New EOS-1 in 2014 [CR1]

[J.R.]

If you don't like Canon's offerings, take your money elsewhere, get the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8, get a Sony A7 or whatever else you find best. What is the point in continuously moaning?

Don't worry, I'll do just that, as soon as "my next camera system" becomes available.
Until then I am not moaning, but just stating my opinion. Like you and everybody else.

Given that Canon is still the best system out there, maybe you will wait long. As a consequence, your moaning opinions will continue for some considerable time...

 

[Loswr]

I consider it mainly CaNikon's fault, since they make it as difficult as possible for third party makers to produce fully functional lenses by changing their proprietary lens mounts all the time.

Let's see…the Canon EF mount replaced the FD mount in 1987 - it hasn't changed in more than 25 years. The FL/FD/NewFD (interchangeable) mounts were in use for nearly 25 years before that. Now…the R mount was only used for ~5 years, in the early 1960s. So, in over 50 years, Canon has had 3 main types of lens mounts, and in the last 49 years, only two. During those same >50 years, Nikon has used one mount type, the F-mount.

So…what in the H-E-double-hockey-sticks are you talking about?

 

[AvTvM]

I consider it mainly CaNikon's fault, since they make it as difficult as possible for third party makers to produce fully functional lenses by changing their proprietary lens mounts all the time.

Let's see…the Canon EF mount replaced the FD mount in 1987 - it hasn't changed in more than 25 years. The FL/FD/NewFD (interchangeable) mounts were in use for nearly 25 years before that. Now…the R mount was only used for ~5 years, in the early 1960s. So, in over 50 years, Canon has had 3 main types of lens mounts, and in the last 49 years, only two. During those same >50 years, Nikon has used one mount type, the F-mount.

So…what in the H-E-double-hockey-sticks are you talking about?

Sorry, my wording was not clear enough ... it should read "lens mount PROTOCOL"

I was referring to the news item 2 days ago http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/11/19/sigma-issues-advisory-on-lens-compatibility-with-nikon-d5300 ... may have escaped your attention, since it is Nikon this time playing games on Sigma ... and possibly other third party lens manufacturers too - although no reports have surfaced yet from Tamron or Tokina.

Even while the physics of the Canon EF- and Nikon F-mount have remained (largely or totally) unchanged for a long time, every so often Canon and now also Nikon have changed something in their proprietary lens-camera-communications protocol. These changes may have had functional reasons too - e.g. in order to enable some more advanced AF, IS or ETTL or whatever functions. But sometimes - like in this latest incidence now - these changes left third-party lenses - most notably Sigma lenses - not (fully) functional any longer, while all "camera manufacturer's lenses [Nikon this time, Canon before] retained their full functionality.

Of course CaNikon may change the lens mount protocol if and as needed. But from a "competitive market" and especially from our CUSTOMERS point of view, it would be preferrable, if the protocols were open standard and any changes would come announced and fully documented beforehand, so third party lens makers would have a better chance to adjust their products.

 

[Loswr]

But sometimes - like in this latest incidence now - these changes left third-party lenses - most notably Sigma lenses - not (fully) functional any longer, while all "camera manufacturer's lenses [Nikon this time, Canon before] retained their full functionality.

Of course CaNikon may change the lens mount protocol if and as needed. But from a "competitive market" and especially from our CUSTOMERS point of view, it would be preferrable, if the protocols were open standard and any changes would come announced and fully documented beforehand, so third party lens makers would have a better chance to adjust their products.

Gotcha. Yes, I read about the issue with Sigma lenses on the D5300.

If you read the reviews on TDP, you'lll notice that the review of 3rd party lenses contain statements like, "Since <Sigma/Tamron/Tokina/etc.> reverse engineers (vs. licenses) manufacturer AF algorithms, there is always the possibility that a DSLR body might not support a (likely older) third party lens. Sometimes a lens can be made compatible by the manufacturer, sometimes not." The current issue with the D5300 and Sigma lenses is not the first one, and won't be the last.

It's worth noting that sometimes these communication protocol updates affect OEM lenses as well, for example, the issue that affected functioning of the peripheral AF points on the 40D/50D/60D/7D with some older Canon lenses. But then, that issue came to light mainly because people using Tamron lenses were affected by it, since some Tamron lenses 'borrowed' the lens codes of those older Canon lenses.

Of course, Canon and Nikon are under no obligation to do things that are beneficial from the customers' point of view, or things that benefit their competition. Did Macy's tell Gimbels? Sure, the m4/3 community came to an agreement to standardize the mount and communication protocols, but I suspect that was to avoid being like hyenas fighting over scraps on the carcass after the lions are done - they recoginzed that they had an uphill climb to compete with dSLRs, and decided that competing with Canon and Nikon on that front was more important than competing with each other.

