Next Canon step in the matter of their sensors

[LetTheRightLensIn]

shooting distant birds (high density sensor puts more pixels per duck)

for making 13x19" or larger prints

shooting scenes with lots of dynamic range (IMO a huge difference here, this is the biggest difference)

I think you will find

- 22mp will be near enough native printing for A3 - 18x11 ish
- a dr of 12 will print the same as a dr of 14

I think you will find that 12mp images were printing very well on 30 x 24 using software to expand the image

If you are not close enough to birds with a large white then it is your field skills that need improving, not the camera. If you are a serious BIF shooter then the 5DIII is the wrong camera for you - and the D800 would be even worse.

Why would a D800 be a worse birding camera? 16MP 6fps with higher density beats 22MP 6fps with lower density
And not everyone can afford 800mm or 1200mm lens. And even dragging a 300 2.8+2x TC around is a pain enough. Why do you think so many birders have 7D and/or 1D4???

yes 22MP is fine for 13x19, but you can see the difference between that and 36MP at that size if you use all of the highest print settings, it's not critical, but it does look crazy sharp when go to say 540ppi vs 300 ppi.

The DR difference is a good 3 stops, not 2, and yes it does make a difference.

Also, 4k displays are coming soon.

 

[jrista]

yes 22MP is fine for 13x19, but you can see the difference between that and 36MP at that size if you use all of the highest print settings, it's not critical, but it does look crazy sharp when go to say 540ppi vs 300 ppi.

That assumes your 36mp sensor is capturing enough detail to start for a 540ppi print (which would probably be more like a 720ppi, 600ppi, or 360ppi print, depending on the printer, unless you want uneven and potentially unsightly interpolation.) You need the very best glass, at an ideal aperture, with absolutely zero camera shake, and a low enough ISO to capture a photo that will actually fully and perfectly utilize all the spatial resolution the D800 sensor is capable of. Thats a lot of factors, and outside of stable tripod-based landscape photography in zero wind, its going to be a tough thing to achieve most of the time.

Its pretty tough to capture a perfectly sharp, maximum detail image with the 7D's 18mp sensor, which offers slightly more spatial resolution than the D800. When it comes to BIF, its simply expected that your not going to capture that much detail in perfect clarity unless your about 2 feet from the bird or have ungodly reach, and that is kind of the holy grail of BIF. Most of the time, your well outside of ideal conditions. Reach becomes ever more important than resolution at that point, as the more you can fill the frame and utilize more of sensor area available, the better the quality of each pixel will be, offering more for your final output. Far more important than sensor, in that respect, is the glass and the reach of your glass. I would happily lug around a 300/2.8 with a 2x TC, or even a 500/4 or 600/4 with a 1.4x TC, if it will help me fill the frame.

When it comes to printing, the native print size between the 1D IV, 5D III and D800 is enough to print at any common paper size up to A2 with a bit of post-process sharpening for the lower res images, with very little to no visible difference between them all. The linear difference in megapixels translates to a far smaller area difference those megapixels can print at. Dynamic range in print is far lower than it is directly out of the camera, and unless your working with a true 10-bit display, even your monitor is going to be displaying less than 12 stops of DR. The native DR you get out of the camera has to be considerably compressed if your final destination os print. Gamut is a far more important factor for print, and both DR and gamut for print are things primarily based on software, several degrees removed from the camera itself. Your probably printing about 6-7 stops of DR most of the time, and potentially much less than that if you opt for a matte paper over an idealistic high dMax gloss or metallic paper, with a gamut around about as large as AdobeRGB (and a bit larger in either the greens or blues/violets...depending on the printer and inks.)

If we are going to talk about the benefits of any given camera for print, I'd say any of them will do far more than superbly. Printing is so many degrees removed from how good the camera hardware is its rather ridiculous and largely a moot point. Reach, be it via sensor crop factor or, more idealistically, longer glass, is a far more critical factor of capturing and printing BIF shots.

