what I'm doing and I don't even make my living from photography at this time.
I can sell my 5D2 and the 70-200 I recently bought and that covers a new D800 and then some. I can sell my 7D and the 100-400 and that would cover a nice new 70-200 Nikkor. I'll have fewer pieces of gear but the D800 will kill the 5D2 in IQ for landscape and in crop mode will perform adequately compared to the 7D for the occasional birding I used it for.
If Canon ever brings out a hi-DR and hi MP body in the future then I'll have a good excuse to pair it with one of their tilt-shift lenses if it'll outperform the D800 in landscapes.
You have a 5D3 and 5D2 as backup?.. sell the latter and the lens(es) you use with it and buy a D800 and some glass and learn how to use it.
Pros really ought to be using the best tools for the job, brand loyalty be damned. If your work doesn't required the few benefits the D800 can provide then no worry. If you can use it, GET it. This is the kind of voting with your wallet that may spur Canon to provide us with a little more tech than they're otherwise planning to sell us for the next iteration.
As much as I prefer USING Canon gear, I'm also tired of being frustrated by a few serious shortcomings with it at times. That's enough to spur me to learn some of Nikon's user interface ideosyncracies to get better results when I need them. I think I'd rather complain about their quirky firmware and get some great shots with their gear than have a slick, easy-to-use system that can't provide the shot I want.
Having both to choose from gives me more creative options.
Upvote
0
Abraxx said:
As far as the 5d4 or 5dx or whatever the hell they decide to call it, i dont see why they couldn't add these features... i'm not an extender person myself, but seems kinda wishy-washy that they would sell an item just for it to be incompatible in AF...
Abraxx said:
The rest I really dont know if they could or if they could, if they would add them in... EF-S is a mirror problem and so they would have to redesign the mirror, again, or go mirror-less, which is another ball of wax, but they have 3-4 years to tinker with it, so who knows... GPS and Wifi has been widely clamored for, but I think if that was something quick and easy to add in, the 1d series would see them first... I wouldn't mind wifi personally but it would have to be secure and hack proof... From a laymans perspective seems more worry than benefit for event shooters. AF assist and flash... AF assist I want and dont see why they didn't include it... flash, the old foggies have always seen oncamera flash was an amateur thing, no professional in their right minds would use it, off camera yada yada yada... With the inclusion of wireless triggering, i see more benefit, but how it can meet resistance, especially older shooters, since this is geared as a prosumer camera. I wouldn't mind it but could do without if they integrate another wireless triggering without it in camera.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
Abraxx said:
Please, no! I understand the occasional utility of a popup flash for fill, etc. But in fact, the popup flash does change the form factor - that protruding bulge makes it very challenging to make adjustments on TS-E lenses.
Here's a YouTube video where at ~0:55 s you can see the shift knob on their 24mm PC-E lens hitting the protrusion of the popup flash, preventing the lens from being rotated into the desired position:
Nikon D800 and Nikon PC-E 24mm.mov
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
