New EOS-1 in 2014 [CR1]

[unfocused]

Interesting is NIKON who first went into the battle not with CANON but with MF cameras in general. Now Canon lost a competition and no one can't ever tell me that they don't have the MEGA pixels since 2002....

Are you saying Canon has never had the megapixel crown since 2002 (excluding MF competition)? Because that is an outright lie.

In fairness, I think you misread Diko's point. I think he means that Canon has had the ability to have the most megapixels since 2002 (and in fact did have the most megapixels for most of those years).

That's certainly true, since Canon introduced an industry-leading 18 mp APS-C in 2009, which means they could have produced a 46 mp full frame sensor at any point during the past four years.

But, I'm not sure what "battle" they "lost." Clearly, since Canon could produce at least a 46 mp full frame camera but has not, there is a reason for that. Perhaps one reason is the legions of customers on this and other forums who, prior to the release of the 1Dx and the 5DIII were demanding fewer, larger pixels, higher ISO performance and better autofocus (in the case of the 5D).

Canon delivered exactly what the customers said they wanted. Customers responded by making the 5DIII (at least) a consistent top seller, basically crushing the competition in the marketplace. Yet, now we have a handful of people who insist that Canon is a failure because they have yet to release a high megapixel camera to compete with a competitor's high megapixel camera that doesn't seem to be doing all that well in the marketplace.

Perhaps Canon has "lost" the high-megapixel "battle" but they certainly seem to be winning the war.

 

[JohnDizzo15]

Re: Huge Mistake Dear Canon

A 1 series body with the traditonal 1 series size, weight & price tag will sell like cold hotcakes.

According to sales figures, their market research team has been doing an excellent job of predicting the market. No, I won't buy a 1-series body, but lots of others will.

Canon has been steadily leaking users to the D800E

Citation? Or is this just your unsubstantiated opinion?

It is my unsubstaniated opinion based upon observtion at the DPR Nikon forum and elsewhere on the internet plus the fact that I bought a D800E to complement my Canon rig. That D800E could have been a Canon something or another if Canon had acted like Canon instead of the old Nikon.

You cite sales figures. Do you have any segregated numbers for the 1 Series bodies. Canon and Nikon discontinued their profit-bloated 1Ds 3 and D3x for a reason. Nikon smartly replaced their D3x with the D800E. Let's see how smart Canon is.

Rick - I was contemplating using both systems for a little while and realized that it didn't make sense at all for my uses. I was just curious how it has worked out for you thus far? Positives, negatives, how often you use one over the other, etc.

Also interested to see some of your images.

 

[jrista]

So high megapixel? For Canon that means what? 24MP Might be pushing it... Prob closer to 23.8MP

From past rumors about Canon high-mp cameras in testing, probably 40mp+.

 

[garyknrd]

So high megapixel? For Canon that means what? 24MP Might be pushing it... Prob closer to 23.8MP

From past rumors about Canon high-mp cameras in testing, probably 40mp+.

If full frame. Would that be a good camera for birding?

 

[CarlTN]

"Landscape photographers, those shooting billboards, some select studio work and enthusiast that just have to have it."

wrong. Not sure why landscape photographers need any more detail than anyone else? Do you assume detail in grass and clouds are more important than detail in skin, clothes, product photography, art reproduction? Also billboards need relatively low resolution due to the massive viewing distance and low dpi they are printed at. You print something on a crappy home printer and then stand back 50 meters and see if you are worried about noise or grain. And lastly you will find a high megapixel camera ( like the 5d3 is for them now) will sell very well, not just for the enthusiast. More for any photographer who needs flexibility in how the images, ability to shoot RAW video and general better ergonomics compared to the bulkier less flexible medium format system. If I were at Phase, Hasselblad, Mamiya etc I'd be worried... very worried by what Canon will likely come out with. A game changer like the 5D3 was.

Why was the 5D3 a game-changer?

 

[jrista]

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'.

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.

"Broke" would indicate a malfunction, as in "broken." This is certainly NOT the case...Canon's sensors are not broken. The function perfectly fine, they produce photos of superb quality, and they meet the needs of the majority of photographers. I think the term your looking for is "not the best". Canon sensors are certainly "not the best" after comparing with the D800 and Rx1. But they certainly are not "broke."

 

[jrista]

Sales figures and profit margins means nothing for us consumers in itself, unless the company is about to go bankrupt or something.

