DPReview Interview with Chuck Westfall of Canon USA

[zlatko]

I would say Chuck Westfall probably should've prepared better if he really wanted to present the 5Ds in a good light. As far as I can see it, it was not a good idea to compare the dynamic range of the 5Ds with the 5D Mark III, right after the DP Review guy says there has been concerns about that (DR of 5D III). He is just feeding the frenzy here. Similarly, comparing the noise capability of the 5Ds with the 7D II isn't really complementary,the latter being a crop sensor camera. I think on these notes Chuck Westfall could have just said that the 5Ds has competitive dynamic range and noise capability, and let people figure it out for themselves rather than surmising based on his comparisons.
The problem is, the camera raises too many questions to be slam dunk, the same way 6D did. It was a great camera that received negative PR due to missing some key features.
Chuck Westfall was clearly unprepared; when he was asked who would buy 5D Mark III versus a 5Ds,instead of pointing out the target audience for the newer camera and highlighting its strengths, he went on to say that people looking for lowlight performance, high ISO capability and advanced video tools would be looking for 5D Mark III, pointing out the 5Ds' shortcomings. Very odd.

Chuck did a great job and presented the camera in a good, honest and informative fashion. He's a straight shooter and doesn't play the games that you seem to want him to play.

 

[pierlux]

...Chuck Westfall was clearly unprepared; ...

Hardly. He's simply straight and honest, as always. And, frankly, I believe that a 50 MP sensor having the same DR as the 22 MP one from the 5D3 and the same noise performance as the 7D2 despite including a much stronger CFA for greater color accuracy (a feature which matters a lot to those photographers whom these cameras are intended for) represents an advancement in overall IQ over the predecessors. My only worry is that, unfortunately, for now I can't afford one, damnit! :'(

 

[zlatko]

The data I plotted was Sensorgen data derived from DxO. By the way, I've found that there are many areas on DxO data that is self-contradictory, so I generally tend not to believe any of it anymore, especially their "photographic DR" because their normalization approach is questionable at best.

Their ratings have some mysteries. At some point, DxO rated the $499 EF 100/2 USM as their highest scoring lens made by Canon. It's currently the 2nd highest, according to DxO. It's a fine lens, but that rating doesn't accord with my experience. Anyone want to confirm that the $499 EF 100/2 USM was the BEST lens that Canon made, deserving of the HIGHEST score? Currently that crown is worn by the EF 35/2 IS, with the 100/2 coming in second place, ahead of every other lens that Canon makes.

Their lens tests are total crap. They declared the 70-200/2.8L IS II no better than the I, and worse in resolving power.

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8L-IS-II-USM-measurements-and-review

By the way, my 100/2 was outstanding. Every non-L prime should be like the 100/2.

Every photographer who has tried both versions of the 70-200/2.8 says version II is better than version I. Somehow DxO doesn't agree with every photographer who has tried them. Strange.

Yep, the 100/2 is outstanding. But there are a lot of outstanding lenses in the system. I never heard any photographers say that the 100/2 is the top-most outstanding lens in the system. Only DxO said that.

 

[Loswr]

The problem is, the camera raises too many questions to be slam dunk, the same way 6D did. It was a great camera that received negative PR due to missing some key features.

And yet...the 6D remains the Top Rated dSLR on Amazon, and is the second-best selling FF dSLR on Amazon (behind the 5DIII).

 

[PureClassA]

Greetings from Friday night in New Orleans during Mardi Gras. I'll have to take some crappy DR Canon 6D pics to load for everyone....

