disruptive technology and the 5D3

[dlleno]

Those following the Canon sensor technology, esp. the market disruption caused by the D800, will find this comment from the-digital-picture.com rather interesting:

Canon didn’t release any disruptive technology in this case.​

..... (of the 5D3)

which raises the question: to stay competitive, does Canon need to turn heads and release disruptive sensor technology - something that drops jaws? the t4i sensor isn't disruptive and neither is the 5D3

Even the 1DX sensor does not strike me as disruptive, from the comments and reviews anyway. the camera appears to be a highly optimized implementation of incremental changes to a mature technology, very well executed, the best Canon has ever offered and capable of outstanding performance, to be sure, but not disruptive in the case of the sensor itself. is the 1DX sensor disruptive? 1DX owners please tell us.

the problem for Canon (well for anyone looking to Canon for "disruptive" sensor technology") is that having just asserted the flagship $6K body would they then, early in the 1DX life, introduce a FF body containing a disruptively better sensor with better DR and/or RAW noise performance ? Time will tell if Canon takes any cues from Nikon in that regard.

One approach would be to introduce a disruptive capability set in a crop sensor. Its hard for me to imagine an entry level FF or even a 5D4, eclipsing the 1DX in IQ -- even if it had inferior feature set. Perhaps, however Canon could introduce a disruptively better crop sensor. With the IQ potential masked by the high pixel density, I wonder if the next generation of higher-end crop bodies might begin to approach 5D2 IQ levels, perhaps.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Can you post your disruptive technology images from your D800? I had one, and it was mostly hype, except that it did well at ISO 100 to 640. I sold it after 1000 images to someone who would use it in a studio at low ISO.

Comparing it to the D1X is a little silly, different cameras for different purposes, but if you compare even at ISO 6400, well - there is no comparison.

D800 Low noise at ISO 6400 -NOT:

D800 great DR at ISO 1100 - NOT:

At ISO 100, the DR of the D800 is fantastic. This is its strong point. Very bright sun and dark interior of monster truck with no image adjustments for DR. If only it did not take so long to edit the images. If you take one a week, it won't matter, but what about 1000 a day?

 

[dlleno]

well I said that the D800 disrupted the market; that was just my observation from reading. I wasn't claiming that the D800 sensor technology was itself disruptive -- I don't own a D800. What you are revealing here from your own original work is that the D800 sensor has its strengths but its not as disruptive as people think it is. nice work I'm glad there are people like you revealing real data and not following the hype.

But my post was not about comparing cameras (esp not Nikon vs Canon. gasp) it was about Canon's direction and technology strategy with respect to sensors. It might be best to leave the D800 out of the picture and take the-digital-picture comment at face value - -that (in his opinion) the 5D3 sensor was not "disruptive".

Similarly, I wasn't comparing anything to the 1Dx, except to muse a bit about the technology generation that Canon utilizes, noting that for any given generation Canon seems to
1. push the pixel density as far as possible on crop sensors
2. push the pixel density a little on the "lesser" FF sensors
3. bring down the pixel density to the lowest levels on the flagship bodies to optimize IQ,

I'm just observing that a newer or higher IQ technology cycle might be present or be introduced into the crop sensors, or even the higher pixel count FF sensors before appearing in the flagship body, where the pixel density is lowered to optimize several things including IQ. I'm not saying "same sensor" here I'm saying "same technology cycle. 1DX sensor appears to be in the same technology life cycle as the 5D3.

I'm also testing my hypothesis that mature sensor technologies appear in the flagship bodies, and that technologies are tested/proven out in the bodies of lower order. As for "disruptive" sensor technology -- if Canon had something, they could give it market exposure before refreshing the 1D bodies with it.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

My biggest issue with the D800 was the shortage of Nikon lenses that could take advantage of the 36mp. I've been so use to the wide array of really good Canon lenses that it came as a bit of a suprise when I started hunting for a Nikon equivalent to the 24-105mm L, and my 100-400mmL.
Nikon does have the excellent 14-24, the 24-70mm, and the 70-200mm lenses, and their 85mm f/1.4 is supurb. For non super telephoto lenses, it starts to go downhill rapidly from there. I can live with the noisy high ISO by pouring on the NR, there is, afterall, a lot of resolution to trade off with NR.
The D800 also has some better features focus points that light up, f/8 autofocus, and others. Its just a evolution of the D700. It is a great camera and deserves much of the alocades, but I really do not see it as a game changer.
In the final analysis, it was the lens situation that caused me to sell it, not the body itself. Nikon needs to expand its lens development. It got into a hole when producing only DX bodies and needs to claw its way out. At the current rate, they are not likely to catch Canon, but they will have 2-3 lenses that are better while Canon has a ton of lenses better than their counterparts.