Does Canon really deserve this?

[LovePhotography]

I've been a shutterbug since the early 1980s, but took a break in the late 1990s when my kids were born, then got back into it around 2001 when the D60 first came out, and progressed to the 40D. but, then took a break when I left it out in the rain about six years ago and just used point and shoot. This year I bought a 6D and I'm so impressed with the improvement over the 40D, and the new lenses are just crazy good. I've been going crazy buying lenses. Somebody stop me! 8-15, Sigma 50 Art (today), Sigma 24-105 Art, EF 70-200 2.8 ii, 300mm 2.8 IS II, TC 1.4 iii and TC 2.0 iii, and I'll probably find an excuse to buy the new 100-400mm, and the new 16-35 f/4. I've never owned Nikon, Sony, or the others. But even if Canon is lagging behind some of the others in some aspects, primarily sensor megapixels and frames per second, things have improved so much in the last six years it's freaking unbelievable. I really wish they would come out with a new 1Dx, and then I think I would be done with it. I wish I had time to go out and use them more. Tired of shooting close-ups of the refrigerator magnets from the other side of the kitchen.

 

[dickgrafixstop]

Yes, and no! Large industry leading companies never move fast enough for the early adopters regardless of the industry involved, but large industry leading companies are large industry leading companies because the product offerings are solid, reliable and quality products. So, what you see is what you get and you get it on the company's timetable. Your options are the same - be patient or change vendors - or re-examine your desires with a reality check. Most of us would like a high megapixel, low light marvel, fast outofocusing whiz bang camera at
a "rebel" price, but reality says it ain't gonna happen - yet.

 

[unfocused]

I have a little different viewpoint.

Many website and forums (such as this one) came about during the first decade of the 2000s, when digital cameras were an emerging technology and the pace of change was very rapid. Companies were releasing new products that tended to leapfrog one another and there was a lot to write and talk about.

As with any technology, digital cameras have matured and the pace of change has slowed. The truth is: 99% of digital cameras made today are perfectly fine for 99% of the photographs being taken of 99% of the subjects under 99% of conditions.

That leaves only those 1% issues to deal with. No company can afford to go after 100% of the customer base. It's just too expensive and offers too little return.

But, with less to talk about on forums, people fixate on tiny differences that are irrelevant to the majority of users. As with any topic, the more obscure it becomes the more intense the feelings are and we see more than our share of that.

 

[tonyespofoto]

I think it was Abraham Lincoln who said, "You can please some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time but you can't please all of the people all of the time" If it wasn't Lincoln, it should have been. In any case, should Canon tomorrow release the greatest camera ever, there will be some who complain that it is too expensive or not expensive enough. There will be pixel peepers who claim it underperforms at High ISO or Low ISO or that there are not enough pixels or that there are too many pixels or whatever!! When there are picture flaws, generally, it is the fault of the image maker. So my suggestion is to use the products as well as you can and try to learn from your mistakes. Each of my Canon cameras has been incrementally or even monumentally better than its predecessor. My 1DS MkIII has capabilities that far exceed my photographic talents. Back in '07, when I bought it, it instantaneously made me a better photographer and it has been doing that ever since. I'm as anxious as the next guy for (in my case) more pixels, but that's not holding me back from making the best images I can RIGHT NOW with the pixels I have now. I try to be thankful for the fantastic technology that has been put in our hands. I easily remember, for instance, photographing night football, follow focusing manually simultaneously changing f-stops and accepting golf ball sized grain for my efforts. At the time, it was state-of-the-art.

 

[rcarca]

The chances of any one manufacturer always being in front is slim. When I started back in photography after a rather long interlude, for better or worse I concluded that Canon had their nose ahead at that time, and I just plain liked their kit. I might or might not have been correct, but that was my judgement call. And now my kit works for me, and on the whole I feel my photography is still improving. Sure I can suffer as badly as the next person from GAS, but I do tend to restrict it to Canon GAS. I come to CanonRumors for a frequent fix to (a) know what is going on from Canon, for which thanks for the official postings, and (b) because a lot of the posts make me laugh given their utter and complete narcissism. I don't often bother posting pictures because there are quite a few unwarranted negative comments on pictures - for that I post on more supportive forums that help you develop as a photographer.

