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

[Loswr]

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.

The budget argument is logical and trumps other reasons. If, in your opinion, it was less profitable in both short and long term for your IT company to deliver 'as good or better' than the competition and more profitable to not do so, which would you choose? The latter would be more logical. As a public company in Japan, the USA, and many other jurisdictions if you chose the former you'd be engaging in illegal actions.

Moreover, you're drastically oversimplifying the issue. When you state, "...there is absolutely no excuse for us not to deliver as good or better products, systems and services than the competition," are you suggesting that every single one of your products, systems and services is equal or superior to your competition on every single component, parameter, and metric? With respect, I just don't believe that. Canon is behind in a few areas, equal in many, superior in many. That's entirely consistent with their market-leading status.

 

[RGF]

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.

The budget argument is logical and trumps other reasons. If, in your opinion, it was less profitable in both short and long term for your IT company to deliver 'as good or better' than the competition and more profitable to not do so, which would you choose? The latter would be more logical. As a public company in Japan, the USA, and many other jurisdictions if you chose the former you'd be engaging in illegal actions.

Moreover, you're drastically oversimplifying the issue. When you state, "...there is absolutely no excuse for us not to deliver as good or better products, systems and services than the competition," are you suggesting that every single one of your products, systems and services is equal or superior to your competition on every single component, parameter, and metric? With respect, I just don't believe that. Canon is behind in a few areas, equal in many, superior in many. That's entirely consistent with their market-leading status.

It would be very simple for Canon (or any company) to create the argument that they are are head or behind in any area. It is all how you spin the numbers and decide what is important. Number are the metrics, not necessarily what is important.

 

[Eldar]

Moreover, you're drastically oversimplifying the issue. When you state, "...there is absolutely no excuse for us not to deliver as good or better products, systems and services than the competition," are you suggesting that every single one of your products, systems and services is equal or superior to your competition on every single component, parameter, and metric? With respect, I just don't believe that. Canon is behind in a few areas, equal in many, superior in many. That's entirely consistent with their market-leading status.

No, I'm not saying in every and I don't ask that of Canon either. But in my company´s case it is based on professional customer´s written requirements and their established evaluation criteria. There are primary functions, secondary functions etc. Some are must, some are shall, some are nice to have. On the primary functions we have to be best in class. On the others we have to make sure the sum of our score is good enough.

In Canon´s case, being a photography tool supplier, the primary requirement is top IQ, including color, contrast, resolution, noise, dynamic range ... and all the rest of what constitutes IQ. Today they're not, primarily due to lack of dynamic range and poor noise performance. There can be no question that IQ is the primary feature of a camera system. Canon is scoring high on lenses, ergonomics and a lot of other areas, when looking at their total system. There is no disagreement on that. But their IQ suffer from not having equal sensor quality to the others, primarily dynamic range and noise. That´s the only point I am making and there is no reason to blow that argument out of proportions.

 

[Loswr]

But being a photography tool supplier, they should make sure their cameras provided the best possible IQ, including DR and noise performance. Today they're not. IQ is the primary feature of a camera system. Other feature are like makeup compared to that.

Being an automobile supplier, Toyota should make sure their cars provide the best possible engine performance, including horsepower and torque. Today they're not. Engine performance is the primary feature of a car. Other feature are like makeup compared to that.

Well, now...that's a pretty silly argument, isn't it? :

Oh, and by the way if you're right then Canon and Nikon would have to put medium or even large format digital sensors into their dSLRs...after all, they should deliver the best possible IQ because that's the primary feature, right? Those puny 'full frame' sensors are like lipstick on pigs compared to that.

 

[Snodge]

I can't help but wonder if a lot of folk are seeing the 5Ds and the 5Ds R as replacements to cameras in the existing line up of camera bodies from Canon, instead of seeing them as niche products. Looking at the the capabilities of these new bodies, it seems to me that they are specifically targeted at studio and landscape photographers, rather than being a bit more of a Jack of all trades that perhaps the 5D3 is.

