Does Canon really deserve this?

[StudentOfLight]

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!

Good luck with your new venture. Did you take a hit financially or did you come out relatively even?

 

[Northbird]

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.

+1

Well said, not perfect but Canon meets the needs of many demanding amateurs and pros alike. No regrets in choosing Canon for my photography requirements.

 

[Maui5150]

But now, with mirrorless arriving and sony having more resources (and probably patents) for sensor research, I feel uneasiness grows if you've bet on the right horse. Canon might very well pull a rabbit out of the hat and surprise us all, but flat out denial that further sensor enhancement (dr or resolution) can be can be beneficial to some is counterproductive: No smoke without fire. Calling people names doesn't help either.

Sony having more resources?

How long has Canon been in the photography business? How long has Sony?

I don't think I have seen Canon post a loss in recent years. Sony just will post over $2B loss for the year.

VCRS
TVS
PCS

These were all businesses in which Sony was not only aggressive, but considered the leader.

Where is Betamax these days?
VAIO?
XBR TVs?

Also note. The original projected loss was $466 Million, so they really hit the s&^&*(tter on that one. They are doing o.k. with their imaging, but as far as I can see the big chunk of that is the sale of their sensors to other manufacturers

One of Sony's bright spots is their Devices division, which basically is semiconductors and other parts to other manufacturers.

Major layoffs and can see Sony out of the phone business in the next year if not two years and I am predicting the Camera lines will be the next to go. I can see Sony remaining in the Sensors

There will always be niche adopters, but can Sony sell enough bodies and lenses year over year to justify R&D costs when they are posting increasing losses.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

I see this inferiority complex, as a side effect of excessive reading camera tests. ??? More specifically DXO Mark. :

It reminds me of some men who watch porn movies, and are feeling inferior, because the actors have "tools" greater than theirs. :-\

In my opinion, if DXO Mark invent a test to measure the performance of the male member, Nikon users will have a higher score. ;D But what use is such score in the real world? 8)

 

[slclick]

Let's see Canon's financials compared to it's competitors.

 

[AvTvM]

Let's see Canon's financials compared to it's competitors.

Not in the least interested. Don't own canon stocks.
Only interested in products and solutions that make it as easy as possible to get the images i want. Or to get them at all. That's all that matters to me. Unfortunately canon no longer offers the best solutions to me. Things were quite different 2004-2007, when canon ruled the digital stills imaging world.

 

[slclick]

Let's see Canon's financials compared to it's competitors.

Not in the least interested. Don't own canon stocks.
Only interested in products and solutions that make it as easy as possible to get the images i want. Or to get them at all. That's all that matters to me. Unfortunately canon no longer offers the best solutions to me. Things were quite different 2004-2007, when canon ruled the digital stills imaging world.

Your response was a bit to literal for my semi-rhetorical post. But I can see how some wouldn't get the gist.

 

[dtaylor]

In regard to mirrorless? Yes.
Canon deserves flak. The M had potential but Canon blew the launch and then failed to follow up. Sickening considering how good and economical their initial lenses were, and how good the M actually was once the AF was fixed.

In regard to sensors? No.
Fantasy: Canon stands still while Sony delivers us wonderful, ever increasing DR, resolution, and high ISO. Now Canon is best used for Facebook.

Reality: Sony had the jump on base ISO DR when they moved ADCs on chip. That difference hasn't changed, if anything it has shrunk as Canon has gotten banding under control. But this is the one respect in which Canon is truly, actually behind.

Canon has improved high ISO over time...even in the 18 MP line...and the 7D2 is the best crop right now at high ISO. Despite its age the 5D3 holds its own against the A7/A7R and D750/D810 at high ISO.

You will never see differences in print between 18 vs 20 vs 22 vs 24 MP, and to see the differences 22 vs. 36 MP your technique better be perfect and your prints 36" or larger. All of the sensors over the past few years have had nearly identical output, but if you bump the MP count the average consumer thinks "shiny new sensor" and "ohhh...if i get this camera my pictures will have 24 MP and that has to be better then 20 MP because 24 > 20, right?" :

In regard to lenses? No, except maybe on price.
This is where Canon innovates and really delivers, more then anyone else. Heck, there's probably an even split between people who buy an A7 to use Leica glass and people who buy an A7 to use Canon glass! The only complaint is the price on new L glass. Remember when Canon beat Nikon on price to?

In regard to service/support? No, they are arguably the best out there.

In regard to video? Mixed.

DPAF is actually fairly innovative and a joy to use with a touch screen. But they are clearly protecting their cinema line by holding off on 4k introduction in consumer DSLRs.