 

[sagittariansrock]

I would say Chuck Westfall probably should've prepared better if he really wanted to present the 5Ds in a good light. As far as I can see it, it was not a good idea to compare the dynamic range of the 5Ds with the 5D Mark III, right after the DP Review guy says there has been concerns about that (DR of 5D III). He is just feeding the frenzy here. Similarly, comparing the noise capability of the 5Ds with the 7D II isn't really complementary,the latter being a crop sensor camera. I think on these notes Chuck Westfall could have just said that the 5Ds has competitive dynamic range and noise capability, and let people figure it out for themselves rather than surmising based on his comparisons.
The problem is, the camera raises too many questions to be slam dunk, the same way 6D did. It was a great camera that received negative PR due to missing some key features.
Chuck Westfall was clearly unprepared; when he was asked who would buy 5D Mark III versus a 5Ds,instead of pointing out the target audience for the newer camera and highlighting its strengths, he went on to say that people looking for lowlight performance, high ISO capability and advanced video tools would be looking for 5D Mark III, pointing out the 5Ds' shortcomings. Very odd.

Chuck did a great job and presented the camera in a good, honest and informative fashion. He's a straight shooter and doesn't play the games that you seem to want him to play.

Please don't be presumptive. I think that his responses in this interview seemed unprepared, and potentially liable to bias people against a new product instead of being objective. Clearly, your standards for good and informative might be different than mine. He does seem like an honest person, I will give you that, and I think he is quite popular for that reason.

For example, he compared the noise levels to the 7DII on the basis of pixel pitch and processor, but when the interviewer asked him why that wouldn't result in better noise performance as the sensor is much larger- he switched to saying cameras are evaluated independently. Fine, then why compare it with the 7DII and mention similar pixel pitch to begin with?

Secondly, if you are asked how the target audience of a new product is different, do you go to great lengths describing the strengths of the old product and its target audience. The interviewer had to specifically ask him again, to get him to talk about the strengths of the 5Ds, which is all he should have been espousing in this interview.

Regarding dynamic range- he says it is comparable to the 5D III. That remains to be seen- but saying that the DR hasn't changed when the interviewer specifically mentions there being concerns about it, was odd. Having said that, this was really a minor point compared to the above two, which seemed like "gaffes".

Say what you will, but I have seen a disconnect between Canon USA and Canon Inc. In a past interview, Chuck Westfall had specifically mentioned that Canon was interested in bringing back AF point illumination in 5DIII through a firmware update (unbidden, he brought it up). However, we haven't seen it yet, have we?

Anyway...

 

[sagittariansrock]

The problem is, the camera raises too many questions to be slam dunk, the same way 6D did. It was a great camera that received negative PR due to missing some key features.

And yet...the 6D remains the Top Rated dSLR on Amazon, and is the second-best selling FF dSLR on Amazon (behind the 5DIII).

So you're saying there wasn't any room for improvement? If the 6D was priced $ 100 more and had a few more key video features, or slightly better AF (not all of these, just one) then Canon could have used it to address a niche market in addition to the general entry-level FF market (videographers, action shooters, etc. on a budget). Canon could have done that without cannibalizing 5DIII sales.
If you can keep the bottomline solid AND make inroads for future market development, isn't that better?

 

[zlatko]

I would say Chuck Westfall probably should've prepared better if he really wanted to present the 5Ds in a good light. As far as I can see it, it was not a good idea to compare the dynamic range of the 5Ds with the 5D Mark III, right after the DP Review guy says there has been concerns about that (DR of 5D III). He is just feeding the frenzy here. Similarly, comparing the noise capability of the 5Ds with the 7D II isn't really complementary,the latter being a crop sensor camera. I think on these notes Chuck Westfall could have just said that the 5Ds has competitive dynamic range and noise capability, and let people figure it out for themselves rather than surmising based on his comparisons.
The problem is, the camera raises too many questions to be slam dunk, the same way 6D did. It was a great camera that received negative PR due to missing some key features.
Chuck Westfall was clearly unprepared; when he was asked who would buy 5D Mark III versus a 5Ds,instead of pointing out the target audience for the newer camera and highlighting its strengths, he went on to say that people looking for lowlight performance, high ISO capability and advanced video tools would be looking for 5D Mark III, pointing out the 5Ds' shortcomings. Very odd.

