New EOS-1 in 2014 [CR1]

[Don Haines]

I'm more curious about the sensor performance, particularly its low ISO dynamic range. If Canon shows no improvement in this department, it's unlikely we'll see anything better coming out of Canon sensors in the next 4 to 5 years.

This is a good example of why we should be oh so concerned about sales figures. Canon has been behind in low ISO dynamic range throughout their sensor lineup for a few years now, and it hasn't hurt their dSLR sales.

If the roof on your house looks to be in excellent shape and doesn't leak, would you replace it? Unlikely…if it ain't broke, don't fix it. From Canon's perspective, their sensors 'ain't broke'.

Hi Neuro,

I respect your opinion, but I have to disagree with the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality. Canon is basically a tech company, and if a tech company is being innovative, then sooner or later they are going to be out of business. I also don’t think you can look at current sales to determine if a company will be successful, or profitable, in the future.

For example, take a look at Blackberry or Nokia, these two companies not too long ago were the 800 lb. gorillas in mobile phones. They had solid sales numbers, and now they are struggling to survive. I’ll bet when those companies were on top, their management was saying, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”, and now look at the situation they are in.

If Canon, Nikon, Sony and the other players don’t continue to deliver innovative products, then sooner or later they are going to be the next Blackberry/Nokia.

Just my two cents.
Thanks

Innovation is alive and well at Canon..... Look at dual pixel technology.... It's improbably going to be in every new camera from here on.... Look at the continuous improvement with the lenses, with diffractive optics, with IS, focusing, integrated teleconverters, and the use of coatings and new glasses (fluorite).... And then we have touch screens and wifi making their way into the mix.... These are not the signs of a stagnant company.

 

[Orangutan]

Canon is basically a tech company, and if a tech company is being innovative, then sooner or later they are going to be out of business. I also don’t think you can look at current sales to determine if a company will be successful, or profitable, in the future.

If Canon, Nikon, Sony and the other players don’t continue to deliver innovative products, then sooner or later they are going to be the next Blackberry/Nokia.

I'm sure we've got a bunch of engineers around who can comment with more authority than I can, but I believe there are several places where R&D investments are applied. There's basic research (stuff that generates patents), product development (turning basic research into a desirable and cost-effective product), tooling, etc.

It's entirely possible that Canon's basic research is on par with Sony / Nikon / Pentax, or even better. My understanding is that it's often cheaper to turn older tech into products than newer tech, so they won't do it until they have to. We won't know what Canon is capable of doing until the market forces them.

 

[unfocused]

...The Toronto Maple Leafs haven't won a Stanley Cup since 1967. They rarely get into the playoffs. They generally play decent to poorly. (I'm generalizing here, but on average, they are not that great a team).

...But then you consider attendance: Leaf games are pretty much ALWAYS sold out. The moment tickets are available they are scooped up and the only tickets left are standing room. Add to this: Leaf tickets are among the most expensive tickets in the whole league.

...From their end, what is the motivation to improve? The team is making tons of money. Why should they spend more money to improve if it won't make them more money?

...Canon is in a similar position IMHO...

The key difference is between a monopoly market and a competitive market. If you could walk into the rink and have the choice of picking a winning team or a losing team for the same price and exact same seats, etc., then I believe there would be a stronger incentive for the team to improve.

In the case of Cameras, every time a customer walks into a store (or shops online) they can choose any brand they want. Yet, the brand that gets chosen the most is Canon.

Assuming consumers try to make rational decisions based on what they consider the most important characteristics of the product, those consumers are looking at the entire product and not just one aspect (sensor, dynamic range, frame rate, megapixels, lens system, etc. etc.) and making a choice of which one best meets their needs.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with an individual deciding that Canon does not meet their particular needs. What is wrong is when people project those needs onto all other consumers and make wild statements about any company failing, going broke, etc. etc., simply because the product has not been custom designed to their individual specifications.

 

[Jim O]

This is a good example of why we should be oh so concerned about sales figures. Canon has been behind in low ISO dynamic range throughout their sensor lineup for a few years now, and it hasn't hurt their dSLR sales.

If the roof on your house looks to be in excellent shape and doesn't leak, would you replace it? Unlikely…if it ain't broke, don't fix it. From Canon's perspective, their sensors 'ain't broke'.