 

[briansquibb]

Why would a D800 be a worse birding camera? 16MP 6fps with higher density beats 22MP 6fps with lower density
And not everyone can afford 800mm or 1200mm lens. And even dragging a 300 2.8+2x TC around is a pain enough. Why do you think so many birders have 7D and/or 1D4???

yes 22MP is fine for 13x19, but you can see the difference between that and 36MP at that size if you use all of the highest print settings, it's not critical, but it does look crazy sharp when go to say 540ppi vs 300 ppi.

The DR difference is a good 3 stops, not 2, and yes it does make a difference.

Also, 4k displays are coming soon.

I would guess that the vast majority of BIF shooters have a 7D or a 1D3/4. Go onto a BIF shooter forum and ask.

I would guess the majority of BIF have lens 400mm+ with, I expect, the 500mm being the most common.

I would expect a 7D with 8fps and a 1D4 with 10fps to be significantly better at BIF than the D800. Surprisingly DR is not a critical factor for BIF shooters - key factors are

- AF
- reach
- metering

The issue is not density but filling the frame, issues only start when cropping start. Putting all 16mp/18mp on the subject will always give top IQ

There is no way the D800 can compete with the 1D4 for BIF.

 

[jrista]

Why would a D800 be a worse birding camera? 16MP 6fps with higher density beats 22MP 6fps with lower density
And not everyone can afford 800mm or 1200mm lens. And even dragging a 300 2.8+2x TC around is a pain enough. Why do you think so many birders have 7D and/or 1D4???

yes 22MP is fine for 13x19, but you can see the difference between that and 36MP at that size if you use all of the highest print settings, it's not critical, but it does look crazy sharp when go to say 540ppi vs 300 ppi.

The DR difference is a good 3 stops, not 2, and yes it does make a difference.

Also, 4k displays are coming soon.

I would guess that the vast majority of BIF shooters have a 7D or a 1D3/4. Go onto a BIF shooter forum and ask.

I would guess the majority of BIF have lens 400mm+ with, I expect, the 500mm being the most common.

I would expect a 7D with 8fps and a 1D4 with 10fps to be significantly better at BIF than the D800. Surprisingly DR is not a critical factor for BIF shooters - key factors are

- AF
- reach
- metering

The issue is not density but filling the frame, issues only start when cropping start. Putting all 16mp/18mp on the subject will always give top IQ

There is no way the D800 can compete with the 1D4 for BIF.

As a BIF shooter, I pretty much agree with all of that. Particularly the most important camera features: AF, Reach, Metering.

 

[V8Beast]

Landscapes...in a heartbeat! The average sunset landscape can have a DR well above 12 stops, even above 14 stops. The more DR the better for landscape shots. Not that you will necessarily use all of it in the final product, but that you can always use the leeway when it comes to landscape shots. Being able to do even a touch of shadow recovery where necessary without encountering the color-blotched noise-infested pattern-ridden shadows that Canon is well-known for would be a godsend. Not to mention the improved sharpness on the D800e.

That's a fair answer, but based on all the b!tching, you'd think everyone is a landscape photographer all of a sudden. It's either that, or people who may have been in the market for a 5DIII don't like the idea that Nikon makes a better camera for landscapes, even though they don't shoot landscapes. Or maybe landscape photographers are an awfully vocal bunch

 

[dr croubie]

They don't care and think 5d3 sensor is fine

This.

They will run some marketing campaign admitting to mistake and offer some solution for future.
They will try to get next sensors from Sony as Nikon did
They will try to get sensors from another company than Sony because of some Nikon exclusive agreements

Not going to happen.
They didn't make a mistake, they knew exactly what they were doing.
They will never buy from Sony or Nikon, that's the worst thing for you, for me, for competition, and for the industry in general. Rewind a few years, and imagine that Canon bought Sony sensors too. The 5D2 wouldn't exist. The 1Ds3 wouldn't exist. The 7D/60D/550D/600D wouldn't exist. We'd all be stuck using the same 12MP D300/D700 sensors. The new 24MP NEX-7/D3200 sensor wouldn't exist either, without the competition from the 5D3 and 7D sensor, there's no incentive to go any better.

They will care a S___ and listen to pros who actually use cameras out in the field.

