EOS 5D Mark IV Testing Has Begun [CR2]

[privatebydesign]

...Clearly, there are things they felt were more deserving of R&D expenditures.

Or much more likely, they just aren't capable with their 20year old semiconductor technology...

That would be a remarkably naive assessment.

They probably look at it that they can make the money they are with the tech they are selling, ergo how much more revenue would they generate if they spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a new sensor fabrication line? Probably a wiser investment to diversify (cinema, security, etc) and bring a unique twist to their DSLR system like lens selection and flashes. Probably closer to the truth.......

Regardless of their fab, there could be patent issues preventing them from doing it. I could have formulated myself better, but making statements that assume they are able to is just speculation and should be formulated as such not as facts.

Considering the tech they have showcased, the number of patents they register every year, and their R&D size when compared to their competitors I feel fairly confident is stating my opinion that Canon have not spent the money on a sensor fab so far because they haven't seen the return opportunity, nit because they don't have the tech.

 

[Loswr]

...Clearly, there are things they felt were more deserving of R&D expenditures.

Or much more likely, they just aren't capable with their 20year old semiconductor technology...

That would be a remarkably naive assessment.

They probably look at it that they can make the money they are with the tech they are selling, ergo how much more revenue would they generate if they spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a new sensor fabrication line? Probably a wiser investment to diversify (cinema, security, etc) and bring a unique twist to their DSLR system like lens selection and flashes. Probably closer to the truth.......

Regardless of their fab, there could be patent issues preventing them from doing it. I could have formulated myself better, but making statements that assume they are able to is just speculation and should be formulated as such not as facts.

Considering the tech they have showcased, the number of patents they register every year, and their R&D size when compared to their competitors I feel fairly confident is stating my opinion that Canon have not spent the money on a sensor fab so far because they haven't seen the return opportunity, nit because they don't have the tech.

+1

They've been behind on low ISO DR for ~6 years. During that time, Canon has maintained market share and they remain the DSLR market leader. Why should they spend money to increase low ISO DR - to appease a few people who complain about it on the Internet? That makes no fiscal sense.

 

[LonelyBoy]

Exactly. I don't see why people are against a feature that causes no harm when not in use, and which could come in handy at times.

You know why? You just want a popup flash. Someone else just wants 4k video. Another guy wants a swivel screen. She wants a swivel screen. He wants a better microphone. Their kid wants a SIM slot to upload pics to Instagram directly from the camera. Sooner or later you end up with the Homercamera.

https://startupblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/homermobile.jpg

Each little feature, individually, might be cheap and feasible. Collectively, decisions must be made, and some things will be dropped in favor of others. The flash takes up non-zero space, and non-zero price. From my perspective, I hope they leave it out. I also hope they leave out 4k so that my purchase doesn't subsidize videographers (I have zero interest in shooting video, and don't want to pay for it), and those who want it have to get the 5DC (with, presumably, other optimizations). Canon cannot make everyone happy (nor can Nikon, nor Sony, nor anyone else). I sincerely hope they don't try to make the 5D4 be all things to all people, and that some people are disappointed. The alternative is they try to make the everything-to-everyone camera, and fail.

 

[Loswr]

Exactly. I don't see why people are against a feature that causes no harm when not in use, and which could come in handy at times.

You know why? You just want a popup flash. Someone else just wants 4k video. Another guy wants a swivel screen. She wants a swivel screen. He wants a better microphone. Their kid wants a SIM slot to upload pics to Instagram directly from the camera. Sooner or later you end up with the Homercamera.

But I want it I want it I want it I want it! If I don't get it I'm not going to buy another Canon camera ever. No one else will either because everyone wants what I want!!

 

[vscd]

Each little feature, individually, might be cheap and feasible. Collectively, decisions must be made, and some things will be dropped in favor of others. The flash takes up non-zero space, and non-zero price. From my perspective, I hope they leave it out. I also hope they leave out 4k so that my purchase doesn't subsidize videographers (I have zero interest in shooting video, and don't want to pay for it), and those who want it have to get the 5DC (with, presumably, other optimizations). Canon cannot make everyone happy (nor can Nikon, nor Sony, nor anyone else). I sincerely hope they don't try to make the 5D4 be all things to all people, and that some people are disappointed. The alternative is they try to make the everything-to-everyone camera, and fail.

+1

Everything said...

 

[Tugela]

...Clearly, there are things they felt were more deserving of R&D expenditures.

Or much more likely, they just aren't capable with their 20year old semiconductor technology...

That would be a remarkably naive assessment.