I'm from Canada, and even though hockey isn't a favourite of mine I'll use a fact from that world: The Toronto Maple Leafs haven't won a Stanley Cup since 1967. They rarely get into the playoffs. They generally play decent to poorly. (I'm generalizing here, but on average, they are not that great a team).

Some would say, with this data, that the team needs a major overhaul. That alot of money should be spent on improving performance with the aim of bringing the cup back to Toronto.

But then you consider attendance: Leaf games are pretty much ALWAYS sold out. The moment tickets are available they are scooped up and the only tickets left are standing room. Add to this: Leaf tickets are among the most expensive tickets in the whole league.

So, what does this tell us? That despite piss poor performance, they are making a crap load of money. If tickets to their games are really expensive, and yet every game is sold out within minutes of going on sale, where does that leave things?

From their end, what is the motivation to improve? The team is making tons of money. Why should they spend more money to improve if it won't make them more money?

Canon is in a similar position IMHO. Their products mostly rule the market. Their products aren't bad, but they aren't leading edge, yet, they still make a ton of money.

Yes, if they went crazy with the spending and made every facet of their products better then anyone else they'd likely sell more. But if you add up the cost of doing that vs. the additional revenue do you think they'd be ahead?

Canon has a ton of really smart people, and that includes the money side. I GUARANTEE you that the money people have told the big wigs that it's not worth it. Why improve a product beyond the point where it'll make you more money?

Canon as a company isn't stupid. They've for the moment nailed the DSLR game perfectly. They introduce marginal improvements which are minimal in cost to them, just to keep going enough to fuel sales. They have the freedom to focus on areas that traditional DSLR users don't care too much about (live view focusing).

Personally I'm very happy with my Canon gear. While on paper the competition is "better", my personal experience is that it isn't better "enough" to warrant a switch. That's what Canon relies on. That's what Canon is successful with.

The market can change quickly, who's to say if this tactic will continue working much longer. I guess we'll see.

TTYL

I could make a joke about the people of Toronto and the fact that they still support their drunkard, drug addled mayor, but I won't. 8)

To compare cameras that are marketed worldwide to teams whose fan base is mostly local is not exactly "apples to apples". Team rooting and loyalty are emotional and often location based. While camera "brand loyalty" is also partially emotional for many people, give me a tool that's twice as good at half the price and my head trumps my heart every time. It doesn't even need to be that dramatic a difference.

On the other hand, if Toronto area residents want to see live NHL hockey in person, they can see the Leafs or they can travel a long distance. I don't know the details of who actually are the season ticket subscribers, but many may be corporately owned, and those subscribers don't care. They just want to grease their customers with tickets when they're in town.

For years, the NY (Football) Giants absolutely sucked. They had only two winning seasons from 1964 to 1978, which corresponded to much of my childhood in NYC. Despite that, they were also sold out every game (even when they played in New Haven, Connecticut) and had a decades long waiting list for season tickets. Giants season tickets were often the subject of litigation in divorces and estates. This was all despite the fact that there was another NFL team in town (the NY Jets) who won a Super Bowl in that period and were competitive during other parts of it. Yet Jets season tickets could, at that time, be bought at any time. Of course now you can't get tickets for either team, but that's another story.

I can buy a Nikon or a Canon product from Amazon and have it delivered next day for $3.99 or two day for free with Amazon Prime.

Changing camera lines is a lot easier than changing season tickets for the Boston Bruins into season tickets for the Leafs, or vice versa.

 

[pwp]

The 1D X marked its 25th month and I am sorely looking forward to its replacement next year.

25 months? How do you think us 7D owners feel?

You're not kidding. FYI, check this chart to see that the 7D is the longest running Cannon DSLR.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Canon_EOS_digital_cameras
Though you can be sure this is not a replacement for the 1DX which should continue unchanged for some time yet.

-pw

 

[CarlMillerPhoto]

This thread sucks.

 

[Jeffrey]

Having bought nearly every camera body issued since the 40D, I'm not sure I will purchase the new camera body unless there is very good progress in the focusing area. I don't typically shoot at low light and don't shoot sporting events, so those aspects don't much interest me.