 

[AvTvM]

Of course, Canon and Nikon are under no obligation to do things that are beneficial from the customers' point of view, or things that benefit their competition. Did Macy's tell Gimbels? Sure, the m4/3 community came to an agreement to standardize the mount and communication protocols, but I suspect that was to avoid being like hyenas fighting over scraps on the carcass after the lions are done - they recoginzed that they had an uphill climb to compete with dSLRs, and decided that competing with Canon and Nikon on that front was more important than competing with each other.

exactly. Unfortunately the FT consortium decided on a sensor size that turned out to be too small. Had they chose 36x24mm "FF" or rather "Kleinbild" ... things might be much better for us ... as customers.

 

[sdsr]

Of course, Canon and Nikon are under no obligation to do things that are beneficial from the customers' point of view, or things that benefit their competition. Did Macy's tell Gimbels? Sure, the m4/3 community came to an agreement to standardize the mount and communication protocols, but I suspect that was to avoid being like hyenas fighting over scraps on the carcass after the lions are done - they recoginzed that they had an uphill climb to compete with dSLRs, and decided that competing with Canon and Nikon on that front was more important than competing with each other.

exactly. Unfortunately the FT consortium decided on a sensor size that turned out to be too small. Had they chose 36x24mm "FF" or rather "Kleinbild" ... things might be much better for us ... as customers.

But the selling point (small though it may be) of M43 is the M bit - a good, small, light system. Had they chosen to go FF they might be able to continue to make small bodies, but the lenses would have to be the same size as those of everyone else who makes FF lenses - so they would no longer have a small, light system. I guess we'll find out whether they made the wrong decision when the mirrorless Sonys have been around for a while.

 

[Loswr]

...when the mirrorless Sonys have been around for a while.

IF the mirrorless Sonys stay around for a while.

 

[sdsr]

To say Nikon 'lost' is perhaps harsh. As the IQ of the D800 is certainly better than 5d3. A photographer friend who switched from 5d2 to D800 showed me comparisons on his laptop and I cannot any longer defend the IQ of 5d3 vs D800. I do realize 'but but' of autofocus, responsiveness etc but am talking just about IQ.

Yes, it's better if you need the extra DR at low ISOs, and it's better if you need the extra resolution and have the know-how to make the most of it, but I wonder how many people need or want either. When I rented a D800E to see what all the fuss was about, aside from those two aspects of sensor performance I didn't notice any difference between the photos I took with it and my 5DIII aside from slight differences in color (I preferred the Canon colors, but presumably the differences could have been edited away). So I think the statement that the IQ of the D800 "is certainly better" needs some modification. And once the caveats are noted, and once we remember that photos are made with cameras and lenses, the fact that the 5DIII outsells the D800/800e is perhaps not the mystery in need of explanation that some seem to think it is.

(I hadn't planned to jump ship; rather, I was wondering whether I wanted a FF Nikon as well - but as those two areas of sensor superiority don't matter that much to me, and since I don't like Nikon's ergonomics and don't know of many Nikon lenses that are as good as Canon's in the focal lengths that matter to me, I decided I didn't want one. Others, of course, may well have reacted differently.)

 

[Diko]

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.

Can anyone really give me any source on that since I don't really believe it as well.

 

[mkabi]

Into the foray of high megapixels, if I have learned anything from medium format cameras (not that I own one, but you don't need to own one to learn about medium format, check out youtube videos). Amazing IQ, but terrible ISO performance, I think the Hasselblads the 40 and 50 MP ones function well up to 400 or was it 800 before the IQ started to deteriorate.

So, you have to shine tonnes of light to get those amazing images you want...

 

[Diko]

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.

ОК. Now my turn:

As knowledgeable as Neuro is I still find it quite pointless to discuss something as obvious as Canon's RD in the last few years.

EVERYONE KNOWS that:

1/ 2010 - the year of Canon 5D MII
2/ 2011 - the year of Canon 7D
3/ 2012 - Did I miss the market-share numbers?!?
4/ 2013 - Still to come....

IF you are still following me - total respect to CANON and their RD performance until 2010... Followed by 3 full years of NO... I say NO innovation...

Finally the first great one which was an OBVIOUS REQUEST by everyone was the "dual pixel" technology...

And it is about time that the JP house should come up with something unless they want to loose the leadership race in their 11th year.... Although having in mind all the Canon glass users... it would be really hard for anyone to achieve it these days.

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....

But NIKON won that battle as CANON won the video battle before that.

And BTW 800D actually is quite popular again thanks to (Carl Zeiss) Otus 1.4/55.

So 1Dx was ONLY 18 MP for nothing else but profit (even if all the technology was already available).... They sold it for $6k a piece, so now they WILL sell the new MEGA pixel 1DXs for $8k, $10k or even $12k.

So the PROFIT is always the most important... and no one can tell me that CANON invested THAT much in RD...

NO way!

 

[Loswr]

ОК. Now my turn:

As knowledgeable as Neuro is I still find it quite pointless to discuss something as obvious as Canon's RD in the last few years.