They do.
They did.
5D3 was what happened when they listened to the Pros.
The Pros they listened to were event photographers, wedding photographers, people whose livelihoods depend on being able to focus accurately in low light, being able to take the least noisy shots possible in low-light, silently from the back of the church or on a dimly lit stage.

They will run some marketing campaign to defend the results achieved with current 5d3 sensor

They don't have to.
As said, it works perfectly well for its intended audience.

They will work harder to get better results and follow the path they do now

Debatable.
The 1DX and 5D3 were both releases aimed exactly at target markets. The 1DX target market is for photojournalists who *must* get a shot, and *must* get it to the publishers (paper or 'net) ASAP, or they're out of a job. Hence the best Canon AF ever, the 12/14 fps, the ethernet port.
5D3 was aimed at the wedding photogs who can't afford the 1DX, who need silent shutter, who have to carry the damn thing all day and don't want a gripped body or need the best sealing.

The Pros they haven't listened to lately are the wildlife/birders, who are almost always focal-length limited, need more pixels-on-target, need f/8 focussing. The 1Dmk4 is still the camera for them. Will the 1D4 be replaced soon, in a 3D or 7D2 with more MP-on-target, and f/8 focussing?

They also haven't listened to Landscapers lately. They are the ones most disappointed by the 5D3 and the ones most likely to switch to the D800. They need the Low-ISO Dynamic Range that canon just isn't giving them. They need the Megapixels. They don't need ISO6400 performance.
Will they introduce a 30-40MP+ 1Ds/2/3/4D body to make landscapers happy?

With both of those segments, there's a *lot* less market share than for the photojournalist and wedding/event photographers that were targetted by the 1DX and 5D3 bodies. So maybe Canon will just ignore birders and landscapers forever, and continue on their path of most-market-share? I hope not, but they're going to be fine and making enough money from the 1DX and 5D3 bodies to not care.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

They don't care and think 5d3 sensor is fine

This.

They will run some marketing campaign admitting to mistake and offer some solution for future.
They will try to get next sensors from Sony as Nikon did
They will try to get sensors from another company than Sony because of some Nikon exclusive agreements

Not going to happen.
They didn't make a mistake, they knew exactly what they were doing.
They will never buy from Sony or Nikon, that's the worst thing for you, for me, for competition, and for the industry in general. Rewind a few years, and imagine that Canon bought Sony sensors too. The 5D2 wouldn't exist. The 1Ds3 wouldn't exist. The 7D/60D/550D/600D wouldn't exist. We'd all be stuck using the same 12MP D300/D700 sensors. The new 24MP NEX-7/D3200 sensor wouldn't exist either, without the competition from the 5D3 and 7D sensor, there's no incentive to go any better.

They will care a S___ and listen to pros who actually use cameras out in the field.

They do.
They did.
5D3 was what happened when they listened to the Pros.
The Pros they listened to were event photographers, wedding photographers, people whose livelihoods depend on being able to focus accurately in low light, being able to take the least noisy shots possible in low-light, silently from the back of the church or on a dimly lit stage.

They will run some marketing campaign to defend the results achieved with current 5d3 sensor

They don't have to.
As said, it works perfectly well for its intended audience.

They will work harder to get better results and follow the path they do now

Debatable.
The 1DX and 5D3 were both releases aimed exactly at target markets. The 1DX target market is for photojournalists who *must* get a shot, and *must* get it to the publishers (paper or 'net) ASAP, or they're out of a job. Hence the best Canon AF ever, the 12/14 fps, the ethernet port.
5D3 was aimed at the wedding photogs who can't afford the 1DX, who need silent shutter, who have to carry the damn thing all day and don't want a gripped body or need the best sealing.

The Pros they haven't listened to lately are the wildlife/birders, who are almost always focal-length limited, need more pixels-on-target, need f/8 focussing. The 1Dmk4 is still the camera for them. Will the 1D4 be replaced soon, in a 3D or 7D2 with more MP-on-target, and f/8 focussing?

They also haven't listened to Landscapers lately. They are the ones most disappointed by the 5D3 and the ones most likely to switch to the D800. They need the Low-ISO Dynamic Range that canon just isn't giving them. They need the Megapixels. They don't need ISO6400 performance.
Will they introduce a 30-40MP+ 1Ds/2/3/4D body to make landscapers happy?

