Not only Canon Users are hunting for better specs.... ;-) Alpha 7r II dreams

[Eldar]

What! 5Dsx cameras don't have interchangeable screens? To me that is a no-brainer on any full frame DSLR. The lowly 6D has interchangeable screens, which is good, because I like to use fast MF lenses.

Is that why nobody bought the 5DIII?

I dis not even check, because the thought of not having it never crossed my mind. As Nancy says, it's a no-brainer ...

 

[Sporgon]

What! 5Dsx cameras don't have interchangeable screens? To me that is a no-brainer on any full frame DSLR. The lowly 6D has interchangeable screens, which is good, because I like to use fast MF lenses.

Is that why nobody bought the 5DIII?

I dis not even check, because the thought of not having it never crossed my mind. As Nancy says, it's a no-brainer ...

It's a no brainier for the likes of us, I agree. But is it for the bigger picture ? I guess time will tell: if enough people have complained about it maybe Canon will revert back to it for the 5DIV. Apart from anything else it's much easier to clean !

 

[Loswr]

Have those other companies surpassed Canon in dSLR market share? If not, how important has 'delivering on DR' been to them?

You seriously think that them improving technology for betterment of photography and ease of photography is a bad thing? Is it all only about sales for you? I find this mentality so regressive.

Good job shooting the messenger. A regressive mentality is ignoring basic facts of reality. Canon, Sony, Nikon, these are businesses, not philanthropic organizations. Is anyone really so naïve as to think they make R&D investmentment decisions for the 'betterment of photography' or to help photographers? Grow up, Pollyanna. They do it for profit. Do you seriously think they sponsor sporting events because they just really love football and baseball? :

Personally, I don't care how many cameras Canon or Sony sell. But you can bet your ass that Canon and Sony care. If you want to understand a decision, the best place to start is the motivation of the decision makers. So...why hasn't Canon expended resources to improve low ISO DR? Because they want photographers to suffer? : Most likely because their research has shown it won't significantly help them sell more cameras. Why has Sony expended resources to do so? Most likely because they think it will help them sell more cameras...perhaps precisely because Canon has chosen not to invest in that area.

 

[fragilesi]

I've got to stick up for Neuro here . . . as ever on Internet fora opinions have become polarised to no-one's advantage.

But look back, it started with a cheap dig at Canon, Neuro responded in not unreasonable fashion but is still escalated somehow.

I think a reasonable summary is that Canon, Nikon and Sony produce DSLR systems. NONE OF THEM IS PERFECT and each has its strengths and weaknesses.

Cameras are used by different people in different ways so it's damn obvious that people will be drawn to the system that best suits them. AND there will ALWAYS be things about the other systems that look more attractive - whether they actually are is another matter of course but the differences will always be there. Sorry, that's just life.

So Eldar saying that we should all group together because they aren't listening to "us" doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Canon DID listen to me, they are producing what I want. Sure an extra couple of stops of low ISO DR would be nice as well and I don't think anyone is denying that but AF for example is a lot higher on my list. It really is. Anti flicker, I sooooo wish I could afford to upgrade for that, it would do a lot more for me.

No one system is going to have it all. Sony invested in sensor tech, prioritised it. Canon recently went for High MP bodies, anti-flicker, a fantastic set of lenses and so on. There is only so much R&D budget.

It's that simple.

 

[Eldar]

There are lots of functionality in a camera. But the value of that functionality varies from photographer to photographer, depending on what you are shooting. But the core of any camera is what you are able to record from the sensor. Colour, contrast, resolution, dynamic range, noise, banding ... and all the rest of it.

When we are discussing personal preferences, it may be ergonomics, AF system, fps, weight, size, menu systems, customisability, (anti flickr mode) etc. etc. But at the core of all cameras are still the qualities listed above, colour, contrast, resolution, dynamic range, noise, banding ... and all the rest of it.

So I fully agree that there are major differences between the available cameras out there, when it comes to user-friendliness, flexibility, speed, AF-systems and modes etc. And we all have our preferences. But, even with the differences between action photographers and landscape photographers in mind, every single photographer will benefit from the best possible color , contrast, resolution, dynamic range, noise, banding ... and all the rest of it. Yes, to produce a best in class high ISO camera, you must compromise, compared to a best in class low ISO camera. But as good as possible color , contrast, resolution, dynamic range, noise, banding ... and all the rest of it, will benefit any photographer, whatever niche he or she is in. So those of us on this forum wanting improved DR and noise performance from Canon sensors are only saying what everyone should be saying. We are no minority. This WE should include every single one of you. Some may say it is very important, some may say it is not. But everyone would benefit from it.