Anyway, the bottom line is that I have no intention of moving on from Canon unless something cataclysmic happens...

 

[Eldar]

I think we all agree that this is a technology forum. We add some images here and there, to show what the technology can do, but it is still a technology forum. As such, it would be a rather pointless and boring site, if we all cheered for the status quo, instead of discussing how our common technology provider could/should push the technology envelope.

 

[JonAustin]

I have a little different viewpoint.

Many website and forums (such as this one) came about during the first decade of the 2000s, when digital cameras were an emerging technology and the pace of change was very rapid. Companies were releasing new products that tended to leapfrog one another and there was a lot to write and talk about.

As with any technology, digital cameras have matured and the pace of change has slowed. The truth is: 99% of digital cameras made today are perfectly fine for 99% of the photographs being taken of 99% of the subjects under 99% of conditions.

That leaves only those 1% issues to deal with. No company can afford to go after 100% of the customer base. It's just too expensive and offers too little return.

But, with less to talk about on forums, people fixate on tiny differences that are irrelevant to the majority of users. As with any topic, the more obscure it becomes the more intense the feelings are and we see more than our share of that.

+1,000 ... Nailed it!

 

[tcmatthews]

I think Canon satisfies photographers. I think the majority of complaints come from consumers that are way more interested in the latest and greatest gear and technology, and like the science of the technology that goes into making cameras and lenses.

But go over to Nikon Rumors and you will see endless complaints about Nikon not listening to their forum experts and how all every Nikon shooter ever wanted was a "true" D700 replacement and a D300 replacement... Basically people will just complain over what they dont have.

While very true my main concern is that the market for people who are not photographers (normal camera consumers) was very large. These are the people who generally bought P&S and rebels. Many are moving to Smart phones others are moving to mirror-less. If Canon losses completely to others in the mirror-less market or becomes a joke in the eyes of consumers. We all lose.

If Canon sells fewer low end cameras the cost or R&D will have to be spread over fewer cameras. That means the cost of all Canon the gear we care about goes up.

I am currently very satisfied with my 6D. I was satisfied with my 60D when I bought it. I was seriously pissed off when they released the EOS M instead of a 70D. My 60D was trashed a month before. The 6D was two expensive at launch so I had to buy a second 60D. I was on the market for a mirror-less camera so I pre-ordered a Nex-6. It could have been a mirror-less Canon to tie me over until the 70D. Over the next year I used my Nex-6 80% of the time the 60D 20% and if it was not for ML it would have been 10% or less.

I plan on using Canon cameras for my wildlife photography and the 6D in low light. But I also plan on buying a few Sony FE lens for my eventual purchase of a full frame Sony mirror-less camera for everything else. Unless things change. I am intentionally moving slowly hoping Canon will do something. But all I see is others releasing innovative products.

For me Does Canon really deserve it? Yes some of it. The 7D was 2-3 years late. The 70D was a year late. The EOS M really should have had a EVF as a option. The 6D is on paper boring even if the image quality if fantastic. Released after the Nikon D600 it just looked plain bad. At the time nobody knew the Nikon was critically flawed oil slinger. Canons WiFi app to remote control is so bad I often think of hacking my own. I thought the Sony WiFi App was bad little did I know Canons was laughably worst. The EOS M is a glorified P&S. I could go on but the complaints about the EOS M have been made elsewhere and do not see the point.

Who knew a company who used to be known as a market leader in innovation could become so conservative. For full frame photographers Canon make excellent gear. Nikon is really only competition at that level. I would chose Canon every time over Nikon. But in the lower end enthusiast cameras everyone is out innovating Canon/Nikon.

 

[Marauder]

I have a little different viewpoint.

Many website and forums (such as this one) came about during the first decade of the 2000s, when digital cameras were an emerging technology and the pace of change was very rapid. Companies were releasing new products that tended to leapfrog one another and there was a lot to write and talk about.

As with any technology, digital cameras have matured and the pace of change has slowed. The truth is: 99% of digital cameras made today are perfectly fine for 99% of the photographs being taken of 99% of the subjects under 99% of conditions.

That leaves only those 1% issues to deal with. No company can afford to go after 100% of the customer base. It's just too expensive and offers too little return.

But, with less to talk about on forums, people fixate on tiny differences that are irrelevant to the majority of users. As with any topic, the more obscure it becomes the more intense the feelings are and we see more than our share of that.