Chuck did a great job and presented the camera in a good, honest and informative fashion. He's a straight shooter and doesn't play the games that you seem to want him to play.

Please don't be presumptive. I think that his responses in this interview seemed unprepared, and potentially liable to bias people against a new product instead of being objective. Clearly, your standards for good and informative might be different than mine. He does seem like an honest person, I will give you that, and I think he is quite popular for that reason.

For example, he compared the noise levels to the 7DII on the basis of pixel pitch and processor, but when the interviewer asked him why that wouldn't result in better noise performance as the sensor is much larger- he switched to saying cameras are evaluated independently. Fine, then why compare it with the 7DII and mention similar pixel pitch to begin with?

Secondly, if you are asked how the target audience of a new product is different, do you go to great lengths describing the strengths of the old product and its target audience. The interviewer had to specifically ask him again, to get him to talk about the strengths of the 5Ds, which is all he should have been espousing in this interview.

Regarding dynamic range- he says it is comparable to the 5D III. That remains to be seen- but saying that the DR hasn't changed when the interviewer specifically mentions there being concerns about it, was odd. Having said that, this was really a minor point compared to the above two, which seemed like "gaffes".

Say what you will, but I have seen a disconnect between Canon USA and Canon Inc. In a past interview, Chuck Westfall had specifically mentioned that Canon was interested in bringing back AF point illumination in 5DIII through a firmware update (unbidden, he brought it up). However, we haven't seen it yet, have we?

Anyway...

It seems that you're seeing what you want to see. He was quite factual and I appreciate that.

 

[LovePhotography]

If you mean D55 with "natural light" - so yes the D810 outperform 5dmk3 both in color depth and resolution + color resolution, and DR at base iso, the new 5ds are tuned more against D55 with steeper color filter as in Nikon

Yet another person who doesn't grasp that a sensor isn't the same as a camera system. Actually, I don't think you're another person at all, just the same person who's never been able to grasp that simple concept, and instead repeatedly demonstrated that lack of comprehension with repetitive examples involving awnings, barbecues and sheds.

You were doing so well! A few civilized posts and everything! Alas, it seems this morning's Abilify dose is wearing thin. *sigh*

 

[privatebydesign]

The problem is, the camera raises too many questions to be slam dunk, the same way 6D did. It was a great camera that received negative PR due to missing some key features.

And yet...the 6D remains the Top Rated dSLR on Amazon, and is the second-best selling FF dSLR on Amazon (behind the 5DIII).

So you're saying there wasn't any room for improvement? If the 6D was priced $ 100 more and had a few more key video features, or slightly better AF (not all of these, just one) then Canon could have used it to address a niche market in addition to the general entry-level FF market (videographers, action shooters, etc. on a budget). Canon could have done that without cannibalizing 5DIII sales.
If you can keep the bottomline solid AND make inroads for future market development, isn't that better?

No that isn't it at all, there is room for improvement, and that is where the 6D MkII comes in, it will be enough of an upgrade to entice those 6D owners that don't want a 5D MkIV, and at the same time collect the base FF customers.

Canon have very rarely thrown everything into a body, the 1Ds MkIII is the last one they did, and it was prematurely side stepped by the largely similar and IQ same 5D MkII.

You guys might find it frustrating, I'd say stop looking at it like you are, Canon spend millions of dollars on market research to find out just how much they can get away with not giving you. If you don't like that, and they have made an allowance for you not liking it, go buy that Sony/Nikon/Fuji that you do think is the answer.

 

[skoobey]

These "marketing" people are idiots.
How many landscapre phootgraphers are there that can afford 4000$ camera that demands 2000% lens?

This is a STUDIO CAMERA. So, product photography, commercial photography!

Learn you market.