To me it would seem almost comparable to a Leica user complaining that the Monochrom doesn't do colour.

As Canon already offer camera bodies aimed at astro photography, I can't help but wonder if going forward there will be other camera bodies aimed at specific shooting scenarios, with improvements over time gradually being incorporated into the Jack of all trades camera bodies that will also be released. After all, we've heard that the 5D4 is on the radar...

 

[Eldar]

Oh, and by the way if you're right then Canon and Nikon would have to put medium or even large format digital sensors into their dSLRs...after all, they should deliver the best possible IQ because that's the primary feature, right? Those puny 'full frame' sensors are like lipstick on pigs compared to that.

John, I´m glad you are so happy with your gear. i hope Canon is aware of how lucky they are to have such an energetic defender of what they deliver. It might be that they would think some of your arguments are a bit on the far side, but any defence is better than no defence.

To me it is simple. I want the best possible IQ from my camera. I have the lenses I want (for now), I have the body ergonomics that I want, I have the AF system, fps and in camera functions that I need, but I don´t have the right sensor. That´s all.

I get bored when others derail these threads, so I´ll stop my contribution to it and let you continue with your rather derailed, but quite creative arguments.

Have a nice day!

 

[Loswr]

Defending? No – explaining. I understand you basically want an Exmor-type sensor (sourced or internally developed) dropped into your Canon dSLRs with nothing else about them changed. You're not the only one. We all want things. But when, "I want Canon to...," becomes, "Canon should...," "Canon must...," or, "Canon will fail unless they...," people making those statements are often simply wrong...usually because of the mistaken assumption that their own wants/needs are those of the majority.

Yes, I'm happy with my gear. Would I like more low ISO DR? Sure. Would 2-stops be enough? Almost never, because when 12-stops isn't sufficient (bald eagle in flight with sun on head feathers and shadow under wings, cathedral interiors with stained glass windows, etc.), 14-stops is also not sufficient. A 16-bit ADC with a sensor that used the entire range might be.

People are welcome to dream about their fantasy gear, but in the real world dream cameras don't take very good pictures. People are also welcome to try and get reality changed to match their dreams, by agitating for Canon to produce what they want. However, continually (incessantly?) doing so here, on an Internet forum, is a bit like trying to teach that lipstick-wearing pig to sing – as Heinlein said (lipstick notwithstanding), it frustrates you and annoys the pig.

 

[sanj]

Oh, and by the way if you're right then Canon and Nikon would have to put medium or even large format digital sensors into their dSLRs...after all, they should deliver the best possible IQ because that's the primary feature, right? Those puny 'full frame' sensors are like lipstick on pigs compared to that.

John, I´m glad you are so happy with your gear. i hope Canon is aware of how lucky they are to have such an energetic defender of what they deliver. It might be that they would think some of your arguments are a bit on the far side, but any defence is better than no defence.

To me it is simple. I want the best possible IQ from my camera. I have the lenses I want (for now), I have the body ergonomics that I want, I have the AF system, fps and in camera functions that I need, but I don´t have the right sensor. That´s all.

I get bored when others derail these threads, so I´ll stop my contribution to it and let you continue with your rather derailed, but quite creative arguments.

Have a nice day!

Me too. I will also stop giving my juvenile comments soon to this thread as:
1. I am busy trying to grow up.
2. Trying to digest that Canon as a company is not interested in improving photography tools but just in making money.
3. Trying to figure out how a person who keeps chanting 'Canon sells most' mantra suddenly says that he does not care about sales.

And yes, have a nice day.

 

[sanj]

Defending? No – explaining. I understand you basically want an Exmor-type sensor (sourced or internally developed) dropped into your Canon dSLRs with nothing else about them changed. You're not the only one. We all want things. But when, "I want Canon to...," becomes, "Canon should...," "Canon must...," or, "Canon will fail unless they...," people making those statements are often simply wrong...usually because of the mistaken assumption that their own wants/needs are those of the majority.
...