I just purchased a used Mamiya 7 II film camera, yes that's right, a film camera, and am going off to shoot lots and lots of landscapes. I'm going to concentrate on shooting photos and less on expressing my opinions.

 

[sagittariansrock]

This is a good example of why we should be oh so concerned about sales figures. Canon has been behind in low ISO dynamic range throughout their sensor lineup for a few years now, and it hasn't hurt their dSLR sales.

If the roof on your house looks to be in excellent shape and doesn't leak, would you replace it? Unlikely…if it ain't broke, don't fix it. From Canon's perspective, their sensors 'ain't broke'.

If Canon, Nikon, Sony and the other players don’t continue to deliver innovative products, then sooner or later they are going to be the next Blackberry/Nokia.

+1. I am sure that even though high DR might not be on the top of their priority list, they must be having a team working on it, and will bring it out when they are ready. Innovation is also about envisioning what the next big popular demand will be, and often involves manipulation of the vox populi.

Ugh...what isn't interesting is debating two excellent camera bodies......

+1. We say harsh things just for the sake of argument (even though they are only against camera bodies in this case). I am sure D800 wasn't just an answer to the megapixel war- it's a fantastic camera and creates beautiful images suitable for cropping and enlargements. No need to "diss" it.

Having said that, I think 5DIII is all I want/need except for the price, and I'd welcome anything (1Dxs, 5Dx, 5DIV, A7r, Thanksgiving sales) that will help bring down the price.
Oh, and I wouldn't mind if the APS-C lens prices (and consequently, the resale value) go up too

 

[mwellsphoto]

In the case of Cameras, every time a customer walks into a store (or shops online) they can choose any brand they want. Yet, the brand that gets chosen the most is Canon.

I know what your saying but thats not entirely how it is with a DSLR. Im not saying consumers are locked in but most people going in to buy a multi thousand dollar camera most likely have at least that much invested in lenses with one brand or another.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

...

Now maybe the new 1DsX will have 10fps and all sorts of performance goodies and be a hell of a camera and the best one out there (if it also brings the DR), but that would still be a rough going at $7000. I'm sure most landscape shooters would just nab the A7R, although the very serious action and wildlife guys with enough money the 1DsX. Anyway it's not a bad thing in itself if it is some 10fps, high MP, high DR, high performance, RAW 4k video beast that does everything, it might be the greatest camera ever (outside of the bulk) and truly quite something. But it seems to me they dearly need to get a smaller, intermediate level body out too, like a 5D3 only with more MP and more DR and ML RAW built-in and a high quality 4k compressed. Now that would be a heck of a pair, the 5D4 would be awesome and the 1DsX simply ridiculous.

I would be surprised to have that high FPS in a high MP camera, as more pixels means more data to transfer off the sensor and this is probably a bottleneck. This is probably the reason D800 has low FPS and noisy, moire ridden video for instance, the more pixels the less of the sensor surface can be read during each frame of video.

That is true, but how the heck else could they justify the similar to 1Ds3 price??? They think an $8000 4fps D800/A7R clone will sell??? It's gotta have some sort of uber special stuff going for it if they expect to sell both a brick and get $8000. I don't they can be so foolish to think a brick-sized D800 clone would sell so I think it's got to have some crazy fast fps for the MP and some astonishing video. If not, it seems hard to see it being anything other than an epic failure.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I'm more curious about the sensor performance, particularly its low ISO dynamic range. If Canon shows no improvement in this department, it's unlikely we'll see anything better coming out of Canon sensors in the next 4 to 5 years.

This is a good example of why we should be oh so concerned about sales figures. Canon has been behind in low ISO dynamic range throughout their sensor lineup for a few years now, and it hasn't hurt their dSLR sales.

If the roof on your house looks to be in excellent shape and doesn't leak, would you replace it? Unlikely…if it ain't broke, don't fix it. From Canon's perspective, their sensors 'ain't broke'.

Hi Neuro,

I respect your opinion, but I have to disagree with the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality. Canon is basically a tech company, and if a tech company is being innovative, then sooner or later they are going to be out of business. I also don’t think you can look at current sales to determine if a company will be successful, or profitable, in the future.

For example, take a look at Blackberry or Nokia, these two companies not too long ago were the 800 lb. gorillas in mobile phones. They had solid sales numbers, and now they are struggling to survive. I’ll bet when those companies were on top, their management was saying, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”, and now look at the situation they are in.