 

[kphoto99]

Tremendous resolution! No improvements in DR, no improvements on noise, no support for high precision manual focus, due to fixed focusing screen (they put it on the 6D and 7DII, but not on their flagships ), exposure metering is not following AF, no illuminated AF confirmation ... There are some more, but these were on top of my wish list. I got one out of six. :

Not including support of changeable focus screens is easily explained as a business decision.
If manual focus was easy on 5Ds then the likely hood of people buying MF Zeiss lenses is much larger instead of them buying AF lenses from Canon.
Most people who buy 6D and 7DII will not spend the money on MF Zeiss lenses so it is safe to allow them to change focusing screens.

Remember Canon's first priority is to maximize profits, if you look at Canon's decisions through this lens then most decisions make sense.

 

[zlatko]

How many landscapre phootgraphers are there that can afford 4000$ camera that demands 2000% lens?

This is a STUDIO CAMERA. So, product photography, commercial photography!

Learn you market.

I don't know. How many are there? Read the Luminous Landscape forum and they are using cameras & lenses that cost that much and much more, for landscape, product, commercial, and whatever. Some landscape photographers are willing to pay a lot for resolution. Camera makers know their market better than internet commenters do.

 

[inFocus]

Funny thing is, when the 36MP D800 was announced, Canon fanboys were all over it bashing and trashing spewing envy and hatred by saying "who needs 36MP?, 20MP is more than enough" and so many other fanboys jump in and echo the same in defense of their love for Canon.

Now that Canon answered with a much higher resolution trouncing Nikons D800/E/810 in the never ending megapixel wars, i bet the same fanboys will be the first in line to sing praises and hallelujah to the new king of megapixel cameras. (Fake Chuck Westfall are you listening?..)

Don't get me wrong, both systems are equally capable and have their own strengths and weaknesses. It's the fanboyism in both camps that's laughable. Most people come to forums like this to get information on gears and get some insights and help in making decisions. Some people lurk in forums to incite war of words defending their gear against the other reducing the forum into a kid fight. Oh well, maybe they're really kids..

 

[brad-man]

Have to disagree. I think the only time the new 5Ds will outperform the D810 is in situations where lighting can be controlled (studio, runway, pretty much any time indoors). Outside in natural light where DR really comes into play the 810 will shine.

Exactly. Because we all know the D810 outperforms the 5DIII in any sort of natural light. : : :

You know, if you keep rolling your eyes that way, they may get permanently stuck in that position

 

[sagittariansrock]

The problem is, the camera raises too many questions to be slam dunk, the same way 6D did. It was a great camera that received negative PR due to missing some key features.

And yet...the 6D remains the Top Rated dSLR on Amazon, and is the second-best selling FF dSLR on Amazon (behind the 5DIII).

So you're saying there wasn't any room for improvement? If the 6D was priced $ 100 more and had a few more key video features, or slightly better AF (not all of these, just one) then Canon could have used it to address a niche market in addition to the general entry-level FF market (videographers, action shooters, etc. on a budget). Canon could have done that without cannibalizing 5DIII sales.
If you can keep the bottomline solid AND make inroads for future market development, isn't that better?

No that isn't it at all, there is room for improvement, and that is where the 6D MkII comes in, it will be enough of an upgrade to entice those 6D owners that don't want a 5D MkIV, and at the same time collect the base FF customers.

Canon have very rarely thrown everything into a body, the 1Ds MkIII is the last one they did, and it was prematurely side stepped by the largely similar and IQ same 5D MkII.

You guys might find it frustrating, I'd say stop looking at it like you are, Canon spend millions of dollars on market research to find out just how much they can get away with not giving you. If you don't like that, and they have made an allowance for you not liking it, go buy that Sony/Nikon/Fuji that you do think is the answer.