Profits affect long-term R&D budgets, which affects the capacity to maintain a rich line of products. See the post about 2014 being the year of the lens. If that proves true, that R&D is funded out of profits.

Or it makes the stockholders richer.

Stockholders are made richer by an expanding company. Developing a whole bunch of new lenses that people will need to spend money upgrading to is a way of expanding the company, increasing revenues, which tends to result in increased profits (of which a fairly significant amount are usually paid out in dividends, for dividends paying companies.)

 

[jrista]

This was 2010:

This was 2011:

In 2013, Canon announced they have held the #1 market share worldwide in terms of volume within the interchangeable-lens digital camera market for the entire 10-year period from 2003 to 2012.

According to quarterly reports to date this year, Canon sales of dSLRs are dropping. But Nikon's sales of dSLRs are dropping much faster.

Show me the slide… : : :

Thanks for posting those. I'm surprised by the fact that Nikon had a decent increase from 2010 to 2011...perhaps due to key model releases?

I'm also surprised that Nikon was as close to canon, at least in 2011. The way some people talked I thought the gap was significantly larger. But from the sounds of if, the final 2013 numbers may be further apart.

I'm wondering how much the installed user base plays into the numbers. Canon supposedly has a much larger user base; some percentage of these are less likely to switch due to investments in glass/gear, without significant motivations to switch. Would also like to see actual numbers month by month compared to model releases. Doesn't matter much I suppose, I don't think there's any way to get those specific numbers unless you're inside Canon or Nikon

There is also the camp that doesn't really "switch"...instead they expand their kit to include multiple brands. I may eventually fall into this camp.

Given that Canon's focus is largely on the sports/bif/action segment...their best lenses are long, their best cameras are fast framerates, etc. and due to the fact that it sounds like their BigMP camera is going to probably be a 1-series, I may very likely add a D800E to my kit, along with the 14-24mm lens. I don't have plans to expand Nikon gear much beyond that, however when it comes to landscapes, Nikon currently offers better glass and a better sensor. Since the camers will spend the vast majority of it's time on a tripod, I won't have to deal with its menu system or ergonomics much, so my two primary complaints against the brand aren't really a huge reason not to buy.

I suspect there is a certain percentage of photographers who do similar things...move into the multi-brand segment rather than actually switch entirely by dumping an otherwise perfectly good kit that they would have to replace.

 

[jrista]

Sales figures and profit margins means nothing for us consumers in itself, unless the company is about to go bankrupt or something.

Profits affect long-term R&D budgets, which affects the capacity to maintain a rich line of products. See the post about 2014 being the year of the lens. If that proves true, that R&D is funded out of profits.

Or it makes the stockholders richer.

That too. Is that a problem?

Nope but it doesn't give me better lenses or cameras, so I don't care. Do you know for a fact that Canon profits are put back in increased R&D? Pointless to discuss this without knowing the facts.

How much money do you think it takes to redesign the majority of an entire lens lineup like Canon has been doing the last few years? Keep in mind, the funds for that R&D had to be appropriated and spent starting years ago, in order for these new lenses to have been released over the last few years, and on into the next few years.

Personally, I suspect a fairly significant amount of Canon's photography profits are fed back into their R&D machine. Certainly not all of it...first and foremost profits tend to go into salary bonuses and dividends, but the sum to redesign so many lenses in such a short flurry of time cannot be small.

 

[jrista]

Nikon probably doesn't need to do much sensor R&D for instance, since they have others making their sensors.

Agreed, but buying sensors from Sony presumably (?) makes the sensors more expensive for Nikon, putting cost pressure on the other aspects of their product.

I was under the impression Nikon had a direct hand in the design of the D800 sensor. At the very least, they had to pay the salaries of whichever employees of theirs collaborated on the project with Sony. So the R&D cost for sensors can't be zero.

 

[Loswr]

...however when it comes to landscapes, Nikon currently offers better glass...

Yes, if you must use an ultrawide zoom. I'd say the TS-E 17L + TS-E 24L II would be better than the 14-24/2.8, by a significant margin. For me, if 12 stops of DR aren't enough, usually 14 stops aren't enough, either (meaning grad NDs and/or HDR shooting). Stitched panos give me higher than 36 MP resolution. If 2 stops more DR and/or more MP in a single shot (moving elements in the scene, etc.) would be a big benefit, and sharpness is critical, I'd suggest the two wide Canon TS-E lenses mounted on an a7R would give you better results than the D800 + 14-24 combo.