With both of those segments, there's a *lot* less market share than for the photojournalist and wedding/event photographers that were targetted by the 1DX and 5D3 bodies. So maybe Canon will just ignore birders and landscapers forever, and continue on their path of most-market-share? I hope not, but they're going to be fine and making enough money from the 1DX and 5D3 bodies to not care.

1. More DR actually can be useful for wedding shooters.

2. It can really be useful for landscape shooters and the 5D3 IS also their top landscape cam so no I don't think they listened to the pros too well about it all or to the wrong set.

 

[dr croubie]

2. It can really be useful for landscape shooters and the 5D3 IS also their top landscape cam so no I don't think they listened to the pros too well about it all or to the wrong set.

Well yes, by default 5D3 is their best landscape camera.
It's also their best wildlife camera of their current models, tied with the 1Dx and 7D (all 3 have varying degrees of MP-On-Target, AF, and FPS), none of those 3 are as good as the 1D4 imho.

Maybe canon are planning a *true* landscapers camera, to compete with the D800?
Maybe they're planning a *true* replacement to the 1D4?
(Maybe they can combine the two together, high-MP FF sensor with f/8 AF, which will be a real D800-competition, but with 8+ fps?)

Maybe they're planning an MF camera system to compete with Hassy/Pentax/Phasemiya? (Because if your income depends on getting the best landscape shot with the most MP to print at the biggest sizes, then you're pretty much stuck with MF, at least you were before the D800)

 

[jrista]

Landscapes...in a heartbeat! The average sunset landscape can have a DR well above 12 stops, even above 14 stops. The more DR the better for landscape shots. Not that you will necessarily use all of it in the final product, but that you can always use the leeway when it comes to landscape shots. Being able to do even a touch of shadow recovery where necessary without encountering the color-blotched noise-infested pattern-ridden shadows that Canon is well-known for would be a godsend. Not to mention the improved sharpness on the D800e.

That's a fair answer, but based on all the b!tching, you'd think everyone is a landscape photographer all of a sudden. It's either that, or people who may have been in the market for a 5DIII don't like the idea that Nikon makes a better camera for landscapes, even though they don't shoot landscapes. Or maybe landscape photographers are an awfully vocal bunch

Hah, very true. Ironically, I think more people use higher ISO's than low, particularly ISO 100. If I leave my ISO on auto, even when I'm not shooting BIF under dark clouds, it only rarely reaches 100. It is usually at 160 or 200 at least, and often around 400 or so even in pretty darn good light. The only times my ISO is actually 100 is when I'm using full-manual mode for landscapes, particularly when I want long exposures with polarizing, ND and GND filtration. ISO 100 is pretty slow and frequently mandates extremely wide apertures or long shutter speeds, neither of which is ideal for a whole lot of photography.

I think it really boils down to the simple technicals. People here are largely Canon users, and Canon has fallen behind. No one likes their future upgrade track to offer less IQ than the competition for more money. Sadly, thats exactly the position Canon has left many of their customers in (even if its only perceptually, as there is more to IQ than just what the sensor is capable of.)

 

[V8Beast]

Hah, very true. Ironically, I think more people use higher ISO's than low, particularly ISO 100. If I leave my ISO on auto, even when I'm not shooting BIF under dark clouds, it only rarely reaches 100. It is usually at 160 or 200 at least, and often around 400 or so even in pretty darn good light. The only times my ISO is actually 100 is when I'm using full-manual mode for landscapes, particularly when I want long exposures with polarizing, ND and GND filtration. ISO 100 is pretty slow and frequently mandates extremely wide apertures or long shutter speeds, neither of which is ideal for a whole lot of photography.

I still think the 5DIII's files look better than the D800's, but subjective impressions aside, the Nikon is the better camera in terms of DR. Sure low ISO DR is useful, and I do plenty of ISO 100-400 shooting but I also crank the ISO up to 800-3200 very frequently for various reasons, and it's not always due to low light. I often turn up the ISO so I can stop down a lens for either maximum sharpness or deep DOF. Smaller apertures also come in handy for something like pan blurs as they yield a deeper focal plane and a bigger margin for focusing error. Someones maximum DR is important in these situations, but often times it isn't. Plus, the 5DIII has the edge in high ISO DR over the D800, but no one seems to care. DR is important, but it's just one of multiple factors that come into play when setting up a shot.