They probably look at it that they can make the money they are with the tech they are selling, ergo how much more revenue would they generate if they spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a new sensor fabrication line? Probably a wiser investment to diversify (cinema, security, etc) and bring a unique twist to their DSLR system like lens selection and flashes. Probably closer to the truth.......

Regardless of their fab, there could be patent issues preventing them from doing it. I could have formulated myself better, but making statements that assume they are able to is just speculation and should be formulated as such not as facts.

Considering the tech they have showcased, the number of patents they register every year, and their R&D size when compared to their competitors I feel fairly confident is stating my opinion that Canon have not spent the money on a sensor fab so far because they haven't seen the return opportunity, nit because they don't have the tech.

Having lots of patents doesn't mean they have (or have access to) the critical patents.

Most of the time when companies like this don't do something that would seem obvious to do, it is because they don't have IP rights to do it, or they are blocked from using it in specific product areas through cross licensing deals.

I suspect that is the main reason why Canon's mirrorless options are so sad, for example. It isn't because they don't know how to do it, or don't want to do it, they have obstacles blocking them from doing it that are business related.

 

[Loswr]

Having lots of patents doesn't mean they have (or have access to) the critical patents.

Most of the time when companies like this don't do something that would seem obvious to do, it is because they don't have IP rights to do it, or they are blocked from using it in specific product areas through cross licensing deals.

I suspect that is the main reason why Canon's mirrorless options are so sad, for example. It isn't because they don't know how to do it, or don't want to do it, they have obstacles blocking them from doing it that are business related.

But Sony, Olympus, Fuji, and Panasonic all freely share or cross-license all their IP? Unlikely.

To see why Canon doesn't offer much in the MILC space, one need look no further than the CIPA data on the camera market. IP issues aren't why Canon didn't release the M2 or M3 in the USA...

 

[emko]

...Clearly, there are things they felt were more deserving of R&D expenditures.

Or much more likely, they just aren't capable with their 20year old semiconductor technology...

That would be a remarkably naive assessment.

They probably look at it that they can make the money they are with the tech they are selling, ergo how much more revenue would they generate if they spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a new sensor fabrication line? Probably a wiser investment to diversify (cinema, security, etc) and bring a unique twist to their DSLR system like lens selection and flashes. Probably closer to the truth.......

Regardless of their fab, there could be patent issues preventing them from doing it. I could have formulated myself better, but making statements that assume they are able to is just speculation and should be formulated as such not as facts.

Considering the tech they have showcased, the number of patents they register every year, and their R&D size when compared to their competitors I feel fairly confident is stating my opinion that Canon have not spent the money on a sensor fab so far because they haven't seen the return opportunity, nit because they don't have the tech.

+1

They've been behind on low ISO DR for ~6 years. During that time, Canon has maintained market share and they remain the DSLR market leader. Why should they spend money to increase low ISO DR - to appease a few people who complain about it on the Internet? That makes no fiscal sense.

yea and in that same 6 years look at what Sony has achieved, selling 450 million units of their imaging sensor i doubt Canon is happy about this, they have nothing that competes with these sensors and that's why the top Phones all use Sony.

 

[3kramd5]

Has canon ever supplied sensors to a third party?

 

[msm]

...Clearly, there are things they felt were more deserving of R&D expenditures.

Or much more likely, they just aren't capable with their 20year old semiconductor technology...

That would be a remarkably naive assessment.

They probably look at it that they can make the money they are with the tech they are selling, ergo how much more revenue would they generate if they spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a new sensor fabrication line? Probably a wiser investment to diversify (cinema, security, etc) and bring a unique twist to their DSLR system like lens selection and flashes. Probably closer to the truth.......

Regardless of their fab, there could be patent issues preventing them from doing it. I could have formulated myself better, but making statements that assume they are able to is just speculation and should be formulated as such not as facts.

Considering the tech they have showcased, the number of patents they register every year, and their R&D size when compared to their competitors I feel fairly confident is stating my opinion that Canon have not spent the money on a sensor fab so far because they haven't seen the return opportunity, nit because they don't have the tech.

+1

They've been behind on low ISO DR for ~6 years. During that time, Canon has maintained market share and they remain the DSLR market leader. Why should they spend money to increase low ISO DR - to appease a few people who complain about it on the Internet? That makes no fiscal sense.

To make that claim you would have to know how much money they *could* have made, not how much they made. So your post is nothing but speculation.

 

[3kramd5]

How much they could have made is, in fact, speculation.

That they haven't made significant changes suggests that they consider a large investment in sensor fab for DR purposes to be more of a risk than what they speculate it is worth, for the time being. Instead, they developed DPAF.

