Patent: A Few More Image Sensor Patents from Canon

Quote from orangutan:

"2. Several people, including me, agreed that we would love to see better sensors, but noted that, to the contrary, previous evidence showed that Canon was very good at determining which technological improvements would be required to remain profitable."


I don't know how to understand this correctly. Canon calculating on remaining profitable only would be desastrous in the long run. If they did so, then I hope sony is going to win them big time within the next five years. The only downward point with sony is, that their lense line up tends to be highly expensivish...
 
Upvote 0
Orangutan said:
K-amps said:
protectionism and bullying people, to not have an opinion in this matter

What "protectionism?" What "bullying?" No one has said you're not entitled to hold your opinion! On the other hand, I and others are equally entitled to hold the opinion that you're mistaken. No insults have been thrown, just a little sarcasm to draw attention to errors.

Here's how the conversation went:

1. CR Guy made a prediction based on no data (that "Canon has no other choice" but to make a big leap forward on sensors. He provided no support for that.

2. Several people, including me, agreed that we would love to see better sensors, but noted that, to the contrary, previous evidence showed that Canon was very good at determining which technological improvements would be required to remain profitable.

3. A few chimed in to make more unfounded predictions, and claim to feel bullied.


A few observations for those of you who are of the opinion that Canon is doomed.

* It is not bullying to remind you that your opinion is unsupported by fact

* The analogies to lotteries and falling are very poor: Canon has a long track record of making the exact changes that need to be made to remain profitable.

* A few here treat Canon's failure to produce a better sensor as a an infidelity, but it's just a business decision.

* The fact that Canon hasn't put better sensors in their products doesn't mean they can't; it may mean only that they're keeping profit margin higher by using existing tech.

* CanonGuy: there's nothing wrong with buying another brand to serve a need that's unmet by Canon. Go for it and enjoy!

This is perfect.
 
Upvote 0
privatebydesign said:
Mr1Dx said:
privatebydesign said:
Mr1Dx said:
Canon Rumors said:
<p><a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_rumours.html" target="_blank">Northlight Images</a> has posted 3 more patents and a simple breakdown of each.</p>
<p>From Northlight:</p>
<ul>
<li>Patent shows more tricks you can do with split pixels for AF [<a href="http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&docid=09204067">USPTO</a>]</li>
<li>Patent about dividing longer exposures into shorter ones and adding them together [<a href="http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=09204055">USPTO</a>]</li>
<li>Patent about moving the sensor micro lens array forwards/backwards to match up with main lens [<a href="http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=09201289">USPTO</a>]</li>
</ul>
<p>We all expect the next generation of full frame Canon sensors to be a big leap forward in performance. In our opinion, Canon has no other choice.</p>

Your last sentence might upset some peeps here ;D

That is because it hasn't stood up to historical record or comparative sales numbers. Don't get me wrong, I would welcome improvements and will happily take them when they get here, but to say "Canon has no other choice" is patently untrue.

It's hard to dump $30 - 40K worth of L lenses for $5-7K body with better sensor....Otherwise, we wouldn't have this discussion today.

I would agree with Admin "Canon has no other choice". Glass is important, so is sensor.

Why would you need to "dump $30 - 40K worth of L lenses"? I paid around $12,675 for my lenses, ranging from a six month old 11-24 to a ten plus year old 24-70 f2.8 L (all bought brand new), if I had to sell them all I'd get around $10,000 at today's eBay prices. That is a depreciation of 20% that includes some non L's and older designs, if you have $40k worth of lenses you have superteles and they hold their value much better, my 300 f2.8 IS has lost a few hundred dollars in ten years! All my lenses have been depreciated back as tax write offs (apart from the 11-24 so far) and owe me literally zero.

The cost of changing system is trivial when compared to the images you will be able to take with the ground breaking new equipment by Sony/Nikon/blah blah.

I don't do wedding/events for living. My primary shooting is wildlife. Traveling around the world is something I've been doing last 12yrs. I own from 600mm down to 200f2 IS II, plus 200-400(except, 800 & 500).