 

[jrista]

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

I don't disagree with your statements. And it definitely feels as though Canon has been neglecting their sensor segment. I do believe, however, that there is a bit of tunnel vision with regards to Canon's progress in the photography market. Everything in these arguments is so focused on one single component of the whole...the sensor.

Canon has been doing a LOT of research and development on the lens side of things, and their small form factor sensors, AF and metering sensors, and other camera components have shown considerable progress over past models. Their small form factor sensor fabrication technology is still rather competitive with the rest of that market...with the exception that Canon doesn't sell their sensors for use in other devices by third parties (where as much of their competition DOES.) The only area where Canon has not yet moved into the "modern era" of sensor design is their APS-C and FF sensors.

So, I don't think it is entirely fair to say that, because Canon APS-C and FF sensors aren't remaining competitive, then they are at risk of failing like Blackberry. There really isn't a true parallel to be drawn there. Blackberry had ONE thing, did that one thing exceptionally WELL, had a die-hard cult following of ADDICTS using their product, and they did indeed become complacent. Canon has a broad range of products, they are expanding into new markets in response to competitive expansion by their competitors, and they are continuing to R&D new products. Canon is focused on different things. Instead of low ISO perf and megapixels, they LISTENED TO THEIR CUSTOMERS and improved high ISO and AF at the same megapixels. (Don't forget, there was a long term and BIG outcry from Canon owners prior to the D800 launch for fewer megapixels, better high ISO, better AF.) Canon provided what their customers asked for.

Responding to the competitions change in direction, and responding to the NEW outcry (which didn't start until after the D800 and 5D III were released) takes time, planning and resources to achieve. It has only been a couple years, so it is not surprising that Canon does not have a competitive high megapixel part yet. I suspect it will be at least another year before we see anything concrete, if not another year and a half to two years, before a product finally lands on the shelves. And even then...Canon has never really competed directly, model for model, with Nikon...so what ends up on the shelf is unlikely to be a direct competitor, in terms of features or price. I suspect the result will be another outcry, both in response to whatever Canon releases not perfectly fitting the preconceived notions of some of their customers, and whatever the competition decides to release at the same time.

Canon also has a far more difficult competitive front these days than it used to. Instead of primarily competing against Nikon, and primarily in the DSLR arena...they are competing against Nikon and Sony juggernaut of an alliance, against Nikon cameras, against Sony cameras, in not only the DSLR arena but also the mirrorless arena, and on specific feature fronts like image sensors, AF sensors, phase detection AF, mirrorless lenses, etc. I do think Canon was caught off guard a little by the shifts in the market and in their competition. I also believe that Canon is a shrewed and competitive company, and that as far as their investors are concerned, keeping the company alive is a more profitable endeavor over the long term than letting it die due to non-competitive behavior. So I believe that Canon will continue to remain a viable, high quality photography company throughout the long term. They may not be able to regain the supreme crown on all fronts against the larger SoNikon alliance, but I don't think it is even remotely fair to call them a future Blackberry either.

 

[jrista]

...however when it comes to landscapes, Nikon currently offers better glass...

Yes, if you must use an ultrawide zoom. I'd say the TS-E 17L + TS-E 24L II would be better than the 14-24/2.8, by a significant margin. For me, if 12 stops of DR aren't enough, usually 14 stops aren't enough, either (meaning grad NDs and/or HDR shooting). Stitched panos give me higher than 36 MP resolution. If 2 stops more DR and/or more MP in a single shot (moving elements in the scene, etc.) would be a big benefit, and sharpness is critical, I'd suggest the two wide Canon TS-E lenses mounted on an a7R would give you better results than the D800 + 14-24 combo.

Ok, a few counterpoints. First, I agree the Canon TS-E lenses are better. But that does nothing for DR. On the DR front, 14 stops is better than 12 stops, no matter how you slice it. The fewer filters you stack in front of a camera, especially a high resolution one, the better for your IQ. I can get away with using fewer filters, and less dense filters, with 14 stops of DR than 12 stops, so yes while I'd probably still need to use them, I could avoid unsightly artifacts like black mountain peaks (which often plague photos that had to use heavy GND filtration.) Keep in mind, 14 stops means it is two orders of magnitude more capable than a camera with 12 stops, which is pretty significant. In many cases, you could get away with deepening your blacks and losing some detail there to preserve highlight information, and not use a filter at all (which, as it stands, is usually not really even an option with 14mm lenses or the TS-E 17 anyway due to their front element.)

