Nikon D5 Sensor Score from DXOMark

[9VIII]

How many threads have there been on CR about how DR doesn't matter?

And now, in your rush to defend the D5, you suddenly accept the premise...

It is pretty hilarious.

People stick with Canon because they keep a holistic view of their equipment. Having one small weakness on what is the best in the industry in every other way sounds like a good trade off to me.

 

[Loswr]

How many threads have there been on CR about how DR doesn't matter?

And now, in your rush to defend the D5, you suddenly accept the premise...

It is pretty hilarious.

What's hilarious is expecting consistency...from dilbert. :-X

 

[Orangutan]

How many threads have there been on CR about how DR doesn't matter?

And now, in your rush to defend the D5, you suddenly accept the premise...

It is pretty hilarious.

What's hilarious is expecting consistency...from dilbert. :-X

I think there is an underlying consistency: I think he (and others) simply believe that Canon is acting dishonestly. The reasoning goes something like this:

If Canon "has" the tech for better DR, why don't they put it in? It can only be to use their position to manipulate the market and soak more money from their customers. If Canon doesn't "have" the tech, then they're lying to us about how innovative they are, and they're just stringing-along their customers to keep them hooked on Canon gear until they can "get" the tech. Because if people found out that they had nothing, NOTHING!!, all their customers would flee and they'd collapse in flames. In either case, Canon is being dishonest. But what about Nikon? Well, Nikon has proved they're honest by putting the best sensors in their products, even at the low-end; so if the D5 drops off a bit then that was an honest choice based on need, rather than a manipulative choice based on greed.

Many of the DRummers ascribe human emotion to corporations, when there's nothing personal or emotional about it: they're just trying to generate profit for their shareholders and bonuses for the execs. That's just how business works.

 

[ahsanford]

I think there is an underlying consistency: I think he (and others) simply believe that Canon is acting dishonestly. The reasoning goes something like this:

If Canon "has" the tech for better DR, why don't they put it in? It can only be to use their position to manipulate the market and soak more money from their customers. If Canon doesn't "have" the tech, then they're lying to us about how innovative they are, and they're just stringing-along their customers to keep them hooked on Canon gear until they can "get" the tech. Because if people found out that they had nothing, NOTHING!!, all their customers would flee and they'd collapse in flames. In either case, Canon is being dishonest. But what about Nikon? Well, Nikon has proved they're honest by putting the best sensors in their products, even at the low-end; so if the D5 drops off a bit then that was an honest choice based on need, rather than a manipulative choice based on greed.

Many of the DRummers ascribe human emotion to corporations, when there's nothing personal or emotional about it: they're just trying to generate profit for their shareholders and bonuses for the execs. That's just how business works.

If Canon needs more DR, they will offer it themselves, or if they can't do that in a reasonable timeframe, they'll license sensors from Sony.

...IF their market research says that they need to do that or customers will run away to Sony or Nikon.

I contend that's a whopping/improbable 'if'. Canon's 'customer goodwill' -- due to higher quality, better service, market-leading ecosystem of first and third party products -- may be sufficiently great that Canon knows they can offer a 2nd-best sensor and retain their business.

Or Canon knows from considerable experience that the general market cares more about AF, ergonomics, handling, lenses, etc. and less about sensors and that's where they make their investments to improve.

- A

 

[Orangutan]

I think there is an underlying consistency: I think he (and others) simply believe that Canon is acting dishonestly. The reasoning goes something like this:

If Canon "has" the tech for better DR, why don't they put it in? It can only be to use their position to manipulate the market and soak more money from their customers. If Canon doesn't "have" the tech, then they're lying to us about how innovative they are, and they're just stringing-along their customers to keep them hooked on Canon gear until they can "get" the tech. Because if people found out that they had nothing, NOTHING!!, all their customers would flee and they'd collapse in flames. In either case, Canon is being dishonest. But what about Nikon? Well, Nikon has proved they're honest by putting the best sensors in their products, even at the low-end; so if the D5 drops off a bit then that was an honest choice based on need, rather than a manipulative choice based on greed.

Many of the DRummers ascribe human emotion to corporations, when there's nothing personal or emotional about it: they're just trying to generate profit for their shareholders and bonuses for the execs. That's just how business works.

If Canon needs more DR, they will offer it themselves, or if they can't do that in a reasonable timeframe, they'll license sensors from Sony.

...IF their market research says that they need to do that or customers will run away to Sony or Nikon.