Hell, if their market research suggested that increasing DR would be a major bottom line win, they'd make it happen, either by sourcing a sensor or redesigning their own signal chain. But they haven't, because they speculate that it doesn't matter to their business.

I suspect that in the long run they're wrong. If they had even the same RN performance as the SOTA sensors, where could the other companies compete? They would own the market. But i haven't invested in market research. They have. Their speculation is worth more than any of ours.

 

[Dick]

But there is a Canon patent for what is clearly a m4/3 lens so obviously Canon does think it is a market that they need to be in.

Nothing obvious there. In the basic 5 Ps of strategy, one P stands for Ploy.

 

[Loswr]

They've been behind on low ISO DR for ~6 years. During that time, Canon has maintained market share and they remain the DSLR market leader. Why should they spend money to increase low ISO DR - to appease a few people who complain about it on the Internet? That makes no fiscal sense.

To make that claim you would have to know how much money they *could* have made, not how much they made. So your post is nothing but speculation.

Nothing but speculation? Is it speculation that Canon has been behind on low ISO DR for ~6 years? Is it speculation that Canon has been and remains the dSLR market leader? I make a logical conclusion based on facts. Or if you prefer, it's nothing but speculation that the sun will set at the end of the day.

...
They've been behind on low ISO DR for ~6 years. During that time, Canon has maintained market share and they remain the DSLR market leader. Why should they spend money to increase low ISO DR - to appease a few people who complain about it on the Internet? That makes no fiscal sense.

And those who care about DR have already stopped buying Canon cameras and are now buying either Nikon or Sony or Pentax. A customer once lost is harder to regain.

Not exactly. For example, Eldar cares about DR, and he's still buying Canon. But, you're likely correct that those who care about DR as the primary factor that influences their purchasing decisions have already stopped buying Canon cameras and are now buying either Nikon or Sony or Pentax, and Canon is still the market leader. Which is exactly my point.

 

[lourenco]

Canon has the technology to make the 5D Mark IV a great competitor for Nikon / Sony if they want to make it happen. Canon C300 II has 15 stops of dynamic range with great shadow protection based on canons videos. I am sure that would fix the DR and shadow noise issue.

I know the limits of my 5D3, and I know not to go past them. I use fill flash to fill the dark shadow areas if I need to see details in the shadow areas.

It is nice to have more DR, but it has not prevented me from being able to sell photos.

I have used ML Dual ISO. I do like the Idea of being able to increase dynamic range. I only use it on a few photos during an event because it takes too long to convert the photos to DNG to edit/print them. I use fill flash instead.

See photos below. Both were taken during the same run. There was another photography taking photos behind me. His photo on the top. He does not use fill flash. You can see my photo with fill flash has more details given the flash fills in the shadow areas. That makes a bigger difference for me.

 

[msm]

Nothing but speculation? Is it speculation that Canon has been behind on low ISO DR for ~6 years? Is it speculation that Canon has been and remains the dSLR market leader? I make a logical conclusion based on facts. Or if you prefer, it's nothing but speculation that the sun will set at the end of the day.

Logic you say? Your premises does not support your conclusion, as I have already tried to point out but you obviously missed. I.e. you are just speculating or perhaps trolling. Does beeing a market leader mean they can't do better? No difference between 80% and 40% market share? How do you know how much or little of the market they miss out due to this DR issue?

 

[martti]

Canon has the technology to make the 5D Mark IV a great competitor for Nikon / Sony if they want to make it happen. Canon C300 II has 15 stops of dynamic range with great shadow protection based on canons videos. I am sure that would fix the DR and shadow noise issue.

I know the limits of my 5D3, and I know not to go past them. I use fill flash to fill the dark shadow areas if I need to see details in the shadow areas.

It is nice to have more DR, but it has not prevented me from being able to sell photos.

I have used ML Dual ISO. I do like the Idea of being able to increase dynamic range. I only use it on a few photos during an event because it takes too long to convert the photos to DNG to edit/print them. I use fill flash instead.

See photos below. Both were taken during the same run. There was another photography taking photos behind me. His photo on the top. He does not use fill flash. You can see my photo with fill flash has more details given the flash fills in the shadow areas. That makes a bigger difference for me.

Lourenco: You certainly made your point clear with the pair of pictures.
Maybe the fundamentalists do not accept your method of taking pictures but I am sure that your clients do.
Nice and clear. The point ant the picture.

 

[meywd]

Nothing but speculation? Is it speculation that Canon has been behind on low ISO DR for ~6 years? Is it speculation that Canon has been and remains the dSLR market leader? I make a logical conclusion based on facts. Or if you prefer, it's nothing but speculation that the sun will set at the end of the day.