Ask yourself; If you could choose between two equal cameras with 5DIII ergonomics. One had 36MP resolution, 14,8 stop DR and clean shadows. The other had 50MP, 12 stop DR and 5DIII shadow noise? It would take me less than a second to decide.

A lot of us are still using Canon cameras, because we have a fortune locked up in Canon and Canon compatible lenses. If I could have used them on a D810, I would have had one a long time ago. Quite a few has added a Sony to get access to that sensor. I have not, because I hated pretty much everything about that body, except the sensor. So to explain the wisdom of Canon´s strategy by referring to sales figures, does not work with me. There is either an arrogance to how they behave or it is a lack of capability. Both are bad. The 5DS is in my view a camera that should never have been in Canon´s roadmap (unless it proves to be a lot more potent than the initial information indicates). But I suspect that was what they were capable of.

 

[privatebydesign]

That presupposes that the sensor input can be equalised for all systems, and that is not the case. What if I need a 17TS-E, or a 200-400 with built in TC, or a 65MP-E etc etc? At what point does one system advantage overcome a system disadvantage?

Also, the assumption is that only the very best sensors output is ever good enough, that also is not true. I print regularly from Sony, Nikon, and Canon files, there is no effective difference to the output, certainly if you see a print from any of them nobody can say 'ah that one was shot with X brand'.

"The best" is only ever going to be the best in a specific situation. Cerainly where I do a ot of shooting, higher end real estate interiors, the 17TS-E functionality vastly outweighs the lower performing DR. Besides, the manufacturers give us the choice, I can have 17TS-E with low (native) DR, or a D810 and 14-24 with more DR, for my uses the former returns far higher quality images.

 

[Eldar]

That presupposes that the sensor input can be equalised for all systems, and that is not the case. What if I need a 17TS-E, or a 200-400 with built in TC, or a 65MP-E etc etc? At what point does one system advantage overcome a system disadvantage?

Also, the assumption is that only the very best sensors output is ever good enough, that also is not true. I print regularly from Sony, Nikon, and Canon files, there is no effective difference to the output, certainly if you see a print from any of them nobody can say 'ah that one was shot with X brand'.

"The best" is only ever going to be the best in a specific situation. Cerainly where I do a ot of shooting, higher end real estate interiors, the 17TS-E functionality vastly outweighs the lower performing DR. Besides, the manufacturers give us the choice, I can have 17TS-E with low (native) DR, or a D810 and 14-24 with more DR, for my uses the former returns far higher quality images.

That is not the point. If you could hook up your 17mm TS-E to a camera with improved noise performance and 14.8 stop DR or the same body with 12 stop DR and more noise. Which one would you choose?

The argument is not whether we want a D810 or a 5DIV and use different lens alternatives for each of them. The argument is whether we want Canon to deliver more DR and improved noise performance, with everything else being same same. I don´t expect to have One body that can do everything. But I want options.

 

[Neutral]

<...>
As I've pointed out before, Canon has been behind in low ISO DR for ~6 years, meaning multiple product development cycles. If their market research showed that particular feature to be something likely to have a significant impact on sales (i.e., a positive ROI), why would they not have addressed it? I'd argue that's because the 'we' to which you refer, in the case of those wanting more low ISO DR, simply doesn't represent a big enough group. Obviously, the 'we' wanting more MP was sufficiently numerous for Canon to devote R&D resources to address their want, and thus they delivered the world's highest resolution FF dSLR.

Who knows, maybe they would be willing to address that as well to make 5Ds more competitive but they just cannot do that now. I do not think they are lagging behind in sensor technology (not only for DR but also for many other things) only because their market research team tells them that these improvements are required only for minority of their users and not for the rest of them.
I suspect there are some more fundamental reasons for this rather than only market research advice.