And whatever is happening in their firmware people are complaining that their 1080p output is not as sharp as that from other cameras. (And this is a firmware issue because with 18-22 MP to work from there should be no issue producing sharp 1080p. I'll note their JPEG engine might be great in terms of color, but similarly sucks in terms of sharpness/fine detail vs. their RAWs in ACR.)

In regard to "wow this is NEW" factor? Yes.

Even though the buying public still runs to DSLRs, those who talk about cameras are enamored with mirrorless. The MILC companies are thrashing around introducing new bodies, configurations, and features hoping to boost sales. Those who talk about cameras see this as "innovation." Sometimes it is, but the reality is that they are struggling with underlying problems that hamper consumer and professional adoption.

Example: The NX1 is "exciting" because Samsung never had anything like this before, and because they have pushed paper specs. The 7D2 is "boring" because the 7D before it was so good to begin with there's not a lot to improve. But which camera actually serves the needs of the sports/wildlife market? The 7D2 because the NX1 doesn't have any lenses, initial reports are that AF still struggles in situations where you would expect mirrorless to struggle, and few action photographers want to deal with an EVF. You can't overcome that with "exciting."

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

In regard to mirrorless? Yes.
Canon deserves flak. The M had potential but Canon blew the launch and then failed to follow up. Sickening considering how good and economical their initial lenses were, and how good the M actually was once the AF was fixed.

In regard to sensors? No.
Fantasy: Canon stands still while Sony delivers us wonderful, ever increasing DR, resolution, and high ISO. Now Canon is best used for Facebook.

Reality: Sony had the jump on base ISO DR when they moved ADCs on chip. That difference hasn't changed, if anything it has shrunk as Canon has gotten banding under control. But this is the one respect in which Canon is truly, actually behind.

Canon has improved high ISO over time...even in the 18 MP line...and the 7D2 is the best crop right now at high ISO. Despite its age the 5D3 holds its own against the A7/A7R and D750/D810 at high ISO.

You will never see differences in print between 18 vs 20 vs 22 vs 24 MP, and to see the differences 22 vs. 36 MP your technique better be perfect and your prints 36" or larger. All of the sensors over the past few years have had nearly identical output, but if you bump the MP count the average consumer thinks "shiny new sensor" and "ohhh...if i get this camera my pictures will have 24 MP and that has to be better then 20 MP because 24 > 20, right?" :

Speak for yourself. I don't care a whit about mirrorless and yet the ways they are behind in sensors does matter to me. And 36MP vs 22MP difference can be seen in prints and even much more when shooting wildlife and you are distance limited (7D vs 5D3 the difference is clear for wildlife).

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

And whatever is happening in their firmware people are complaining that their 1080p output is not as sharp as that from other cameras. (And this is a firmware issue because with 18-22 MP to work from there should be no issue producing sharp 1080p. I'll note their JPEG engine might be great in terms of color, but similarly sucks in terms of sharpness/fine detail vs. their RAWs in ACR.)

Yeah I wonder what is going on. Is it using really bad parameters and something that could be a firmware fix or does the DIGIC chip just utterly stink at de-Bayer and image processing in general (I do note the Cxx line didn't use the latest DSLR DIGIC chips but they stuck some much older Canon DV chips inside instead....)? Or is marketing literally having them apply a Gaussian blur or something right before sending to the compression codec?

They also refuse to put even the most basic video usability aids like zebra, focus peaking, zoomed focusing boxes and insist those are 'extremely high-end features' :. And even on a wildlife cam like the 7D2 they fail to put in a zoomed video mode :.

Magic Lantern fixes all of that (although the IQ only when shooting RAW video which avoids both most of what DIGIC does and whatever most of the firmware settings apply to the RAW video output). But Canon simply refuses. Reminds of the way they took more than a decade to finally dribble out fully functional AutoISO, such a minor 10 cent feature, and yet they treated it like their precious, such an utterly silly marketing game that probably didn't make more than 10 people total over the last decade upgrade to something higher-end and yet probably left a bad impression in thousands and tens of thousands of customers and all those dinky little moves maybe look good in the short run, but in the long run they make the userbase become less and less loyal and quicker to get get upset and go nuts over every little thing. Seems like a foolish way to do business, but I guess that is just me. I mean just look at how nuts people went over the silly minor impossible ad campaign in the USA. Half a decade ago it might have gone down fine or at least neutral, now people went nuts in anger. I said years ago Canon was heading this way, nobody believed me, but you could see the writing on the wall as to their userbase eventually becoming jumpy and easily agitated.

 

[rfdesigner]

Comparing sony to canon.. sony did Trinitron, they really know about displays and image quality.. An ex sony guy I worked with told me about the time they stopped a multi-million pound production line because they found one corner pixel in one screen wasn't being driven right. I also do astronomy, sony sensors there are leading the field, their dark noise is so phenominal many are no longer using dark frames (although their pixel sizes are too small for me, so I have a mono Kodak sensor in my astro cam).