Hasn't Canon said that they'll use the best sensor regardless of who manufactures it?

And isn't it rather obvious now that Canon's sensors aren't the best?

I think what we're all waiting for now is for Canon to put its money where its mouth is and follow through with what it has said.

No no no. All is great in fairyland. It's about the system. The system. The handhold able 600mm and some TS lenses. Why bother about sensor... actually why bother about anything except making money.

 

[sanj]

To put things straight: I am very happy with my Canon gear BUT wish it to improve it's sensor tech so much that it beats the better sensors in market. I DO face issues with banding around sun when I try to darken it and DO find noise when I raise shadows. Many times I work in total uncontrolled, harsh light and I want the sensor to work with me, not against me. At these points 'the system' is worth nothing to me.

 

[Loswr]

Me too. I will also stop giving my juvenile comments soon to this thread as:
1. I am busy trying to grow up.
2. Trying to digest that Canon as a company is not interested in improving photography tools but just in making money.
3. Trying to figure out how a person who keeps chanting 'Canon sells most' mantra suddenly says that he does not care about sales.

1. Good luck with that.
2. Is it really so hard to grasp that a corporation's primary goal is to make money? Sure, they care about improving photography tools, but really only insofar as that increases the 'P' and does not increase the 'L' in the PnL.
3. Also not complex. The point of sales figures is that despite claims of doom for Canon if they don't do 'X' (where X is usually address someone's personal niche desire), Canon clearly has a track record of successfully meeting customer needs. They also meet most my personal needs (not all, but moreso than other systems), but that's independent of the number of cameras they sell. If you have trouble distinguishing the message from the messenger, see point #1.

 

[Loswr]

I am very happy with my Canon gear ... Many times I work in total uncontrolled, harsh light and I want the sensor to work with me, not against me. At these points 'the system' is worth nothing to me.

If I was using a system that "many times" was "worth nothing to me"...well, in fact it's moot – I wouldn't be doing that because it would be quite foolish. But if you are happy with your Canon gear despite what from your description is a major handicap for you in one specific aspect of performance, then I'd say it is about the system...or else you'd have switched.

 

[bwana]

I've been a Canon fan-boy almost since they released their first DSLR but Canon didn't have what I wanted about a year ago. I bought elsewhere. All my Canon, Pentax, Minolta, M42, Tamron, Sigma & T2 lenses work nicely with the new bodies (now two). I'll probably be picking up my third camera from "elsewhere" in the next month or so.

Maybe Canon will catch up to my demands at some point? If they do, I may buy from them again...

Technology waits for no one!! And brand loyalty is even more fleeting.

bwa

 

[fragilesi]

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.

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.

(Obviously the above quote has been trimmed by me and the highlighting is mine. I don't think it alters context)


Do you not feel uncomfortable calling Canon arrogant having only just told everyone what they should be thinking?

We do agree, yes I'd like more DR please. But I say THANKYOU Canon for producing things that I want much more than that first. I'm sorry to deviate from what you're telling me to think, but they are giving me what I want.

Different priorities for different people.

 

[fragilesi]

Me too. I will also stop giving my juvenile comments soon to this thread as:
1. I am busy trying to grow up.
2. Trying to digest that Canon as a company is not interested in improving photography tools but just in making money.
3. Trying to figure out how a person who keeps chanting 'Canon sells most' mantra suddenly says that he does not care about sales.

And yes, have a nice day.

Well you stuck at it for almost twenty minutes

 

[lintoni]

Just when I thought that this thread had reached its nadir...

 

[Khufu]

Just when I thought that this thread had reached its nadir...

We should ALWAYS aim lower in life to avoid disappointment!

 

[lintoni]

Just when I thought that this thread had reached its nadir...

We should ALWAYS aim lower in life to avoid disappointment!

I laughed!

Thank you.