One of the Canon officials told in recent interview that they did not learn anything new from Sony recent developments. This possibly mean that they know how to do better sensors and could design such ones (as most things how to do that are well known) but they cannot produce them using their manufacturing facilities.
There were recently some discussions about sensor design process vs. fabrication process and which is more important for sensor quality. In fact both are equally important. Company might design some fantastic things but they just might not be able to manufacture them. There are many theoretical things well known for many decades but only now, with latest technologies, it is possible to implement them.
Canon was also making statements earlier that they could use the best sensors from other manufactures for their cameras (if those sensors would be better than Canon) but they do not do that for high-end cameras.
For some not known to us reason they do not want to design sensor to be produced on other semiconductor companies (e.g. Samsung, Aptina, Sony etc.) manufacturing facilities with better manufacturing/technological processes allowing for better and more complicated sensor design which are not possible to implement using Canon current manufacturing processes.
Canon just sticks to their own processes, which limit their designs to what they can do now.
In general, any design is done taking into account what actually could be manufactured and at which cost/budget. Moreover, changing/upgrading manufacturing processes in semiconductor industry requires huge investments.
So for 5DS Canon probably has some balanced tradeoff between all their limitations to maximize their profit and minimize required investments which actually could not be considered as bad thing in general.
There were also rumors/speculations about Canon negotiations with Sony for using Sony new sensor in 5DS. Who knows maybe that was something of this kind in reality but nothing came out as Sony possibly want to eat significant part of Canon share in high-end FF cameras market with upcoming 50mpx A9 and updated A7m2 line. Who knows if this true or not. We can only speculate about that. However, fact is that if Canon would put better sensor in 5DS then it would be much more competitive to the all-possible rivals (Pentax 645Z and coming Sony A9).
I suspect that many on this forum would not be considering Sony A7Rm2 or coming this year 50mpx A9 as a second body to existing Canon body or even as replacement if 5DS sensor tech would be up to date and up to performance to the rivals.
I am sure 5DS will have some success but competition is going to be very tight.

As for me, I have A7R as a complementary body to my 1DX for almost a year now.
I was tired to wait until Canon high res camera would come up and now 5DS is too late and sensor tech is outdated for me.
So I use A7R with Canon 17TSE and Canon EF 24-70 F/2.8L USM II and I am happy with that combos. These two Canon lenses work perfectly well on A7R and resolve to every pixel on 36mpx sensor even when shooting handheld. In addition, as I mentioned earlier 17TSE is much more convenient to use on A7 bodies than on Canon body and resulting image IQ is much better to my eyes. And this combo with 17TSE is very light as well.
In fact, I am glad that Canon was late with high-res body and forced me to try Sony A7R and see the difference.
Recently added A7S to my kit and since then I enjoy it very much. Tested recently EF85 f/1.2L USM II wide open on A7S for extremely low light conditions (almost full darkness) and this combo works together perfectly well. For A7R EF85 was not good enough wide open. Now waiting when I can get new Zeiss 35 f1.4 for Sony e-mount to use it with both A7S and A7R.
In general, I am indifferent to any brand and prefer to use what is better and more convenient for me for specific conditions.
For the time being, Sony does not have anything to compete with 1DX for sports/action/events, birds in flight etc. when instant and precise autofocus is required (especially combined with long telephoto lenses) but who knows what will be in some future from now.
Therefore, I possibly will be upgrading my 1DX to 1DXm2 when it comes if satisfied with improvements (just be half stop better high ISO performance than current A7S plus ability to focus like a7S almost in full darkness would be OK for me )

 

[privatebydesign]

That presupposes that the sensor input can be equalised for all systems, and that is not the case. What if I need a 17TS-E, or a 200-400 with built in TC, or a 65MP-E etc etc? At what point does one system advantage overcome a system disadvantage?

Also, the assumption is that only the very best sensors output is ever good enough, that also is not true. I print regularly from Sony, Nikon, and Canon files, there is no effective difference to the output, certainly if you see a print from any of them nobody can say 'ah that one was shot with X brand'.

"The best" is only ever going to be the best in a specific situation. Cerainly where I do a ot of shooting, higher end real estate interiors, the 17TS-E functionality vastly outweighs the lower performing DR. Besides, the manufacturers give us the choice, I can have 17TS-E with low (native) DR, or a D810 and 14-24 with more DR, for my uses the former returns far higher quality images.

That is not the point. If you could hook up your 17mm TS-E to a camera with improved noise performance and 14.8 stop DR or the same body with 12 stop DR and more noise. Which one would you choose?

The argument is not whether we want a D810 or a 5DIV and use different lens alternatives for each of them. The argument is whether we want Canon to deliver more DR and improved noise performance, with everything else being same same. I don´t expect to have One body that can do everything. But I want options.