I think it really boils down to the simple technicals. People here are largely Canon users, and Canon has fallen behind. No one likes their future upgrade track to offer less IQ than the competition for more money. Sadly, thats exactly the position Canon has left many of their customers in (even if its only perceptually, as there is more to IQ than just what the sensor is capable of.)

I understand the money issue, and if I could have purchased the 5DIII for $500 less, I certainly wouldn't complain. Even so, if you really need the features the 5DIII has to offer, an extra $500 isn't going to be a deal breaker. If the extra $500 puts it out of the hands of hobbyists, that's a different story entirely. The message Canon seems to be sending is that they did their research, determined that the 5DIII's target audience are pros, packed it with features that pros wanted, and priced it accordingly. The funny thing is I don't see a $3,000 body as a "hobbyist friendly" price point, either.

If it's a money issue, I understand, but to harp on one metric of performance (DR) and determine that the 5DIII and the entire Canon system is junk because you can't afford one is a bit extreme. Many DR fanatics post links to blogs and sample images of other photographers as examples of situations where more low ISO DR is beneficial, rather than posting their own sample images. So, perhaps they're more infatuated with the idea of having more DR should they need it opposed to having personally experienced shooting situations where more DR would have been beneficial.

It's like a 5'6" dude with a Napoleon complex that buys an SUV because of its off-road prowess, yet never actually goes off roading. He likes the idea of what the truck can do in theory even though he never uses its steep approach angle, locking differential, generous ground clearance, and big mud tires.

Photographers have been taking stunning images with cameras that have far less DR than the current generation of Canon's DSLRs. If someone's going to complain about it incessantly, then surely they must have images in which their gear - and not their technique - has let them down instead of having to rely on sample images posted from other photographers to prove their point

 

[torger]

Canon sensor is surely "good enough". It's easy to forget that the 5Dmk3 sensor is not bad, it is the Sony Exmor sensor in the D800 that is exceptionally good, in a class of its own. No sensor except Sony Exmor show these properties, and it is not too many cameras that have it.

However, once you've seen that it is possible to have cleaner dark colors than we were used to, it is hard not to desire it.

It is not about the Canon sensor being so bad it ruins pictures. It doesn't. The older version I lenses did not ruin pictures either, but still sharper version II are introduced to set a new quality standard. Sony has now raised the bar concerning sensor image quality, and Canon is currently lagging behind and shows no sign of having the technology to respond. Sure thing I like to whine a bit about that .

 

[BillyBean]

...

The Pros they haven't listened to lately are the wildlife/birders, who are almost always focal-length limited, need more pixels-on-target, need f/8 focussing. The 1Dmk4 is still the camera for them. Will the 1D4 be replaced soon, in a 3D or 7D2 with more MP-on-target, and f/8 focussing?

They also haven't listened to Landscapers lately. They are the ones most disappointed by the 5D3 and the ones most likely to switch to the D800. They need the Low-ISO Dynamic Range that canon just isn't giving them. They need the Megapixels. They don't need ISO6400 performance.
Will they introduce a 30-40MP+ 1Ds/2/3/4D body to make landscapers happy?

With both of those segments, there's a *lot* less market share than for the photojournalist and wedding/event photographers that were targetted by the 1DX and 5D3 bodies. So maybe Canon will just ignore birders and landscapers forever, and continue on their path of most-market-share? I hope not, but they're going to be fine and making enough money from the 1DX and 5D3 bodies to not care.

WELL SAID! I think a great many folks on this forum are enthusiasts (me too) but who seem to forget that Canon are a BUSINESS not a CHARITY designed to help photographers. Ultimately, they don't give a stuff about current or prospective customers *except* in so far as they can make a few bucks from them, now and in future. Lose sight of that truth at your peril.

This is the joy of capitalism - love it or loath it. Personally, I think it works rather well.