Logic you say? Your premises does not support your conclusion, as I have already tried to point out but you obviously missed. I.e. you are just speculating. Does beeing a market leader mean they can't do better? No difference between 80% and 40% market share? How do you know how much or little of the market they miss out due to this DR issue?

I don't understand, do you hate that Canon has competition? do you want a monopoly? also it doesn't matter how many people skip Canon to buy from Nikon/Sony, because you can never know that number, even with statistics its all speculation. another thing, if every single camera on the market was the same (AF, DR, MP) why would there be more than one brand, they can then unite under one company and sell you that camera. with competition Canon will either have to up their game and match Sony/Nikon/Samsung/Pentax with what they offer, or they can research new stuff on their own, why do you need a company to innovate to buy their product, when their current product is good for 70-90% of most ppl needs, I don't say innovation is bad, I say its just marketing BS, the same goes with Apple vs Microsoft, Apple vs Samsung, German Car companies, if you like a product buy it, when someone buys a Lamborghini there is a high chance they already have a Mercedes, a Land Rover, a Porsche, and 10 more cars, why not buy all Lamborghinis? or Ferraris? because each has its own strengths and weaknesses

 

[JohnBran]

...
They've been behind on low ISO DR for ~6 years. During that time, Canon has maintained market share and they remain the DSLR market leader. Why should they spend money to increase low ISO DR - to appease a few people who complain about it on the Internet? That makes no fiscal sense.

And those who care about DR have already stopped buying Canon cameras and are now buying either Nikon or Sony or Pentax. A customer once lost is harder to regain.

Not exactly. For example, Eldar cares about DR, and he's still buying Canon. But, you're likely correct that those who care about DR as the primary factor that influences their purchasing decisions have already stopped buying Canon cameras and are now buying either Nikon or Sony or Pentax, and Canon is still the market leader. Which is exactly my point.

Maybe its taken time to get that ball rolling .
What i mean from my experience i was using Canon for 10 years and for last year and a bit was waiting for something from Canon to address their inferior DR. I was in market for new Canon camera. I really wanted to stay with Canon but on the end recently sold rest of my canon lenses and moved over to Nikon. Actually getting used to Nikon was not as difficult as i was expecting. They are pretty much the same. If Canon creates something amazing in about 6 years i'll be back

 

[Eldar]

Nothing but speculation? Is it speculation that Canon has been behind on low ISO DR for ~6 years? Is it speculation that Canon has been and remains the dSLR market leader? I make a logical conclusion based on facts. Or if you prefer, it's nothing but speculation that the sun will set at the end of the day.

Logic you say? Your premises does not support your conclusion, as I have already tried to point out but you obviously missed. I.e. you are just speculating or perhaps trolling. Does beeing a market leader mean they can't do better? No difference between 80% and 40% market share? How do you know how much or little of the market they miss out due to this DR issue?

These are very valid points. When we add that the total market is shrinking, Canon should be very concerned with two things. One is to keep up the market interest for the products they supply and the other is to maximise their market share of whatever the market is.

It is clear that they are pushing video as one area to secure their future, but today they have close to nothing to compete with cell phones and GoPro type cameras and they are bleeding one way or the other, because of their sensor performance. It is obvious that Canon is concerned with what Sony, Nikon, Samsung, Olympus, Fuji, Pentax and all the rest of them are doing.

Hypothesis; If Canon had sourced the 36MP sensor used in the D810 and A7r (I think it is) and released a 5DS&5DSR version with that two years ago. What would have happened to their market share, up or down? I think the answer is obvious. Would it require massive R&D investments? No. Would Sony sell? Yes, they sell to everyone.

If the market for DSLR is insufficient to support a new sensor fab today, it will most likely be insufficient also in the future. If so, Canon should milk whatever they can get out of their current fabs, on their cheaper product lines and source from someone for their high end cameras. All their R&D could then go into the areas where their competitive position is way better than within sensors.

I, for one, am seriously questioning their strategies.

 

[Sporgon]

...waiting for something from Canon to address their inferior DR. I was in market for new Canon camera. I really wanted to stay with Canon but on the end recently sold rest of my canon lenses and moved over to Nikon.

Thank God for that !

At least you didn't stick with Canon and then come here to whinge about them ;D

Compared with years ago it's now really easy to get out of a system. On line sites like e bay make it very easy to sell used gear, and both Nikon and Canon hold their used value. Also many people now have just a body, a couple of zoom lenses and a flash. Not like the days when you have umpteen fixed focal length lenses and had to take a massive hit at the local second hand camera shop.