1. When I say room for improvement, I am not talking about room for improving the 6D. I am talking about improving Canon's market share or 6D sales, or both. Please re read my post- and if it is still not clear, I apologize for my written communication skills (or lack thereof).
2. I specifically mentioned adding one of the features- not all of them. The idea would be to capture a niche market share, not to cannibalize their sales.
3. The only thing that frustrates me here is my post taken completely out of context. I have mentioned how I was disappointed that a camera like 6D ("a great camera") didn't get the PR it deserves. My 6D is a backup to my 5DIII and I never shoot video, so I am perfectly satisfied- it is a great stills camera. However, there are videographers who would have purchased the 6D in a heartbeat if it had, for example, an AA filter or microphone input or clean HDMI out. Or, maybe budget photojournalists instead who need a better AF system but no video features.

I have never, not once, bashed Canon cameras or Canon as a company on these forums for not having features that I want. In fact, quite the opposite. For example:

When Canon was pushing the megapixels, people complain about the loss in IQ and how it was important to do what Nikon did- focus on the quality.
After they stopped doing that, and created a fantastic camera in the 5D III, people pointed out how Nikon "innovated" by creating a 36 MP camera (brave business decision, yes- but purchasing a sensor from Sony and building a camera around it is not the epitome of innovation IMO).
Now that Canon has created a 50 MP camera, I hear all these naysayers.
There are, of course, Nikon haters as well- who complained about large file sizes and how the LCD looks too green blah blah blah!
It is amazing that these people never stop to think about all their own shortcomings that won't be solved by a 100MP 20-stop DR sensor. Of course, neither Canon nor Nikon pays any attention to them because the total impact created by these people outside the forum, artistically or vocally, is ZERO.
Those who know how to use their equipment will continue creating beautiful images making the best of what they have.

I don't need a 50MP camera myself, but I salute human innovation that is always pushing the boundaries. I am sure lots of people will be very happy. Go Canon!

So, I am quite surprised that I'd be lumped into "you guys" and be advised that I "go buy Sony/Nikon/Fuji...".

 

[Machaon]

Well I guess Chuck has answered the question of whether the sensor will be limited when compared to Exmor (the answer being "Yes".)

Do you mean 'limited' in the sense that it is the only 50.3 MP resolution sensor in FF format?

 

[zlatko]

Well I guess Chuck has answered the question of whether the sensor will be limited when compared to Exmor (the answer being "Yes".)

Every sensor is limited, including Exmor. It's not as if one sensor is limited and another is not. All the photography ever done was done with limited sensors.

 

[Eldar]

Tremendous resolution! No improvements in DR, no improvements on noise, no support for high precision manual focus, due to fixed focusing screen (they put it on the 6D and 7DII, but not on their flagships ), exposure metering is not following AF, no illuminated AF confirmation ... There are some more, but these were on top of my wish list. I got one out of six. :

Not including support of changeable focus screens is easily explained as a business decision.
If manual focus was easy on 5Ds then the likely hood of people buying MF Zeiss lenses is much larger instead of them buying AF lenses from Canon.
Most people who buy 6D and 7DII will not spend the money on MF Zeiss lenses so it is safe to allow them to change focusing screens.

Remember Canon's first priority is to maximize profits, if you look at Canon's decisions through this lens then most decisions make sense.

Of course you´re right and that is what pisses me off. And, unfortunately we as customers, in most cases, let them bully us into their corner, where they lock us up and suck us dry. This time my disappointment was just too much and I´m preparing to exit.

Focusing Screens in Taiwan will make an S-screen that will give us that functionality. But it is a nerv wrecking operation to change the focusing screens and it must be done on a bench with tools and good light, ref. how it´s done on the 5DIII. And you have to be able to change them, preferably when you´re in the field, if you want to use lenses slower than f2.8. So I can still get it, but it will be a lot of hassle involved. I would not be surprised though, if the 5Ds will require that you go in from the viewer side to get it out, meaning it will be impossible to change outside of a CPS shop.

How many of you shoot macro with the 100 f2.8L IS Macro? How many use manual focus in doing so? I suppose quite a few. In a sunny and high contrast situation, it is a lot easier to focus that lens manually with an Ec-S focusing screen, than using live view. I would have loved to use a capable 5Ds for that.