Your 11-24 is just one small piece of glass that I also have in my bag.

Last word for this thread. If we cont to accept Canon current sensor as "good enough", then there will be no real competition tomorrow.

Keep in mind, we often get used to Canon current sensor/IQ on our monitor/prints and ignore what others are offering. A mistake many of us went through in life...
 
Upvote 0
I'm a professional wedding, commercial and landscape photographer and I have just swapped wholesale from Canon to Nikon. That sounds like the start of a dirty confession, but I'll explain my reasons why.

I've spent the last two years shooting with a pair of 5D3's and more recently, a 6D and before that 5D2's and before that it was 5D Mark 1's. I had a complete collection of L series lenses (15mm fisheye, 16-35II, 24-70II, 70-200II, 85 1.2 II, 24-35-50mm sigma ART's, 600EXRT's-Basically a wedding, commercial or landscape photographers standard setup).

I've just swapped all the above for the equivalent Nikon kit (14-24, 85 1.4G being the only real differences) and bought myself a pair of Nikon D810's and a D750 for faster moments. I shot my first wedding on them last weekend and it has to be said that it's probably the best thing I've ever done.

The difference in image quality, dynamic range (I know that's a dirty phrase around here sometimes, but it makes a difference) and high ISO performance is amazing. The Nikons leave the Canons in the dust. I'm not just saying it because of the fairly major investment I've had to put into it either. I loved my Canon kit and have shot over 500,000 images on it reliably and without hassle over the last two years alone and didn't plan on making the swap. But then a friend of mine showed me the files he was getting from the D810 and I was blown away.

The files coming out of the D810 are superior in every important way, their lenses are so similar in performance that it's not worth arguing about and the autofocus (especially the 3D tracking) is leagues ahead compared to that of the 5D3’s, simple as that. And THIS is why Canon needs to catch up. I have no doubt that the 5D4 will be an amazing camera when it appears, but Nikon/Sony have raised the image quality bar to such a high standard that Canon really needs to beat it, or else there will surely be more working professionals like me making the jump, whether it be to the big N or to Fuji, Sony or A.N. Other mirrorless/mirrored brand (although I'm yet to meet anyone shooting weddings on Sony). I have to agree with CR Guy when he says that if there isn't a bit of a leap in performance then Canon's sales will start to suffer.

Compare the specs of the 6D to the D750 and try not to be impressed. These are meant to be cameras in a similar price bracket and are marketed towards similar demographic groups, but the D750 is just a thing of wonder. Smaller, lighter, flipping screen, MUCH better image quality, a better AF system than even the D4S, more comfortable to hold than the 6D and it only carries a fractional price difference over the 6D. And the D810 is just in a completely different league to the 5D3.

Halfway through the wedding last weekend I wondered if I'd made the right decision, as looking at the back of the camera it didn't look too different to what I'd been getting, but once I'd got the cards onto the computer it's was obvious just how much better the Nikons are. I'm not trying to say that everybody should jump ship if the 5D4 is a bit of a dud or if it comes out looking like Canon has ignored the wants and needs of its professional user base, as it's a massive leap to make-trust me, I was so comfortable using my Canons that I didn't need to look at the settings, my fingers just knew where to go to change stuff, and trying to learn a new system in a few days before a wedding was REALLY hard work. But the pictures that these camera allow me to produce now are better (not MASSIVELY, but noticeably) and Canon has to react to that, if nothing else.

Feel free to criticise my decision as I'm sure a lot of the hardcore CR forum members will do, but it's only my opinion and personal quest to get the best image quality possible within my own financial means and I'm very glad I've made the jump indeed. What do I miss? Smaller file sizes (storage is cheap), some of the lenses, (just because I like the look they give-85mm 1.2 being a case in point-hurry up Sigma!) and the 600EXRT system which will hopefully be replicated by Nikon with their SB5000, due out soon, if not, I can do the same with the pocket wizards I also purchased...