Your comment about adapting Canon lenses to the A7r is actually pretty intriguing. I've never been a fan of Sony technology. It's always been a big electronics name, but I've usually found better quality in other brands (for example, I prefer Samsung and Sharp TVs over Sony TVs, Pioneer instead of Sony for my car sterio, etc.) I know the sensor in the A7r is damn good...but is the camera as a whole good? I KNOW you know this argument. I've stuck with Canon because they make a damn good camera, despite not having the best sensors. I know Nikon makes a pretty good camera too, and while ergonomically they don't fit for me, I guess I'd prefer a Nikon camera over a Sony camera. But, maybe the A7r is different, and brings about a new era for Sony...I dunno...

 

[jrista]

It's weird that it seems like the only people who hold Nikon in high regard are posting on a Canon forum, and all your hear on Nikon forums is how badly they fail at everything they try.

Maybe we should all just switch forums?

LOL.

I woldn't say it's all bad on the Nikon forums, though. I sneak around over at Nikon rumors a bit, and I frequently see entire threads where, when a new camera comes out from Nikon, they are drooling all over it, and happily bashing the Canon camp. In some cases, like the D800 and D7100, they certainly had a point. In other cases, the D800 and D600 certainly had their share of major issues, and issues that plagued owners for months before Nikon even acknowledged them, then months further before Nikon was willing/able to fix them. If I were a Nikon owner, I'd be bitching too.

 

[jrista]

So high megapixel? For Canon that means what? 24MP Might be pushing it... Prob closer to 23.8MP

From past rumors about Canon high-mp cameras in testing, probably 40mp+.

If full frame. Would that be a good camera for birding?

If it comes with a high frame rate, absolutely!

 

[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'.

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.

"Broke" would indicate a malfunction, as in "broken." This is certainly NOT the case...Canon's sensors are not broken. The function perfectly fine, they produce photos of superb quality, and they meet the needs of the majority of photographers. I think the term your looking for is "not the best". Canon sensors are certainly "not the best" after comparing with the D800 and Rx1. But they certainly are not "broke."

Agree. 'Broke' was just a term being used to indicate it requiring improvement.

 

[Loswr]

14 stops is better than 12 stops, no matter how you slice it.

I know the sensor in the A7r is damn good...but is the camera as a whole good? I KNOW you know this argument. I've stuck with Canon because they make a damn good camera, despite not having the best sensors. I know Nikon makes a pretty good camera too, and while ergonomically they don't fit for me, I guess I'd prefer a Nikon camera over a Sony camera. But, maybe the A7r is different, and brings about a new era for Sony...I dunno...

Yes, 14 stops is better. But for me it's often still insufficient, and the strategies used to overcome the limitation of 12 stops would still need to be applied.

While I agree that a camera is more than the sensor (and I might even have said that once or twice before ), I was thinking specifically of your use case - supplementing your Canon system, not supplanting it, for use in landscape photography, primarily tripod mounted. Frame rate is largely irrelevant, AF performance is unimportant (and irrelevant if using a tilt shift lens), the small body that might be hard to hold or unwieldy with a large lens is held by the tripod not your hands, you usually have time to fiddle with a kludgy menu system, etc.

 

[jrista]

14 stops is better than 12 stops, no matter how you slice it.

I know the sensor in the A7r is damn good...but is the camera as a whole good? I KNOW you know this argument. I've stuck with Canon because they make a damn good camera, despite not having the best sensors. I know Nikon makes a pretty good camera too, and while ergonomically they don't fit for me, I guess I'd prefer a Nikon camera over a Sony camera. But, maybe the A7r is different, and brings about a new era for Sony...I dunno...

Yes, 14 stops is better. But for me it's often still insufficient, and the strategies used to overcome the limitation of 12 stops would still need to be applied.

While I agree that a camera is more than the sensor (and I might even have said that once or twice before ), I was thinking specifically of your use case - supplementing your Canon system, not supplanting it, for use in landscape photography, primarily tripod mounted. Frame rate is largely irrelevant, AF performance is unimportant (and irrelevant if using a tilt shift lens), the small body that might be hard to hold or unwieldy with a large lens is held by the tripod not your hands, you usually have time to fiddle with a kludgy menu system, etc.