If Canon, Nikon, Sony and the other players don’t continue to deliver innovative products, then sooner or later they are going to be the next Blackberry/Nokia.

Just my two cents.
Thanks

Innovation is alive and well at Canon..... Look at dual pixel technology.... It's improbably going to be in every new camera from here on.... Look at the continuous improvement with the lenses, with diffractive optics, with IS, focusing, integrated teleconverters, and the use of coatings and new glasses (fluorite).... And then we have touch screens and wifi making their way into the mix.... These are not the signs of a stagnant company.

In their OWN speech they were bragging about being stagant and babbling that the king had no need to do anything (a few years back at a show in Europe). And look at the games they play with video features and usability across the line, dribbling out autoiso over a decade, playing games with MFA for the xxD series (cutting it out of 40D firmware last second, then it's back in for 50D, then it's out again for 60D so they can re-use it as a sales pitch for the 70D and then it's now a 'new' 70D feature. Look at even the way they phrase some user surveys all the questions about how locked in by your lens collection do you feel, etc.

For lenses they are pushing forwards, for bodies only here and there when everyone users and competition both realllly get on their case.

 

[unfocused]

In the case of Cameras, every time a customer walks into a store (or shops online) they can choose any brand they want. Yet, the brand that gets chosen the most is Canon.

I know what your saying but thats not entirely how it is with a DSLR. Im not saying consumers are locked in but most people going in to buy a multi thousand dollar camera most likely have at least that much invested in lenses with one brand or another.

Yes. I know I'm overstating the flexibility we have once we have bought into a system. But, at some point, serious amateurs and professionals do make a conscious decision to buy into one system or another and presumably, most are educated, sophisticated consumers.

As I've tried to say many times: I really don't care what brand anyone uses. And, I really don't care if people like or dislike Canon's products. What bothers me is when people cannot accept fundamental principles of economics and instead ascribe ulterior motives to completely rational and normal behavior.

Canon has the dominant position in the market because it consistently sells more of its products than its competitors and makes a profit doing so. They don't hold a gun to anyone's head. If their products were inferior, they wouldn't be selling as well as they do.

 

[sanj]

We need to look at more than 'numbers sold'. For example there are great movies that have not done super business at the box office. But they have been amazing.

How many critically-acclaimed box office flops have sequels? Ok, there was Tron, but you get my point. Also, there's a world of difference between selling 'Art' and selling tools.

...am talking just about IQ.

…IQ at low ISO, you mean.

This is an ostrich act of not facing reality by digging its face in sand. Canon sensor is certainly broke after comparing it with the D800 and Rx1. Like it or not.

The moment you buy a bare silicon sensor from Nikon or Sony, please tell us all about it. Until that day, keep in mind that people buy cameras, not sensors. You may not care about anything but the sensor, but the sales figures put you in the minority. Like it or not.

Of course I care about the camera as a whole but that does not take away from the FACT that that Canon sensors are lagging behind. Perhaps other brands do not have things that are going for Canon but this does not change the fact that Canon sensors need and a bit of a fix. How can anyone argue with that? I use 5d3 and will use it but how am I wrong in wishing it's sensor gets better?

 

[sanj]

Sale figures generally reflect:
1. Great legacy of a brand
2. Aggressive advertising
3. Consumer's 'herd' mentality. "It is a Canon man, it is good."

I am not putting down Canon at all. Saying this to say that because Canon sells more, it is NOT by default the better camera.

 

[sanj]

Defending Canon sensor by saying that the competition camera has flaws in it's working does not go down well with me. No sir.

 

[sanj]

I'm more curious about the sensor performance, particularly its low ISO dynamic range. If Canon shows no improvement in this department, it's unlikely we'll see anything better coming out of Canon sensors in the next 4 to 5 years.

This is a good example of why we should be oh so concerned about sales figures. Canon has been behind in low ISO dynamic range throughout their sensor lineup for a few years now, and it hasn't hurt their dSLR sales.

If the roof on your house looks to be in excellent shape and doesn't leak, would you replace it? Unlikely…if it ain't broke, don't fix it. From Canon's perspective, their sensors 'ain't broke'.