Of course it is the point. Canon made a conscious decision to spend their R&D money and invest a lot in the tooling to give us the 17TS-E (amongst other amazing lens choices), not improved DR, that is the choice. Obviously if Canon made a sensor with more DR I'd happily use it, but the comparative lack of it does not make as much of an impact on the shot as Nikon not making a 17TS-E, or MP-E65, or 11-24 etc etc.

Nikon/Canon/Sony have limited R&D budgets and investing in any product is expensive. Sony reap the rewards of sensor development far outside their own, small, camera division so to them it makes far more sense investing in that aspect of their business, just look at their lens selection and price. Canon are much more focused on their DSLR's and feel their investment budgets are better spent developing new lenses to set their system apart from others. Nikon are a joke, they don't do either, they buy sensors from Sony and their lens selection is comparatively much weaker, the demise of Nikon since I was starting out where bought Canon because I couldn't afford Nikon (and the AE-1 was shutter priority) is a sad long and painful demise. They have clearly lost their way and need strong management.

 

[Eldar]

That presupposes that the sensor input can be equalised for all systems, and that is not the case. What if I need a 17TS-E, or a 200-400 with built in TC, or a 65MP-E etc etc? At what point does one system advantage overcome a system disadvantage?

Also, the assumption is that only the very best sensors output is ever good enough, that also is not true. I print regularly from Sony, Nikon, and Canon files, there is no effective difference to the output, certainly if you see a print from any of them nobody can say 'ah that one was shot with X brand'.

"The best" is only ever going to be the best in a specific situation. Cerainly where I do a ot of shooting, higher end real estate interiors, the 17TS-E functionality vastly outweighs the lower performing DR. Besides, the manufacturers give us the choice, I can have 17TS-E with low (native) DR, or a D810 and 14-24 with more DR, for my uses the former returns far higher quality images.

That is not the point. If you could hook up your 17mm TS-E to a camera with improved noise performance and 14.8 stop DR or the same body with 12 stop DR and more noise. Which one would you choose?

The argument is not whether we want a D810 or a 5DIV and use different lens alternatives for each of them. The argument is whether we want Canon to deliver more DR and improved noise performance, with everything else being same same. I don´t expect to have One body that can do everything. But I want options.

Of course it is the point. Canon made a conscious decision to spend their R&D money and invest a lot in the tooling to give us the 17TS-E (amongst other amazing lens choices), not improved DR, that is the choice. Obviously if Canon made a sensor with more DR I'd happily use it, but the comparative lack of it does not make as much of an impact on the shot as Nikon not making a 17TS-E, or MP-E65, or 11-24 etc etc.

Nikon/Canon/Sony have limited R&D budgets and investing in any product is expensive. Sony reap the rewards of sensor development far outside their own, small, camera division so to them it makes far more sense investing in that aspect of their business, just look at their lens selection and price. Canon are much more focused on their DSLR's and feel their investment budgets are better spent developing new lenses to set their system apart from others. Nikon are a joke, they don't do either, they buy sensors from Sony and their lens selection is comparatively much weaker, the demise of Nikon since I was starting out where bought Canon because I couldn't afford Nikon (and the AE-1 was shutter priority) is a sad long and painful demise. They have clearly lost their way and need strong management.

Sorry Private, I don´t buy that. I don´t claim to know Canon´s organization, or how they manage their R&D budgets. But I am sure that it does not work as you describe it. The R&D organization for lenses are clearly not the same organization that develop sensor technology. You would probably have to go very high in the Canon organization before you found someone responsible for both.

Both of these organization needs annual funding, unless they are sourced from a third party supplier, which I doubt. I would be willing to bet that these organisations are fairly stable from one year to another. That also means that Canon, from a corporate perspective, must fund both fairly stable from one year to the next. The fact is, the lens engineers have produced some stunning lenses within their budgets, the 17 TS-E being one of them and they manage to keep Canon on top of the lens heap. But the sensor engineers, including their production colleagues have done a lot less to justify their bonuses (if they had any) and they are not keeping up with the competition.

 

[privatebydesign]

Whether you buy it, my rationalisation, or not, is irrelevant, that is the choice we have.