+1,000 ... Nailed it!

Nailed it indeed!

And regarding Canon's overuse of the 18MP crop sensor in many models, just look at the number of Nikon's using the same Sony 24mp sensor over the last TWO years (3200, 3300, 5200, 5300), compared to the five years the 7D through T5 encompasses--and that's not even including the various other cameras from other mfr's using the same sensor. Bottom line--companies try to get as much life out of a sensor as they can to maximise profitability.

As to the resolution and DR advantages of the Sony sensors--well, when the 18MP sensor was introduced in the 7D, Nikon was using a 10 MP sensor (D3000) and they only went to a 14.2MP sensor for the D3100. At that time, Nikon advocates were very vocal that megapixels weren't important and that Nikon was above playing the "megapixel war." My how times have changed!!!!

As for the DR issue, every single example illustrating this advantage has been so extreme that both final images were simply repulsive. When the caveat "sure they both look terrible--but the Canon one is worse!" is the disclaimer for a test well---you lost me at "they both look terrible." I think the difference is there, but it's not nearly so significant as too many would have you believe. DXO Mark and it's followers have way too much clout with forum posters and some reviewers as well. It's like some sort of Holy Grail. There are other very important areas and Canon leads in things like AF accuracy and buffer sizes, at least for moving subjects (at least for now!).

I certainly don't blame Nikon and Sony (and Fuji, Olympus and now Samsung) users for loving their products. Truth be told, we are lucky to have so many high quality choices as photographers. The notion of trashing one team to extoll the another, like it's a sports team seems tedious and silly to me. I'm happy I'm a Canon shooter and I think the 7D Mark II shows that Canon is making products that I want.

Certainly, if another company is making something you want more, then you should just go out and reward that other company for giving you what you desire. For myself--I'm saving my beans for a 7D Mark II some time in the Spring! (Do they even take beans at Henry's???)

 

[ChristopherMarkPerez]

I've been a photographer for many decades and Canon has been a great company to deal with.

I'm also abundantly aware of how image making is changing very very rapidly. Cell-phones, mirrorless, in-camera image-processing, and social media have changed photography from showing us the world to sharing experiences.

It's in this area that I think Canon is struggling to come to grips with. They have a long legacy and deep tradition that keeps them on the product development path they're currently on.

When you watch companies that have nothing to loose and something to win invest strongly in tech integration it's hard not to wonder what Canon's thinking is. Do they want to play in the expanded rapidly changing image-making space? Or will they remain devoted to traditional image creation and a shrinking market?

If traditional gear providers go belly-up, their equipment will remain great tools for making photographs. I used to deploy Korona, Deardorff, Kodak, and Folmer and Schwing cameras and lenses. Where are these companies today? They failed to keep up with changing market conditions. However, the fact they no longer exist does nothing to invalidate the art they still enable, even today.

 

[StudentOfLight]

I don't know if anyone else received a request to participate in a Canon customer survey (probably about 2 months ago.) Anyway given the opportunity to provide honest and thoughtful feedback was quite eye opening.

Going through those survey questions really got me thinking about what is really important for me. And by the end, when asked what I felt was the one thing Canon should do to add real value to my business, I can guarantee you that it was not for them to make a sensor with more dynamic range at ISO 100. There were at three things more important than that. They asked for 1 thing but I gave them 3, none of which was a higher DR sensor.

 

[9VIII]

Canon now has a few chinks in their armour vs. totally dominating the industry. If you're used to having the best of everything all the time then that's a big change.

I just want some higher resolution bodies.

 

[lescrane]

I still have 2 Canon SLRS and a couple Canon lenses. Why? I came over from Canon film cameras by default *and* I always found Canon's controls more user friendly than Nikons.(maybe because it's what I know)

That being said I find that canon has been complacent over the past 5 years. They have not done much truly innovative in overall design and usability. Remember, Canon was the first with today's concept of IS lenses(I dont mean "dual pixel focusing" which is just a background technology.). Sony has killed Canon in the mirrorless, with the EOS M virtually unsaleable until they cut the price in half. Canon seems to try to get away with providing the least in terms of incremental changes with new models.