So there you have it, an over-long cautionary message to Canon that you're not indestructible and people will make the move if you rest on your laurels for too long. ;)

Signed,
A former Canon Fanboy
 
Upvote 0
FreshPicsUK said:
I'm a professional wedding, commercial and landscape photographer and I have just swapped wholesale from Canon to Nikon. That sounds like the start of a dirty confession, but I'll explain my reasons why.

I've spent the last two years shooting with a pair of 5D3's and more recently, a 6D and before that 5D2's and before that it was 5D Mark 1's. I had a complete collection of L series lenses (15mm fisheye, 16-35II, 24-70II, 70-200II, 85 1.2 II, 24-35-50mm sigma ART's, 600EXRT's-Basically a wedding, commercial or landscape photographers standard setup).

I've just swapped all the above for the equivalent Nikon kit (14-24, 85 1.4G being the only real differences) and bought myself a pair of Nikon D810's and a D750 for faster moments. I shot my first wedding on them last weekend and it has to be said that it's probably the best thing I've ever done.

The difference in image quality, dynamic range (I know that's a dirty phrase around here sometimes, but it makes a difference) and high ISO performance is amazing. The Nikons leave the Canons in the dust. I'm not just saying it because of the fairly major investment I've had to put into it either. I loved my Canon kit and have shot over 500,000 images on it reliably and without hassle over the last two years alone and didn't plan on making the swap. But then a friend of mine showed me the files he was getting from the D810 and I was blown away.

The files coming out of the D810 are superior in every important way, their lenses are so similar in performance that it's not worth arguing about and the autofocus (especially the 3D tracking) is leagues ahead compared to that of the 5D3’s, simple as that. And THIS is why Canon needs to catch up. I have no doubt that the 5D4 will be an amazing camera when it appears, but Nikon/Sony have raised the image quality bar to such a high standard that Canon really needs to beat it, or else there will surely be more working professionals like me making the jump, whether it be to the big N or to Fuji, Sony or A.N. Other mirrorless/mirrored brand (although I'm yet to meet anyone shooting weddings on Sony). I have to agree with CR Guy when he says that if there isn't a bit of a leap in performance then Canon's sales will start to suffer.

Compare the specs of the 6D to the D750 and try not to be impressed. These are meant to be cameras in a similar price bracket and are marketed towards similar demographic groups, but the D750 is just a thing of wonder. Smaller, lighter, flipping screen, MUCH better image quality, a better AF system than even the D4S, more comfortable to hold than the 6D and it only carries a fractional price difference over the 6D. And the D810 is just in a completely different league to the 5D3.

Halfway through the wedding last weekend I wondered if I'd made the right decision, as looking at the back of the camera it didn't look too different to what I'd been getting, but once I'd got the cards onto the computer it's was obvious just how much better the Nikons are. I'm not trying to say that everybody should jump ship if the 5D4 is a bit of a dud or if it comes out looking like Canon has ignored the wants and needs of its professional user base, as it's a massive leap to make-trust me, I was so comfortable using my Canons that I didn't need to look at the settings, my fingers just knew where to go to change stuff, and trying to learn a new system in a few days before a wedding was REALLY hard work. But the pictures that these camera allow me to produce now are better (not MASSIVELY, but noticeably) and Canon has to react to that, if nothing else.

Feel free to criticise my decision as I'm sure a lot of the hardcore CR forum members will do, but it's only my opinion and personal quest to get the best image quality possible within my own financial means and I'm very glad I've made the jump indeed. What do I miss? Smaller file sizes (storage is cheap), some of the lenses, (just because I like the look they give-85mm 1.2 being a case in point-hurry up Sigma!) and the 600EXRT system which will hopefully be replicated by Nikon with their SB5000, due out soon, if not, I can do the same with the pocket wizards I also purchased...