If Canon can make a camera that suits birders and landscape well, without destroying other market segments in the process, and make money off it, then they undoubtedly will. But reality bites: they will not destroy other market segments, so expect AF to be worse, or other stuff that maybe landscape doesn't really need. So my hunch - expect a 5D2 with an uprated sensor, but still rubbish AF.

 

[KeithR]

1. More DR actually can be useful for wedding shooters.

I see very little evidence of that - most wedding photography has nothing to do with image quality per se, and more to do with dicking about with cross processing and other PP gimmicks that will work just fine regardless of the source of the Raws.

In fact, I'll very happily argue that bird photographers have far more need of great IQ than wedding photographers, and the 5D Mk III will make an excellent birding body, assuming enough focal length...

2. It can really be useful for landscape shooters

A tiny subset of the potential customer base for the 5D Mk III. For everyone else, it's a bloody superlative bit of kit - the first FF camera I've ever been actively interested in, and yes, I'm a bird 'tog.

and the 5D3 IS also their top landscape cam so no I don't think they listened to the pros too well about it all or to the wrong set.

Far more likely, the 5D Mk III isn't intended as a landscape camera.

This whole thing of DxO making such a big deal of the low ISO DR from the D800 to the extent that this characteristic alone has effectively raised it above all other DSLRs, is just another example of DxO bias: the weight they've given this one D800 metric - which it just happens to beat the 5D Mk III in - makes no sense whatsoever except in the context of "massaging" the final mark.

For many potential users, "amazing" base ISO DR is an irrelevance, and there are areas where the 5D Mk III's files are better than the D800's; and in most others, particularly once we're off base ISO, the files are essentially equal in terms of the end result.

Yet the D800 is the star simply because of its low ISO DR performance?

It's a bloody fix, pure and simple: give me excellent all-round file performance (and anyone who says that the 5D Mk III doesn't do that in spades, is a liar, an idiot, or both), stellar AF and high FPS any day.

Despite what DxO and the habitual whiners and axe-grinders on here have to say about it.

 

[3kramd5]

Man, I'm getting really tired of "100mm = 160mm effective" and all that noise.

Those numbers are only useful to someone who on a regular basis shoots simultaneously with an APS-C body and a FF body and wants lenses which will frame the same.

Beyond that, it's useless. 100mm is 100mm.

It's especially absurd in the world of DSLRs when more people than ever are using SLR cameras and most have never so much as picked up a full frame body. If anything, they should go the other way (crop equivalent framing, not the other way around).

BRB, building an adapter for my SD960 so I can turn my 300mm into 1700mm.

 

[Ivar]

+1

Canon sensor is surely "good enough". It's easy to forget that the 5Dmk3 sensor is not bad, it is the Sony Exmor sensor in the D800 that is exceptionally good, in a class of its own. No sensor except Sony Exmor show these properties, and it is not too many cameras that have it.

However, once you've seen that it is possible to have cleaner dark colors than we were used to, it is hard not to desire it.

It is not about the Canon sensor being so bad it ruins pictures. It doesn't. The older version I lenses did not ruin pictures either, but still sharper version II are introduced to set a new quality standard. Sony has now raised the bar concerning sensor image quality, and Canon is currently lagging behind and shows no sign of having the technology to respond. Sure thing I like to whine a bit about that .

 

[jrista]

Man, I'm getting really tired of "100mm = 160mm effective" and all that noise.

Those numbers are only useful to someone who on a regular basis shoots simultaneously with an APS-C body and a FF body and wants lenses which will frame the same.

Beyond that, it's useless. 100mm is 100mm.

It's especially absurd in the world of DSLRs when more people than ever are using SLR cameras and most have never so much as picked up a full frame body. If anything, they should go the other way (crop equivalent framing, not the other way around).

BRB, building an adapter for my SD960 so I can turn my 300mm into 1700mm.

Its not that simple. Bird photographers like myself, for example, who explicitly appreciate cropped frame sensors DO like to know EXACTLY what the benefit of that cropping is. Knowing that, say, a 400mm telephoto lens produces an effective field of view similar to a 640mm lens on a full-frame due to a 1.6x crop or a 520mm due to a 1.3x crop is very valuable. Focal length is not just a physical measure when crop factor and effective FoV are taken into account for subjects like BIF.