EVERYONE KNOWS that:

1/ 2010 - the year of Canon 5D MII
2/ 2011 - the year of Canon 7D
3/ 2012 - Did I miss the market-share numbers?!?
4/ 2013 - Still to come....

IF you are still following me - total respect to CANON and their RD performance until 2010... Followed by 3 full years of NO... I say NO innovation...

...

So the PROFIT is always the most important... and no one can tell me that CANON invested THAT much in RD...

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.

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.

But since NO ONE CAN TELL YOU anything about anything, apparently, you're right about it being pointless.

 

[9VIII]

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?

 

[Rick]

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.

 

[jeremypark]

"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.

 

[wockawocka]

Based on sensor tech we've already seen in different brands Canon 'could' do a lot. Foveon sensor based on the 1DX, 6x6 pixel sensor like the Fuji but FF, Pixel doubling like with the Phase one backs.

Lots they could do. But whatever they do it'll be to suit a bottom line as there's less people 'up there' than the general consumer 'down there'.

 

[unfocused]

[quote author=AvTvM]
And next you know, Nikon - as Canon has done before many times - clandestinely changes their lens mount protocol [starting with D5300], so Sigma lenses stop functioning properly on that camera, but not Nikon lenses.
You may call it a mere coincidence. I call it ... just another tree in the huge forest of anti-competitive behaviour, collusion and market manipulation. [/quote]

At last, one point I can partially agree with. (Out of a whole forest, BTW)

I do think it is poor business policy and poor customer service for companies to purposely disable third party accessories. (Unless, of course, those components could potentially damage the product).

As many know, I've long complained that when Canon introduced the 600 RT, they refused to offer a receiver that would allow their own product, the 580EXII to function on radio control. In my view it was shortsighted and contemptuous of their customers, since they could easily produce a receiver or transceiver for probably less than $50 and charge users $200 or more for it. (I base those prices on the excellent Yongnuo 622 transceiver.)

More to the point though is the case of Canon crippling the 5DIII so that it cannot function using the Yongnuo ST-E2, but can use the Canon ST-E2. That was a clearly anti-competitive action on their part and is particularly frustrating because the Yongnuo product is so superior to the Canon (three flash groups instead of two, greater range, rotating head).

The irony, though, is that when companies stoop to these types of behavior, it usually backfires on them. They punish their customers, while the competitor simply works overtime to improve their products. I'm sure Canon's actions provided an incentive for Yongnuo to offer the 622 and to now develop a 600-RT competitor.

Similarly, there is no doubt that Sigma produced its lens dock precisely so that they can thwart attempts by Nikon and Canon to change lens protocols. Additionally, I believe Sigma's new policy of offering lens mount conversions will further discourage this practice.

So, while I share Mr. Aperture Value Time Value Manual's frustration with these anti-competitive behaviors, I note that they are seldom successful for very long. These kinds of bad behavior tend to also be bad business decisions in the long run – they feed into customer dissatisfaction at the same time they spur innovation among competitors – two things that the companies should not be encouraging.

 

[KyleSTL]

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.

1994 - Kodak DCS420 - 2MP
1995 - Kodak DCS460 - 6MP
2002 - Kodak DCS Pro 14n - 14MP (released just prior to Canon 1Ds, 11MP; Nikon's 12MP D2X came in 2004)
2004 - Canon 1Ds Mark II - 16MP
2007 - Canon 1Ds Mark III - 21MP (followed by Canon 5D Mark II in 2008)
2008 - Sony A900 - 24MP (followed by 24MP Nikon D3X in late 2008, and Sony A850 in 2009)
2012 - Nikon D800/D800E - 36MP (followed by Sony A7R in 2013)
2013 - Nokia Lumia 1020 - 41MP (I know, rediculous inclusion - facts remain)

Canon had the highest resolution sensor for a solid 4 years until Sony came out with it's 24MP FF sensor.

Leaderboard (for those keeping score):
Kodak - 10 years
Nikon - 6 years and counting (4 shared jointly with Sony, Nokia excluded)
Canon - 4 years
Sony - 4 years and counting

 

[Woody]

3/ 2012 - Did I miss the market-share numbers?!?
4/ 2013 - Still to come....

2012:
Canon sold 8.21 million interchangeable lens cameras
Nikon sold 7 million interchangeable lens cameras

2013:
Canon projects to sell 8 million interchangeable lens cameras
Nikon projects to sell 6.2 million interchangeable lens cameras

 

[Loswr]

3/ 2012 - Did I miss the market-share numbers?!?
4/ 2013 - Still to come....

2012:
Canon sold 8.21 million interchangeable lens cameras
Nikon sold 7 million interchangeable lens cameras

2013:
Canon projects to sell 8 million interchangeable lens cameras
Nikon projects to sell 6.2 million interchangeable lens cameras

I recall one of the forum doomsayers stating Canon was starting to 'hemorrhage market share'. If the above decrease (which is the first in years) constitutes 'hemorrhaging' then Nikon has pretty much bled out.