I also have a Sony viao laptop, a sony TV and blueray player.. whilst the hardware is fantastic, the software and user interface is lousy lousy lousy.. any more Sony gear will get a thorough software test before acceptance, I'm seriously put off Sony cameras.

Canon win when it comes to the user interface, they lose on the DR of their sensors, but for most people, most of the time that really doesn't matter. Until the 1Dx, 5DIII and 7DII autofocus was poor, but that's filtering through now, there's the DR "issue".. which for tthe vast majority of people is a non-issue.

Nikon also did an utter no-no in the early days which means I'll never trust them. They provided a "helpful" hot pixel removal algorithum that was applied to RAW frames (yes.. Nikon RAW wasn't raw, they lied), for astro shots this was crucial as we average away noise and take hot pixel maps and dark frames to "fix" sensors.. the Nikon "fix" deleated stars and even when you turned it off in the menus it didn't actually turn it off fully. Sorry Nikon, RAW is supposed to be RAW, you might not do that now, but you've shown that you are prepared to fettle with RAW frames and still pretend they're RAW, for me that's a permanent deal breaker.

I only have a 30D and a couple of lenses although more bits are planned, but it's a million miles better than my old film praktica kit that I upgraded from, the user interface is gorgeous, not so much the menus, more the way I can configure the camera the way I want, then turn it to the green box mode and hand it to someone else and they can still get a shot.. In a sense I'm still living in 2006 so I'm less effected. I'd never go to a "compact" camera of any sort, not because small isn't handy, but because pocket cameras always have some level of auto-stuff-the-shot-unclever-software in the way.

DSLRs give you control and speed and a choice of fast wide aperture lenses... couple that to RAW frames that really are RAW, canon support for the astro community and great user interfaces and I'm here to stay.

Just do me one favor please Canon.

Bring out a foveon like 5DIV with a million ISO (with pixel binning for sub-zero-light).. so that the 5DIII prices on the second hand market half and I can pick one up without breaking the bank!

 

[Marauder]

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!

When I roll my eyes at the fanatical absurdity of the mirrorless crowd, this is exactly the sort of post to which I'm referring!

 

[dtaylor]

Speak for yourself. I don't care a whit about mirrorless and yet the ways they are behind in sensors does matter to me.

"Ways"...they are behind in base ISO DR.

And 36MP vs 22MP difference can be seen in prints

I've performed blind and even double blind tests and neither I nor my colleagues could sort the prints. Forgive me if I don't take your word on this one.

You start to see small differences at 30/36". And I would emphasize "start" and "small."

 

[dtaylor]

They also refuse to put even the most basic video usability aids like zebra, focus peaking, zoomed focusing boxes and insist those are 'extremely high-end features' :. And even on a wildlife cam like the 7D2 they fail to put in a zoomed video mode :.

Fair points when it comes to video...maybe enough that "mixed" should be "yes."

 

[DominoDude]

My take on Canons position today, is that I think it's influenced by damages during the 2011 tsunami (http://www.canon.com/news/2011/mar13e.html). Even if such reports are toned down publicly, I would imagine that it shifts focus and has forced them to alter the plans and how to handle future events of similar kind. Any disaster of that magnitude should raise a few flags at the top management levels, and if they plan to be around for a long time as a company it has to be addressed.

I refuse to believe that they are ignorant of what the competition has been up to and how that has altered the playing field. I can't say that I have a firm insight of how they think at Canon, but I, still, believe in their strategies.

They might have taken one on the chin, but 七転び八起き - Nana korobi ya oki...

 

[Marauder]

My take on Canons position today, is that I think it's influenced by damages during the 2011 tsunami (http://www.canon.com/news/2011/mar13e.html). Even if such reports are toned down publicly, I would imagine that it shifts focus and has forced them to alter the plans and how to handle future events of similar kind. Any disaster of that magnitude should raise a few flags at the top management levels, and if they plan to be around for a long time as a company it has to be addressed.

I refuse to believe that they are ignorant of what the competition has been up to and how that has altered the playing field. I can't say that I have a firm insight of how they think at Canon, but I, still, believe in their strategies.

They might have taken one on the chin, but 七転び八起き - Nana korobi ya oki...

I think you are correct. I've long thought that the long delay for the 200-400 with 1.4 extender was due to the tsunami, and it probably impacted the release date of the 7D2 as well. I suspect it was a far more serious event for them than most realize. They may have lost key personnel, not to mention employees who went through trauma of losing loved ones--all this in addition to damage to Canon facilities. I think the tsunami probably set them back a few years at least--maybe even several years for some developments.