 

[Eengineer]

They will use their existing research as they see fit.
http://www.canon.com/news/2010/aug31e.html or this sensor for pixel peeping for APC-H sensor
http://www.canon.com/news/2010/aug24e.html

 

[3kramd5]

Knowing that, say, a 400mm telephoto lens produces an effective field of view similar to a 640mm lens on a full-frame due to a 1.6x crop or a 520mm due to a 1.3x crop is very valuable

How is that valuable? Do you care how a 100mm lens frames on medium format?

If you routinely use multiple formats and want to equip to frame similarly, great. If you don't, you're in the majority, and it doesn't buy anything.

 

[NickCat]

or they will just post a link to the techradar test with a big question mark ?

and ask how two DxO test can have different results.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=5868.0

none of the techradar results make much sense at all

Why don't TechRadar's results make sense?

The one thing I walk away from those graphs with is the fact that Canon is obviously doing something pretty nasty during the in-body JPG conversion to have that large a discrepancy in the results.

Maybe it's because I want to believe those results, but they just feel more feasible. Especially with the D4 having higher scores then the 800.

 

[marekjoz]

They don't care and think 5d3 sensor is fine

This.

They will run some marketing campaign admitting to mistake and offer some solution for future.
They will try to get next sensors from Sony as Nikon did
They will try to get sensors from another company than Sony because of some Nikon exclusive agreements

Not going to happen.
They didn't make a mistake, they knew exactly what they were doing.
They will never buy from Sony or Nikon, that's the worst thing for you, for me, for competition, and for the industry in general. Rewind a few years, and imagine that Canon bought Sony sensors too. The 5D2 wouldn't exist. The 1Ds3 wouldn't exist. The 7D/60D/550D/600D wouldn't exist. We'd all be stuck using the same 12MP D300/D700 sensors. The new 24MP NEX-7/D3200 sensor wouldn't exist either, without the competition from the 5D3 and 7D sensor, there's no incentive to go any better.

They will care a S___ and listen to pros who actually use cameras out in the field.

They do.
They did.
5D3 was what happened when they listened to the Pros.
The Pros they listened to were event photographers, wedding photographers, people whose livelihoods depend on being able to focus accurately in low light, being able to take the least noisy shots possible in low-light, silently from the back of the church or on a dimly lit stage.

They will run some marketing campaign to defend the results achieved with current 5d3 sensor

They don't have to.
As said, it works perfectly well for its intended audience.

They will work harder to get better results and follow the path they do now

Debatable.
The 1DX and 5D3 were both releases aimed exactly at target markets. The 1DX target market is for photojournalists who *must* get a shot, and *must* get it to the publishers (paper or 'net) ASAP, or they're out of a job. Hence the best Canon AF ever, the 12/14 fps, the ethernet port.
5D3 was aimed at the wedding photogs who can't afford the 1DX, who need silent shutter, who have to carry the damn thing all day and don't want a gripped body or need the best sealing.

The Pros they haven't listened to lately are the wildlife/birders, who are almost always focal-length limited, need more pixels-on-target, need f/8 focussing. The 1Dmk4 is still the camera for them. Will the 1D4 be replaced soon, in a 3D or 7D2 with more MP-on-target, and f/8 focussing?

They also haven't listened to Landscapers lately. They are the ones most disappointed by the 5D3 and the ones most likely to switch to the D800. They need the Low-ISO Dynamic Range that canon just isn't giving them. They need the Megapixels. They don't need ISO6400 performance.
Will they introduce a 30-40MP+ 1Ds/2/3/4D body to make landscapers happy?

With both of those segments, there's a *lot* less market share than for the photojournalist and wedding/event photographers that were targetted by the 1DX and 5D3 bodies. So maybe Canon will just ignore birders and landscapers forever, and continue on their path of most-market-share? I hope not, but they're going to be fine and making enough money from the 1DX and 5D3 bodies to not care.

I appreciate your comments and feedback. It's good written.