Canon has charged a huge premium for its lenses when they could. Amazing how folks here were jumping for joy when the 100-400 IS L II was announced at "only" $2200.00, $500 or $600 more than version I. I used to buy almost all Canon lenses. My last 3 lenses were Sigma and Tamron. The quality gap bet. Canon and many independents is less than the price gap.

I don't "hate" or "love" Canon. In fact I just bought a Pixma Pro printer after years of working with Epsons. I love it. However, I think they have squandered their position with "loyal" customers by falling behind in innovation and value.

 

[scyrene]

In general, people with a grievance will make more fuss than those who are satisfied - in all areas of life.

 

[scyrene]

Yes, and no! Large industry leading companies never move fast enough for the early adopters regardless of the industry involved, but large industry leading companies are large industry leading companies because the product offerings are solid, reliable and quality products. So, what you see is what you get and you get it on the company's timetable. Your options are the same - be patient or change vendors - or re-examine your desires with a reality check. Most of us would like a high megapixel, low light marvel, fast outofocusing whiz bang camera at
a "rebel" price, but reality says it ain't gonna happen - yet.

(My bold) This is worth remembering. It's easier for small businesses to be quirky, or take risks. Sony isn't a small company, but their camera division by all accounts makes a loss, and they fire out products hoping to gain customers by supporting it from other profitable areas. They clearly make good products (the sensor in the 645Z has me salivating), but they don't have a position to defend in this field yet.

I have a little different viewpoint.

Many website and forums (such as this one) came about during the first decade of the 2000s, when digital cameras were an emerging technology and the pace of change was very rapid. Companies were releasing new products that tended to leapfrog one another and there was a lot to write and talk about.

As with any technology, digital cameras have matured and the pace of change has slowed. The truth is: 99% of digital cameras made today are perfectly fine for 99% of the photographs being taken of 99% of the subjects under 99% of conditions.

That leaves only those 1% issues to deal with. No company can afford to go after 100% of the customer base. It's just too expensive and offers too little return.

But, with less to talk about on forums, people fixate on tiny differences that are irrelevant to the majority of users. As with any topic, the more obscure it becomes the more intense the feelings are and we see more than our share of that.

Again, yes. As many have said (yet some refuse to believe), any modern camera *can* take good photographs. People argue about minutiae - which is good, but should obscure the amazing advances made already.

 

[Maximilian]

Does Canon really deserve this?

Short answer:
NO!
Little bit longer one:
No, but they should keep up with their developments.

Best answer:

I have a little different viewpoint.

Many website and forums (such as this one) came about during the first decade of the 2000s, when digital cameras were an emerging technology and the pace of change was very rapid. Companies were releasing new products that tended to leapfrog one another and there was a lot to write and talk about.

As with any technology, digital cameras have matured and the pace of change has slowed. The truth is: 99% of digital cameras made today are perfectly fine for 99% of the photographs being taken of 99% of the subjects under 99% of conditions.

That leaves only those 1% issues to deal with. No company can afford to go after 100% of the customer base. It's just too expensive and offers too little return.

But, with less to talk about on forums, people fixate on tiny differences that are irrelevant to the majority of users. As with any topic, the more obscure it becomes the more intense the feelings are and we see more than our share of that.

Thank you, unfocused, to get it 100% on spot.

Nothing more to say.

 

[scyrene]

Satisfied Canon user here. My take is that there are far too many folks on the forum who think technology makes the photo. They are more concerned with test results, sensor comparisons and all the technical information that is on the web. Test results show that other sensors are better, therefore Canon sucks - is the basic thought process. They are obsessed with noise and DR. Many of us who spent many years with film admittedly don't get it. Photos can be grainy - and quite frankly - often look better grainy than having the plastic-smooth overly processed look. More DR means less contrast - yet contrast could be considered more important in the eyes of many. Folks want more MP, and yet on at least a few websites, reviewers note that without a tripod, there is no difference between 24 MP and 36 MP. And, yet, people want even more MPs! Unless you print larger than 8" x 10" there is virtually no difference between photos taken with an SL1 with kit lens and a 6D with "L" lens, but people want to believe that they need the best cameras and the best lenses. (In fact, at 8' x 10" printed size, there is no discernible difference between pics taken with my old Canon 300D and my new 6D). So if a Sony sensor tests as being 10% better than the Canon sensor, then obviously the Sony pics will be so much better...although you probably won't be able to tell the difference purely by eye!