So there you have it, an over-long cautionary message to Canon that you're not indestructible and people will make the move if you rest on your laurels for too long. ;)

Signed,
A former Canon Fanboy

I think that everything you said is CORRECT. I no longer make a living shooting, but I do sell fine-Art images..(.it keeps the joy in my shooting!). I have no need or desire to make the jump...but I understand your decision. ENJOY the new system!...Cano will eventually address the issue...how can they not?!?! :o
 
Upvote 0
Mr1Dx said:
privatebydesign said:
Mr1Dx said:
privatebydesign said:
Mr1Dx said:
Canon Rumors said:
<p><a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_rumours.html" target="_blank">Northlight Images</a> has posted 3 more patents and a simple breakdown of each.</p>
<p>From Northlight:</p>
<ul>
<li>Patent shows more tricks you can do with split pixels for AF [<a href="http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&docid=09204067">USPTO</a>]</li>
<li>Patent about dividing longer exposures into shorter ones and adding them together [<a href="http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=09204055">USPTO</a>]</li>
<li>Patent about moving the sensor micro lens array forwards/backwards to match up with main lens [<a href="http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=09201289">USPTO</a>]</li>
</ul>
<p>We all expect the next generation of full frame Canon sensors to be a big leap forward in performance. In our opinion, Canon has no other choice.</p>

Your last sentence might upset some peeps here ;D

That is because it hasn't stood up to historical record or comparative sales numbers. Don't get me wrong, I would welcome improvements and will happily take them when they get here, but to say "Canon has no other choice" is patently untrue.

It's hard to dump $30 - 40K worth of L lenses for $5-7K body with better sensor....Otherwise, we wouldn't have this discussion today.

I would agree with Admin "Canon has no other choice". Glass is important, so is sensor.

Why would you need to "dump $30 - 40K worth of L lenses"? I paid around $12,675 for my lenses, ranging from a six month old 11-24 to a ten plus year old 24-70 f2.8 L (all bought brand new), if I had to sell them all I'd get around $10,000 at today's eBay prices. That is a depreciation of 20% that includes some non L's and older designs, if you have $40k worth of lenses you have superteles and they hold their value much better, my 300 f2.8 IS has lost a few hundred dollars in ten years! All my lenses have been depreciated back as tax write offs (apart from the 11-24 so far) and owe me literally zero.

The cost of changing system is trivial when compared to the images you will be able to take with the ground breaking new equipment by Sony/Nikon/blah blah.

I don't do wedding/events for living. My primary shooting is wildlife. Traveling around the world is something I've been doing last 12yrs. I own from 600mm down to 200f2 IS II, plus 200-400(except, 800 & 500).

Your 11-24 is just one small piece of glass that I also have in my bag.

Last word for this thread. If we cont to accept Canon current sensor as "good enough", then there will be no real competition tomorrow.

Keep in mind, we often get used to Canon current sensor/IQ on our monitor/prints and ignore what others are offering. A mistake many of us went through in life...

Clearly reading is as difficult for you as arithmetic.

I print for a selection of photographers who use everything from a T2i to D810's and A7Rii's, I have no real difficulty printing any reasonably well exposed image from any of them.

Last word? Ha! Canon have said they agree that off sensor A/D converters are noisier, but more expensive, and while cost is a primary consideration moving forwards they are going to concentrate on the on chip design. http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2015/09/16/canon-maeda-promises-eos-m-enthusiasts-more-aps-c-lenses-new-printers

Canon, at the highest levels, are very aware of the IQ differences between their products and other camera manufacturers. They put out the tech they feel best suits the balance between cost/profitability and sales numbers, by all accounts they are very good at their job. Looking at the 2014 sales figures Canon are a couple of percent short of having a market share equal to Nikon and Sony combined. http://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Companies/Sony-bets-on-mirrorless-cameras-for-revival?page=2


Obviously Canon are doomed ::)
 
Upvote 0
FreshPicsUK said:
I'm a professional wedding, commercial and landscape photographer and I have just swapped wholesale from Canon to Nikon. That sounds like the start of a dirty confession, but I'll explain my reasons why.

I've spent the last two years shooting with a pair of 5D3's and more recently, a 6D and before that 5D2's and before that it was 5D Mark 1's. I had a complete collection of L series lenses (15mm fisheye, 16-35II, 24-70II, 70-200II, 85 1.2 II, 24-35-50mm sigma ART's, 600EXRT's-Basically a wedding, commercial or landscape photographers standard setup).