I contend that's a whopping/improbable 'if'. Canon's 'customer goodwill' -- due to higher quality, better service, market-leading ecosystem of first and third party products -- may be sufficiently great that Canon knows they can offer a 2nd-best sensor and retain their business.

Or Canon knows from considerable experience that the general market cares more about AF, ergonomics, handling, lenses, etc. and less about sensors and that's where they make their investments to improve.

- A

In summary, it's not a conspiracy to defraud the camera-buying public, it's just a business decision.

 

[Orangutan]

Oh, I don't think Canon is being dishonest, I simply believe they don't (or at least didn't at the time) have the technology developed.

What appears to have happened is that Canon essentially stopped funding R&D into building better sensors for DSLRs.

Either that, or they continued "R" but decided that "D" wasn't sufficiently profitable to be worth the cost to upgrade the production. That's my guess, but it's only a guess. And they've been correct so far, it has not cost them much market share or profit. Eventually it will, but when...?

 

[R1-7D]

...
I think there is an underlying consistency: I think he (and others) simply believe that Canon is acting dishonestly. The reasoning goes something like this:

If Canon "has" the tech for better DR, why don't they put it in? It can only be to use their position to manipulate the market and soak more money from their customers. If Canon doesn't "have" the tech, then they're lying to us about how innovative they are, and they're just stringing-along their customers to keep them hooked on Canon gear until they can "get" the tech. Because if people found out that they had nothing, NOTHING!!, all their customers would flee and they'd collapse in flames. In either case, Canon is being dishonest. But what about Nikon? Well, Nikon has proved they're honest by putting the best sensors in their products, even at the low-end; so if the D5 drops off a bit then that was an honest choice based on need, rather than a manipulative choice based on greed.

Many of the DRummers ascribe human emotion to corporations, when there's nothing personal or emotional about it: they're just trying to generate profit for their shareholders and bonuses for the execs. That's just how business works.

Oh, I don't think Canon is being dishonest, I simply believe they don't (or at least didn't at the time) have the technology developed.

What appears to have happened is that Canon essentially stopped funding R&D into building better sensors for DSLRs. Now it may be that Canon were stuck with some engineering problems that took longer than others to resolve to move forward but my suspicion is that Canon decided that what they had was "good enough" for them to generate sales with and diverted money elsewhere. As you rightly put it, this would have let them save money on sensor R&D to generate better profit.

All companies do this. Apple, you could argue, is the worst offender. They've just bumped their phones up to 2GB of RAM because up until just recently 1 GB was 'good enough'.

And you know what? Canon and Apple are right. For more peoples' needs their products deliver, and their incremental upgrades drive future sales. This isn't dishonest; this is good business practice.

I don't get why people are so hung up on this.

 

[3kramd5]

...
I think there is an underlying consistency: I think he (and others) simply believe that Canon is acting dishonestly. The reasoning goes something like this:

If Canon "has" the tech for better DR, why don't they put it in? It can only be to use their position to manipulate the market and soak more money from their customers. If Canon doesn't "have" the tech, then they're lying to us about how innovative they are, and they're just stringing-along their customers to keep them hooked on Canon gear until they can "get" the tech. Because if people found out that they had nothing, NOTHING!!, all their customers would flee and they'd collapse in flames. In either case, Canon is being dishonest. But what about Nikon? Well, Nikon has proved they're honest by putting the best sensors in their products, even at the low-end; so if the D5 drops off a bit then that was an honest choice based on need, rather than a manipulative choice based on greed.

Many of the DRummers ascribe human emotion to corporations, when there's nothing personal or emotional about it: they're just trying to generate profit for their shareholders and bonuses for the execs. That's just how business works.

Oh, I don't think Canon is being dishonest, I simply believe they don't (or at least didn't at the time) have the technology developed.

What appears to have happened is that Canon essentially stopped funding R&D into building better sensors for DSLRs. Now it may be that Canon were stuck with some engineering problems that took longer than others to resolve to move forward but my suspicion is that Canon decided that what they had was "good enough" for them to generate sales with and diverted money elsewhere. As you rightly put it, this would have let them save money on sensor R&D to generate better profit.

All companies do this. Apple, you could argue, is the worst offender. They've just bumped their phones up to 2GB of RAM because up until just recently 1 GB was 'good enough'.

I'd argue that companies which put 'good enough' into their product are best serving a wide customer base. More than enough adds cost with questionable value.

It's up to both the vendor and the consumer to determine what 'good enough' is and what a reasonable price is. When those determinations align, thumbs up.