I don't believe for one instant Canon are not capable of producing sensors with more DR, they choose not to as a business decision, I am very happy with the product choices they do give us over the competition, indeed I feel recently they have hammered home their position and are leaps and bounds above all other camera system manufacturers at this point.

The plus point feature list for the Canon system is a genuine 20+ items long, the negative list numbers just 1, and that 1 doesn't impact my work to any tangible degree. If none of those 20+ leading items are important for your shooting and the negative 1 is then Nikon or Sony etc makes much more sense, sell the Canon stuff and be happy, they are just cameras after all.

 

[Loswr]

Ask yourself; If you could choose between two equal cameras with 5DIII ergonomics. One had 36MP resolution, 14,8 stop DR and clean shadows. The other had 50MP, 12 stop DR and 5DIII shadow noise? It would take me less than a second to decide.

I'm sure many people could decide just as quickly - but that doesn't mean the majority would make the same choice as you.

The argument is whether we want Canon to deliver more DR and improved noise performance, with everything else being same same.

Shall we also argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Of course we want more DR...but we also want more resolution...more fps...more AF points...more lenses to choose from...but here in the real world where we don't see angels dancing on pinheads, everything else is not and cannot be the same. Resources are finite, there's always a trade off. Clearly you understand this, based on your question above. Canon is betting that more people would choose 50 MP 12-stops DR over 36 MP 14-stops DR (it's only 14.8-stops if you believe downsampling can create data not captured by the 14-bit ADC).

 

[Neutral]

Of course it is the point. Canon made a conscious decision to spend their R&D money and invest a lot in the tooling to give us the 17TS-E (amongst other amazing lens choices), not improved DR, that is the choice. Obviously if Canon made a sensor with more DR I'd happily use it, but the comparative lack of it does not make as much of an impact on the shot as Nikon not making a 17TS-E, or MP-E65, or 11-24 etc etc.
<..>

17TSE is amazing Canon lens designed for use on Canon bodies but nothing prevents to use it on Sony A7R.
1. Just consider A7R (or coming A9) as compact digital back for huge variety of lenses from ANY manufacture (including Canon 17TSE)
2. IBIS on A7Rm2 and coming A9 will instantly provide IS to any non IS lenses (including best ones from Canon - e.g. 24TSE or new EF11-24) and this alone would give a lot of possibilities and additional flexibility.
I see also a lot of potential for IBIS and there could be some very useful applications for IBIS in addition to just only image stabilization. For example, A7Rm2 could have 90mp resolution mode using pixel shifting – similar to implementation on the latest Olympus OM-D E-M5 II. On coming Sony A9 this IBIS application could give 125mpx resolution and at the same time absolutely eliminating moiré.
This is just amazing possibility, hope Sony would implement that in coming A9 and SW upgrades to a7Rm2 if not implemented at the very beginning.
What is more important -combination of features 1&2 above together is TOTALLY impossible with Canon bodies.

As I mentioned in my resent post I use A7R with Canon 17TSE for almost a year from now and this combo works perfectly well.
Moreover, I bought A7R specially to be used as compact digital back for Canon 17TSE which I got since it became available and I was never disappointed with that.
This combo is very light and easy to use handheld.
17TSE resolves to every pixel on A7R on 36mpx sensor even when shooting handheld though getting a bit softer to the frame edges.
Most important 17TSE is much more convenient and easy to use on A7R than on Canon body.
If I could use best lenses from Canon combined with best sensor from Sony then nothing could prevent me from doing that.
As I mentioned in another post concept of SYSTEM does not mean that all system parts should be from the same vendor or manufacture. SYSTEM parts could be from different vendors/manufactures to be able to get best possible system performance for specific needs

 

[privatebydesign]

Of course it is the point. Canon made a conscious decision to spend their R&D money and invest a lot in the tooling to give us the 17TS-E (amongst other amazing lens choices), not improved DR, that is the choice. Obviously if Canon made a sensor with more DR I'd happily use it, but the comparative lack of it does not make as much of an impact on the shot as Nikon not making a 17TS-E, or MP-E65, or 11-24 etc etc.
<..>

17TSE is amazing Canon lens designed for use on Canon bodies but nothing prevents to use it on Sony A7R.
1. Just consider A7R (or coming A9) as compact digital back for huge variety of lenses from ANY manufacture (including Canon 17TSE)
2. IBIS on A7Rm2 and coming A9 will instantly provide IS to any non IS lenses (including best ones from Canon - e.g. 24TSE or new EF11-24) and this alone would give a lot of possibilities and additional flexibility.
I see also a lot of potential for IBIS and there could be some very useful applications for IBIS in addition to just only image stabilization. For example, A7Rm2 could have 90mp resolution mode using pixel shifting – similar to implementation on the latest Olympus OM-D E-M5 II. On coming Sony A9 this IBIS application could give 125mpx resolution and at the same time absolutely eliminating moiré.
This is just amazing possibility, hope Sony would implement that in coming A9 and SW upgrades to a7Rm2 if not implemented at the very beginning.
What is more important -combination of features 1&2 above together is TOTALLY impossible with Canon bodies.