I've just swapped all the above for the equivalent Nikon kit (14-24, 85 1.4G being the only real differences) and bought myself a pair of Nikon D810's and a D750 for faster moments. I shot my first wedding on them last weekend and it has to be said that it's probably the best thing I've ever done.

The difference in image quality, dynamic range (I know that's a dirty phrase around here sometimes, but it makes a difference) and high ISO performance is amazing. The Nikons leave the Canons in the dust. I'm not just saying it because of the fairly major investment I've had to put into it either. I loved my Canon kit and have shot over 500,000 images on it reliably and without hassle over the last two years alone and didn't plan on making the swap. But then a friend of mine showed me the files he was getting from the D810 and I was blown away.

The files coming out of the D810 are superior in every important way, their lenses are so similar in performance that it's not worth arguing about and the autofocus (especially the 3D tracking) is leagues ahead compared to that of the 5D3’s, simple as that. And THIS is why Canon needs to catch up. I have no doubt that the 5D4 will be an amazing camera when it appears, but Nikon/Sony have raised the image quality bar to such a high standard that Canon really needs to beat it, or else there will surely be more working professionals like me making the jump, whether it be to the big N or to Fuji, Sony or A.N. Other mirrorless/mirrored brand (although I'm yet to meet anyone shooting weddings on Sony). I have to agree with CR Guy when he says that if there isn't a bit of a leap in performance then Canon's sales will start to suffer.

Compare the specs of the 6D to the D750 and try not to be impressed. These are meant to be cameras in a similar price bracket and are marketed towards similar demographic groups, but the D750 is just a thing of wonder. Smaller, lighter, flipping screen, MUCH better image quality, a better AF system than even the D4S, more comfortable to hold than the 6D and it only carries a fractional price difference over the 6D. And the D810 is just in a completely different league to the 5D3.

Halfway through the wedding last weekend I wondered if I'd made the right decision, as looking at the back of the camera it didn't look too different to what I'd been getting, but once I'd got the cards onto the computer it's was obvious just how much better the Nikons are. I'm not trying to say that everybody should jump ship if the 5D4 is a bit of a dud or if it comes out looking like Canon has ignored the wants and needs of its professional user base, as it's a massive leap to make-trust me, I was so comfortable using my Canons that I didn't need to look at the settings, my fingers just knew where to go to change stuff, and trying to learn a new system in a few days before a wedding was REALLY hard work. But the pictures that these camera allow me to produce now are better (not MASSIVELY, but noticeably) and Canon has to react to that, if nothing else.

Feel free to criticise my decision as I'm sure a lot of the hardcore CR forum members will do, but it's only my opinion and personal quest to get the best image quality possible within my own financial means and I'm very glad I've made the jump indeed. What do I miss? Smaller file sizes (storage is cheap), some of the lenses, (just because I like the look they give-85mm 1.2 being a case in point-hurry up Sigma!) and the 600EXRT system which will hopefully be replicated by Nikon with their SB5000, due out soon, if not, I can do the same with the pocket wizards I also purchased...

So there you have it, an over-long cautionary message to Canon that you're not indestructible and people will make the move if you rest on your laurels for too long. ;)

Signed,
A former Canon Fanboy

It's a game of leapfrog, and it's Canon's turn to make the leap. If they can't jump over Nikon/Sony in the next round, I may be following you out of Camp Canon.
 
Upvote 0
pedro said:
Quote from orangutan:

"2. Several people, including me, agreed that we would love to see better sensors, but noted that, to the contrary, previous evidence showed that Canon was very good at determining which technological improvements would be required to remain profitable."


I don't know how to understand this correctly. Canon calculating on remaining profitable only would be desastrous in the long run. If they did so, then I hope sony is going to win them big time within the next five years. The only downward point with sony is, that their lense line up tends to be highly expensivish...

If you define 'disastrous' as being the market leader for 11 years and counting, then you certainly don't understand correctly.