Yeah. Like I said, I'm intrigued by the idea. I also prefer the idea of adapting Canon lenses, as then I wouldn't have any Nikon lenses hanging around that couldn't ever be used on future Canon gear. Still...its Sony... Bleh. Well, I don't have the funds for it now anyway. The EF 600mm f/4 II cleaned me out for at least another year, so we'll see whats available when the time comes.

 

[Diko]

Sorry, but I don't follow you. The 5D Mark II came out in 2008, and the 7D came out in 2009. Availability was limited at first, but you are at least one year off your "year of the" timing. Canon's greater marketshare is most likely because in the categories listed, as well as entry-level cameras, Canon simply outsold Nikon.

GOSH! When DID that time passed by? ;D ;D ;D ;D My bad....

Never-the-less where I live all around me people are with the above mentioned bodies... What I am saying - 7D & 5D M2 saved the day when it comes to market leadership of CANON as long as we do NOT consider the CANON glass owners. They also are quite a reason why the CANON's leadership is difficult to be disputed.

So Neuero, nobody could persuade me that the new line of 1000Ds was the new star.... Nor the 1Dx - most Pro already committed to the 1D series just upgraded... Increase in the numbers on that serie....no. M series? Even CANON themselves admitted it that outside JP they failed.

No innovation, and very little spent on R&D? Canon was awarded over 3000 US patents in 2012. Each year for over 25 years, Canon has ranked in the top five companies worldwide in terms of numbers of US patents awarded. Granted, that means they spend a lot of yen on lawyers. But patent attorneys need research-based claims to file on, so clearly Canon is spending a lot of money on R&D.

And again: GOSH!
You better than anyone else would know that I try to follow those patents and if CANON really DID what they patented we would be quite on another plane... ;-)

In fairness, I think you misread Diko's point.

Yes, they did. My fault! :'(

I think he means that Canon has had the ability to have the most megapixels since 2002 (and in fact did have the most megapixels for most of those years).

That's certainly true, since Canon introduced an industry-leading 18 mp APS-C in 2009, which means they could have produced a 46 mp full frame sensor at any point during the past four years.

But, I'm not sure what "battle" they "lost." Clearly, since Canon could produce at least a 46 mp full frame camera but has not, there is a reason for that. Perhaps one reason is the legions of customers on this and other forums who, prior to the release of the 1Dx and the 5DIII were demanding fewer, larger pixels, higher ISO performance and better autofocus (in the case of the 5D).

Canon delivered exactly what the customers said they wanted. Customers responded by making the 5DIII (at least) a consistent top seller, basically crushing the competition in the marketplace. Yet, now we have a handful of people who insist that Canon is a failure because they have yet to release a high megapixel camera to compete with a competitor's high megapixel camera that doesn't seem to be doing all that well in the marketplace.

Perhaps Canon has "lost" the high-megapixel "battle" but they certainly seem to be winning the war.

Naturally the Canon's shareholders were always on the winning side. My point is that the user on the other hand was NOT since 2010. ;-)

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'.

Excuse me if I have misquoted anyone...
YES & NO!

Let me answer in a separated thread....

 

[Diko]

Canon has officially, publicly announced the technology: August 31st, 2010 (actually quite before that, but I seem to be unable to find the info on the net now).

Let us calculate, Neuro feel free to correct me: if APS-H is 120 MPs then FF would go to about 150 or so.

Now putting into consideration Dual Pixel Tech we might need to divide them by 2 (actually the DPAF is not like that but for the sake of simplicity... :-( ) that would make about 75 MPs.

Now we are talking about Emerging tech in 2010. And that article in July 2013 if less than a real product I would call CANON total bunch of hypocrites looking ONLY for profit.

That means 1DXs shouldn't be less than that! IF it is, it would be marketing's dep. fault that would claim that if they release 45 MPs now and 75 MPs in 2017 Canon would make way more money.

Without accident in 2010 CANON also showed off with this Leaving you on your own thoughts... ;-)

Now having new technologies like Lytro and RH-1 "Ultra" Anamorphic Lens I hardly believe that CANON would need the whole 9 yards... I mean 20 years.

ANY given company has its Business Plan ahead for 1,2,3,5, 10 & 20 years. Each one in its own paste and milestones. Each subject to some extend to modification. However all those patents that Neuro mentions are there ONLY to guarantee the company's leadership. What I mean is that we might be seeing technology developed as early as 2006.