 

[rrcphoto]

My take on Canons position today, is that I think it's influenced by damages during the 2011 tsunami (http://www.canon.com/news/2011/mar13e.html). Even if such reports are toned down publicly, I would imagine that it shifts focus and has forced them to alter the plans and how to handle future events of similar kind. Any disaster of that magnitude should raise a few flags at the top management levels, and if they plan to be around for a long time as a company it has to be addressed.

I refuse to believe that they are ignorant of what the competition has been up to and how that has altered the playing field. I can't say that I have a firm insight of how they think at Canon, but I, still, believe in their strategies.

They might have taken one on the chin, but 七転び八起き - Nana korobi ya oki...

I think you are correct. I've long thought that the long delay for the 200-400 with 1.4 extender was due to the tsunami, and it probably impacted the release date of the 7D2 as well. I suspect it was a far more serious event for them than most realize. They may have lost key personnel, not to mention employees who went through trauma of losing loved ones--all this in addition to damage to Canon facilities. I think the tsunami probably set them back a few years at least--maybe even several years for some developments.

Canon Utsunomiya was hit by significant quake damage and also radiation - which holds canon optical R&D and some of it's lens production facilities. Also canon Optron which is in Yuki had damage to it's facilities and it's the one that grows the fluorite crystals for canon lenses and ALSO .. Canon Fukushima was the hardest hit area from both radiation and quake damage (as far as canon plants) and they create canon DLSR's.

it's really hard to say how much that tossed off canon.

there's a reason they decided to come out with the 7D version 2.0 instead of releasing a new camera more or less on schedule.

 

[jrista]

I browse this website quite often since 2012. I have never seen so many negative comments about Canon these days in comparison with before.

Here's my take:

For many, buying into a dslr system is a major investment you cannot revert w/o losing a lot of €€€ and time to re-learn procedures. And of course there's an emotional attachment to a brand that was in your pocket for all your life. For all this time, people were happy with Canon, keeping lenses longer and changing camera bodies more frequently. Canon made a good transition from film to digital.

But now, with mirrorless arriving and sony having more resources (and probably patents) for sensor research, I feel uneasiness grows if you've bet on the right horse. Canon might very well pull a rabbit out of the hat and surprise us all, but flat out denial that further sensor enhancement (dr or resolution) can be can be beneficial to some is counterproductive: No smoke without fire. Calling people names doesn't help either.

Furthermore, with more cpu power there are more opportunities to harvest this new resource - but Canon seems to be very set upon continuing exactly what they've done for the last decade. So apart from the hardware side, a very conservative software policy results in very stable, working products. But question if this balance won't tip to their disadvantage some time - Magic Lantern won't be around forever for the rescue like with focus peaking, raw histogram and raw video.

Last not least, there's the "value" aspect and the pure competition pressure from Nikon/Sony and 3rd party gear (lenses, flashes). If you are able to afford $15k+ gear, I imagine you're fine with Canon. But seeing what offers are around, you wonder if some rubber rings for weather sealing, a lens hood, ..., shouldn't be a given w/o buying their premium model(s).

+1 Very well put!


For me, I like Canon, I think they are one of the best brands available and in most respects they have the best offerings. I do feel they are lagging behind...have been lagging behind, technologically, for some time now. As someone very heavily invested in Canon (to the tune of over $20,000, with a significant chunk of that in one single lens), and who does care about being able to use the best technology available with my very expensive lenses (for a variety of reasons I won't go into), it is frustrating to see Canon innovate in the photography segment as minimally as possible while their competitors innovate up a storm.


I think Canon does deserve some of the criticism they get. That said, overall, I think they are a great company, they make great products, and overall I'm quite satisfied with my Canon equipment. I'm also happy to buy into other systems...I think an A7 series camera will find its way into my kit at some point in the not too distant future. I think the Samsung NX1 could very well find it's way into my kit as well. So long as I can get good lenses for these cameras, or adapt my Canon lenses, I no longer see any real reason to be a single-brand loyalist. There are AWESOME products out there, some highly innovative and very cutting edge...might as well take advantage of them.

 

[Sportsgal501]

I'm a little annoyed at the number of bodies they put the 18mp sensor in, t2i, t3i, t4i, t5i, t5, sl1, 60d, 7d, and the mirror less... seriously... if you do portrait or landscape, there hasn't been a rebel worth upgrading to because it is all the same camera... unless you rely on auto focus.

I didn't realize they had so many with the 18mp sensor....

 

[zlatko]

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.

Time after time, my Canon gear delivers the photos I want. Brilliantly. There is always room for improvement, but in truth I have very little to complain about. I've tried a number of different brands, and each has its faults.

I'm at the point where the 5D3 is doing everything I need it to do and getting what I want from it with minimal hassle. The 600rts, the superb lineup of lenses and AF is what keeps me here. If another company did a better system than canon, I'd be there already.

Yep, that sums it up for me too.