A good photo is the result of subject matter, composition, atmosphere, contrast, color. And yet, it seems like those topics aren't even considered by many. For them a good photo is judged by the amount of noise and the Dynamic Range.

All that being said, there are some folks you take pics in extreme conditions - very low light, astrophotography, etc. For them, the difference is meaningful and I can understand their frustration. If Canon doesn't meet their needs they should switch. There is no reason to think that Canon has the knowledge (or the ability to come up with new patents that don't infringe on Sony's patents) to substantially improve their sensors in the near future. But if all you need is a solid, dependable camera that will last you 5 to 10 years and take great pictures, then there is no reason to be disappointed. If you want the latest and greatest and want to upgrade every two years, then by all means, switch.

I think technology is relevant to what shots you can take - in some areas at least. There's a rough hierarchy, so landscapes and street work require less specialist equipment than wildlife, sports, or macro photography, for instance. Shaving a kilo of a super telephoto lens, or adding IS, for instance, can allow new work to be made. But I also agree that some people fixate on the device, and don't seem to have much understanding of the creative possibilities already available, which is a shame for them.

 

[scyrene]

I browse this website quite often since 2012. I have never seen so many negative comments about Canon these days in comparison with before.
Has Canon really not satisfying its customers lately or is it that there are new members in the forum who like to put down Canon in comparison with other companies?

you might want to check other websites too.
dpreview, petapixel, f-stopper etc. etc. etc.

they all are very critical about canon these days.
and i don´t speak about the comments, i mean the articles.

dpreview suprised me with it harsh words the most "boring cameras becoming the hallmark of canon".... that was basically what they said in one of their 6D articles.

canon has overall a worse reputation in the media then 3 years ago.

I think the internet chatter has become more negative. But reviews are still solid in most areas. Dpreview rightly point out that DR at low ISO isn't as good in Canon cameras as Sony sensor ones, for instance, but they still rate Canon *cameras* (and lenses, etc) as good - which they are, overall. Canon is *good*, overall. Not perfect. Nobody thinks they are, nobody is.

 

[AvTvM]

Re: Does Canon really deserve this? YES. they plain suck.

Yes, Canon deserves it 100%.
For boring me with their tiny iterations of ever so boring, fat tired old mirrorslappers.
Ever so tiny iterations on their sensors, having long lost the lead they had a few years ago and constantly falling further back against competition.
Refusal to include Wifi, *** and RT radio flash commanders even in pro-grade cameras (5D III), even in 2014 (7D II).
Crippling cameras in hardware and even in firmware, wherever possible.
While constantly driving up prices. 5D3 500 Euro more than Nikon D800 ... just ridiculous!

Sold almost all of my Canon gear by now, only holding on to the EOS-M and a few lenses to tide me over until a hopefully absolutely amazing, (semi-)pro Sony A9 mirrorless cam arrives. Hoping for February. If the 3 remaining A7R weaknesses are fixed - shutter, AF tracking capability, battery charge ... then my 15 years of digital Canon camera ownership will end. Looking forward to it.

Canon and their geriatric ward management simply does not deserve my business any longer. They are not trying hard enough. They are not trying at all. So I'll leave 'em in the dust. 8)

Sayonara Mr. Maeda & assorted Canon mirrorslappass!

 

[PhotoCat]

Re: Does Canon really deserve this? YES. they plain suck.

Refusal to include Wifi, *** and RT radio flash commanders even in pro-grade cameras (5D III), even in 2014 (7D II).
Crippling cameras in hardware and even in firmware, wherever possible.
While constantly driving up prices. 5D3 500 Euro more than Nikon D800 ... just ridiculous!

I would agree on these points.

At the same time Nikon & Sony are bending over backwards to give their customers the
best technology they have. e.g. High DR sensor technology and in-camera stabilization,
while keeping the price reasonable.

On the plus side, I hv to admit Canon still has a clear lead in in-camera jpg rendering for portraits/skin tone.
Nikon & Sony don't even come close. Magic Lantern Support is another super plus!
I can live with a lower DR sensor & use expensive IS lenses but I can't go without the amazing jpg skin tone
rendering & ML advanced metering control! Therefore I am sticking with Canon!