As I mentioned in my resent post I use A7R with Canon 17TSE for almost a year from now and this combo works perfectly well.
Moreover, I bought A7R specially to be used as compact digital back for Canon 17TSE which I got since it became available and I was never disappointed with that.
This combo is very light and easy to use handheld.
17TSE resolves to every pixel on A7R on 36mpx sensor even when shooting handheld though getting a bit softer to the frame edges.
Most important 17TSE is much more convenient and easy to use on A7R than on Canon body.
If I could use best lenses from Canon combined with best sensor from Sony then nothing could prevent me from doing that.
As I mentioned in another post concept of SYSTEM does not mean that all system parts should be from the same vendor or manufacture. SYSTEM parts could be from different vendors/manufactures to be able to get best possible system performance for specific needs

If I wanted a mixed system then maybe I would think about a Sony, but the results I get do not demand that I consider it. I hate mixed systems too, batteries, chargers, different cards, lens functionality changes, menus, custom settings, blah, you can keep it for. I am happy with the compromise Canon afford me, very happy. I can understand those that are not, I don't understand why they keep demanding Canon must do something about it, clearly, if we take success as a measure of needing to change, they do not.

 

[CaiLeDao]

Good debate with some passion.

Canon still do make the best sensors, may not be the most popular statement based on the thread but it is a fact. The measured sensor performance of Canon Sensors is better than Sony, Where canon go wrong is the electronics and amplification off the sensor, they have longer signal paths than Sony (on chip) to Canon who have off chip. The day Canon announce a On Sensor design for their Pre amp processing I will rejoice. As the camera will then compete better and probably out perform a Sony based system.

I bought an A7R, as did a lot of people in the UK, It was the most returned camera on the UK market last summer. For me it was about not being able to use lenses above 100mm without shake, that was a deal breaker as I wanted to shoot gigapans. I did't really see any benefit in the resolution over a 5dmark3 as the focus and shake where so bad. The A7R mark 2 sounds much better. I still won't get one as the eco system for remote shutters and third party bits an bobs is a lot less mature and ended up researching how to build one myself. So I remain compromised by the limited DR of Canon, when in reality I can use a lot less of it's DR either on Screen or even worse, print. so are we really having a semantic argument about the tone rendering abilities of different manufacturers.

 

[RLPhoto]

You can be sure of one thing, Sony needs more R&D money put into lenses. :/

 

[Eldar]

Ask yourself; If you could choose between two equal cameras with 5DIII ergonomics. One had 36MP resolution, 14,8 stop DR and clean shadows. The other had 50MP, 12 stop DR and 5DIII shadow noise? It would take me less than a second to decide.

I'm sure many people could decide just as quickly - but that doesn't mean the majority would make the same choice as you.

The argument is whether we want Canon to deliver more DR and improved noise performance, with everything else being same same.

Shall we also argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Of course we want more DR...but we also want more resolution...more fps...more AF points...more lenses to choose from...but here in the real world where we don't see angels dancing on pinheads, everything else is not and cannot be the same. Resources are finite, there's always a trade off. Clearly you understand this, based on your question above. Canon is betting that more people would choose 50 MP 12-stops DR over 36 MP 14-stops DR (it's only 14.8-stops if you believe downsampling can create data not captured by the 14-bit ADC).

Canon is in a better position than any of the other camera and/or lens producers. They are bigger, more profitable and they have a much larger market share. Any new product they launch will address a large population of existing customers. Pretty low risk. Whereas, as an example, Sony need(ed) to convince people to jump ship first. If we were asking for ground breaking research, never before seen by man, I may agree with your budget argument. But that is not the case. (All) The other sensor producers (including the surrounding electronics) has proven they can deliver what we ask Canon to deliver, with less money to spend.