Another good use of a high precision focusing screen is when shooting portraits with very shallow depth of field, like with an 85 f1.2L II or 135 f2.0. Why do Canon provide manual focus override with most of their lenses, if you are unable to see that you actually got That eye in focus? I would have loved to use a capable 5Ds for that.

So Canon´s protective attitude, fuelled by their fright of letting any other company make money by allowing customers to use other lenses their own and their view on how to maximise profit, ended in my case in not buying the 5Ds and also not buying the 11-24. And I doubt I will buy any more Canon lenses. I will also stop recommending Canon to people asking for advice. A drop in their ocean, but it might be that I´m not the only one.

 

[Sporgon]

Tremendous resolution! No improvements in DR, no improvements on noise, no support for high precision manual focus, due to fixed focusing screen (they put it on the 6D and 7DII, but not on their flagships ), exposure metering is not following AF, no illuminated AF confirmation ... There are some more, but these were on top of my wish list. I got one out of six. :

Not including support of changeable focus screens is easily explained as a business decision.
If manual focus was easy on 5Ds then the likely hood of people buying MF Zeiss lenses is much larger instead of them buying AF lenses from Canon.
Most people who buy 6D and 7DII will not spend the money on MF Zeiss lenses so it is safe to allow them to change focusing screens.

Remember Canon's first priority is to maximize profits, if you look at Canon's decisions through this lens then most decisions make sense.

Of course you´re right and that is what pisses me off. And, unfortunately we as customers, in most cases, let them bully us into their corner, where they lock us up and suck us dry. This time my disappointment was just too much and I´m preparing to exit.

Focusing Screens in Taiwan will make an S-screen that will give us that functionality. But it is a nerv wrecking operation to change the focusing screens and it must be done on a bench with tools and good light, ref. how it´s done on the 5DIII. And you have to be able to change them, preferably when you´re in the field, if you want to use lenses slower than f2.8. So I can still get it, but it will be a lot of hassle involved. I would not be surprised though, if the 5Ds will require that you go in from the viewer side to get it out, meaning it will be impossible to change outside of a CPS shop.

How many of you shoot macro with the 100 f2.8L IS Macro? How many use manual focus in doing so? I suppose quite a few. In a sunny and high contrast situation, it is a lot easier to focus that lens manually with an Ec-S focusing screen, than using live view. I would have loved to use a capable 5Ds for that.

Another good use of a high precision focusing screen is when shooting portraits with very shallow depth of field, like with an 85 f1.2L II or 135 f2.0. Why do Canon provide manual focus override with most of their lenses, if you are unable to see that you actually got That eye in focus? I would have loved to use a capable 5Ds for that.

So Canon´s protective attitude, fuelled by their fright of letting any other company make money by allowing customers to use other lenses their own and their view on how to maximise profit, ended in my case in not buying the 5Ds and also not buying the 11-24. And I doubt I will buy any more Canon lenses. I will also stop recommending Canon to people asking for advice. A drop in their ocean, but it might be that I´m not the only one.

The reason that the new 5Ds and r don't have interchangeable focusing screens is because they are fundamentally a 5DIII with different sensor and mirror mechanics. I don't believe Canon intends to produce these in quantities anything like approaching 5DIII numbers, so there isn't really much new tooling.

(Conversely the reason the 6D does have interchangeable screens is because it uses many 5DII components).

The 5DIII offers much improved AF accuracy over the II, thus negating the need for a manual focus screen. Or does it ? This is the real question. Did Canon drop a feature that many people do really want ? Certainly judging from those of us on CR you would say yes, they did.

Time will tell to see if the feature returns in the 5DIV.

I don't agree with kphoto99. Purchases of Zeiss manual focus lenses are a drop in the ocean compared with AF, even the most expensive L ones.