Hi Neuro,

I respect your opinion, but I have to disagree with the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality. Canon is basically a tech company, and if a tech company is being innovative, then sooner or later they are going to be out of business. I also don’t think you can look at current sales to determine if a company will be successful, or profitable, in the future.

For example, take a look at Blackberry or Nokia, these two companies not too long ago were the 800 lb. gorillas in mobile phones. They had solid sales numbers, and now they are struggling to survive. I’ll bet when those companies were on top, their management was saying, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”, and now look at the situation they are in.

If Canon, Nikon, Sony and the other players don’t continue to deliver innovative products, then sooner or later they are going to be the next Blackberry/Nokia.

Just my two cents.
Thanks

No one can argue with this!

 

[V8Beast]

I use 5d3 and will use it but how am I wrong in wishing it's sensor gets better?

Your portfolio is stunning. It appears your Canon gear is serving you very well

 

[Loswr]

Of course I care about the camera as a whole but that does not take away from the FACT that that Canon sensors are lagging behind. Perhaps other brands do not have things that are going for Canon but this does not change the fact that Canon sensors need and a bit of a fix. How can anyone argue with that? I use 5d3 and will use it but how am I wrong in wishing it's sensor gets better?

Sure, Canon could improve their sensors. Nikon could improve their lenses, their ergonomics, etc. Both of them could lower prices, too. There's no such thing as a perfect system - you pick your compromises and make your choice. Maybe you use both. Maybe you get a Fuji. There's no right or wrong answer for an individual.

Earlier, Canon was referred to as a tech company. How many tech companies have held the top spot in their market for 10 years? Not that you're doing this, Sanj, but some are crying doom for Canon because they don't see Canon addressing their specific, individual needs. Those folks aren't seeing the forest for the trees...Canon continues to meet the needs of a majority of customers.

 

[9VIII]

I'm more curious about the sensor performance, particularly its low ISO dynamic range. If Canon shows no improvement in this department, it's unlikely we'll see anything better coming out of Canon sensors in the next 4 to 5 years.

This is a good example of why we should be oh so concerned about sales figures. Canon has been behind in low ISO dynamic range throughout their sensor lineup for a few years now, and it hasn't hurt their dSLR sales.

If the roof on your house looks to be in excellent shape and doesn't leak, would you replace it? Unlikely…if it ain't broke, don't fix it. From Canon's perspective, their sensors 'ain't broke'.

Hi Neuro,

I respect your opinion, but I have to disagree with the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality. Canon is basically a tech company, and if a tech company is being innovative, then sooner or later they are going to be out of business. I also don’t think you can look at current sales to determine if a company will be successful, or profitable, in the future.

For example, take a look at Blackberry or Nokia, these two companies not too long ago were the 800 lb. gorillas in mobile phones. They had solid sales numbers, and now they are struggling to survive. I’ll bet when those companies were on top, their management was saying, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”, and now look at the situation they are in.

If Canon, Nikon, Sony and the other players don’t continue to deliver innovative products, then sooner or later they are going to be the next Blackberry/Nokia.

Just my two cents.
Thanks

No one can argue with this!

I accept your challenge!

The only reason Blackberry and Nokia died (are dying) was their failure to adapt to changes in their own market. The camera industry went through that transformation in the late 90's to early 2000's, Kodak died, Canon and Nikon came out better than ever. In fact I think it's safe to say that Canon is better off now selling digital cameras than they ever would have been in a strictly film market.
Point and shoot cameras are going out of style, because of smartphones, great, but until they start putting 35mm sensors on smartphones the mid-high end camera market isn't going anywhere. Better yet, with all these people exploring photography now, we may well see a resurgence in that market. I wouldn't doubt that sales of lenses is just going to go up. Cutting out the P&S market will hurt, but for such diverse companies like Canon that's hardly going to spell doom.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

I would like to see replacement to old and unsuccesful Canon cameras. 7D2 is scheduled for 2014 but the current 7D, which was the APS-C King, is still a good camera althouhg it lags behind others in terms of latest technology and resources (e.g. sensor, AF, Wifi, GPS, HDR).
EOS-M Camera Mark 2 is expected to be released next year as well due it was unsuccesful in many aspects.
Improvements in these two cameras are very welcomed.
All others are much more recently updated.