I run an IT company. We have systems operating in more than 120 countries around the world and competition is fairly stiff. Based on the position we have in the market we operate, there is absolutely no excuse for us not to deliver as good or better products, systems and services than the competition. Especially on those areas where the competition has shown that it can be done. Why should Canon´s position be different? Why do we make excuses for their lack of ability to deliver? Nobody in this business is better positioned than them.

 

[privatebydesign]

Ask yourself; If you could choose between two equal cameras with 5DIII ergonomics. One had 36MP resolution, 14,8 stop DR and clean shadows. The other had 50MP, 12 stop DR and 5DIII shadow noise? It would take me less than a second to decide.

I'm sure many people could decide just as quickly - but that doesn't mean the majority would make the same choice as you.

The argument is whether we want Canon to deliver more DR and improved noise performance, with everything else being same same.

Shall we also argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Of course we want more DR...but we also want more resolution...more fps...more AF points...more lenses to choose from...but here in the real world where we don't see angels dancing on pinheads, everything else is not and cannot be the same. Resources are finite, there's always a trade off. Clearly you understand this, based on your question above. Canon is betting that more people would choose 50 MP 12-stops DR over 36 MP 14-stops DR (it's only 14.8-stops if you believe downsampling can create data not captured by the 14-bit ADC).

Canon is in a better position than any of the other camera and/or lens producers. They are bigger, more profitable and they have a much larger market share. Any new product they launch will address a large population of existing customers. Pretty low risk. Whereas, as an example, Sony need(ed) to convince people to jump ship first. If we were asking for ground breaking research, never before seen by man, I may agree with your budget argument. But that is not the case. (All) The other sensor producers (including the surrounding electronics) has proven they can deliver what we ask Canon to deliver, with less money to spend.

I run an IT company. We have systems operating in more than 120 countries around the world and competition is fairly stiff. Based on the position we have in the market we operate, there is absolutely no excuse for us not to deliver as good or better products, systems and services than the competition. Especially on those areas where the competition has shown that it can be done. Why should Canon´s position be different? Why do we make excuses for their lack of ability to deliver? Nobody in this business is better positioned than them.

Your perception is that Canon are not, cannot, or don't want 'to deliver'. My perception is that Canon are delivering, in droves, so much high quality gear I can't actually keep up with what I want to take a keen interest in!

It is just a difference in perception, or priorities, I have wanted high quality ultrawides from Canon for a long time, and it is an area Canon could very legitimately be said to be lacking, now I am drowning in world class options. The 17 TS-E kept me on Canon, the 16-35 f4IS, the 11-24 the 24TS-E II and the 35 f2 IS will keep me here for the end of my career.

I don't take pictures with sensors alone, I need lenses to do it, the combination of Canon lenses (much better than the competition) and the sensors (not as good as the competition at lower iso's) gives me the results I need better than the competition. If that equation doesn't work for you just get the tool that does. But to say Canon are not innovating or coming out with new and incredible equipment is ridiculous, that those innovations might not align with your particular needs is a completely different matter.

 

[Eldar]

Private, I do 't disagree on the lenses and I don't disagree on the system approach. If Canon had just done what they should on the sensor side, they would leave the others in the dust.

 

[Stu_bert]

Here's what I don't get.... why post such stuff ?

Surely if you want to really communicate with Canon to influence their decisions you have 2 options.

Swap vendors or try to communicate directly with Canon. As an individual, I would guess you don't stand much chance. If however there are enough, then you stand a better chance. Most companies who have something to sell, be that a product or a service need feedback, from many sources, including their customers.

If the sensor "limitations" are really that much of an issue, then surely people should get a petition together and send it to Canon. Add your CPS ID so they can see what you own, and see if that will influence.

I get the point to discuss, I get frustration and the need to vent....

But ultimately, if you don't talk to Canon, I dont see anything changing. If sufficient people, from Pro's through to Amateurs with significant investment lobby Canon, then maybe it will change.

Right now, either Canon has not had that feedback, does not feel the feedback is of sufficient volume to worry about, cannot address that cost-effectively, or cannot address that based on patents....

The average Poll on Canon Rumors seems to get anything from a 50 to a few hundred responses. I would suggest to get Canon's attention, you need the tens of thousands. I'd be interested to know how many people would support such a petition... "Canon, improve this or we're leaving you"....