The latest numbers show that Canon is maintaining their market share and their clear lead, while their nearest competitor (Nikon) is losing market share.
 
Upvote 0
K-amps said:
privatebydesign said:
That is because it hasn't stood up to historical record or comparative sales numbers. Don't get me wrong, I would welcome improvements and will happily take them when they get here, but to say "Canon has no other choice" is patently untrue.

One is reminded of the one who despite several warnings, jumps off a 100 story building, and all the while as he descends, he retorts back, see I am just fine...

Thud...!

Here's what 'thud' sounds like.

marketshare.jpg
 
Upvote 0
LetTheRightLensIn said:
privatebydesign said:
you have superteles and they hold their value much better, my 300 f2.8 IS has lost a few hundred dollars in ten years!

You forget that other brand superteles cost a lot more than Canon ones used to and that the new version Canon ones, the only ones being made now, cost radically more than the old ones. I.E. if someone could afford one or a number of super-tele back 10-15 years ago they might not be able to today. Huge, huge price increases on then, way beyond inflation.

I forgot nothing, and you are taking the quote completely out of context. Which was, why would changing system from Canon to another company necessitate "dump[ing] $30 - 40K worth of L lenses"? Those lenses do not have zero value, indeed they generally have pretty low depreciation.

What does the original purchase cost of an old Canon lens have to do with the price of a new Nikon or Sony lens? Nothing, your point is completely irrelevant.

Besides, Mr1DX really has two choices for his photography bearing in mind his lens requirements, Canon or Nikon, and two bodies, the 1DX or the D4s. I have seen many more high profile users that are tele-centirc users, swap from Nikon to Canon in the last few years than the other way around, why would that be? After the 1D MkIII AF fiasco and many tele-centric users moving from Canon to Nikon, the wave of use is very much back the other way again, Canon's MkII teles are unmatched and the D4s is one of Nikon's weaker bodies when compared to it's direct competition.
 
Upvote 0
Still, I wonder how many people will actually do this and jump ship? Talk is cheap/free, but it is a hassle to go through all that vs. wait until something that you want comes out. This is not to mention all the cameras that will wear out, or people who just for whatever reason, need another camera. I would think that the ship jumpers will be less (smaller percentage) would be less than suspected.

sek

privatebydesign said:
Mr1Dx said:
privatebydesign said:
Mr1Dx said:
Canon Rumors said:
<p><a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_rumours.html" target="_blank">Northlight Images</a> has posted 3 more patents and a simple breakdown of each.</p>
<p>From Northlight:</p>
<ul>
<li>Patent shows more tricks you can do with split pixels for AF [<a href="http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&docid=09204067">USPTO</a>]</li>
<li>Patent about dividing longer exposures into shorter ones and adding them together [<a href="http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=09204055">USPTO</a>]</li>
<li>Patent about moving the sensor micro lens array forwards/backwards to match up with main lens [<a href="http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=09201289">USPTO</a>]</li>
</ul>
<p>We all expect the next generation of full frame Canon sensors to be a big leap forward in performance. In our opinion, Canon has no other choice.</p>

Your last sentence might upset some peeps here ;D

That is because it hasn't stood up to historical record or comparative sales numbers. Don't get me wrong, I would welcome improvements and will happily take them when they get here, but to say "Canon has no other choice" is patently untrue.

It's hard to dump $30 - 40K worth of L lenses for $5-7K body with better sensor....Otherwise, we wouldn't have this discussion today.

I would agree with Admin "Canon has no other choice". Glass is important, so is sensor.

Why would you need to "dump $30 - 40K worth of L lenses"? I paid around $12,675 for my lenses, ranging from a six month old 11-24 to a ten plus year old 24-70 f2.8 L (all bought brand new), if I had to sell them all I'd get around $10,000 at today's eBay prices. That is a depreciation of 20% that includes some non L's and older designs, if you have $40k worth of lenses you have superteles and they hold their value much better, my 300 f2.8 IS has lost a few hundred dollars in ten years! All my lenses have been depreciated back as tax write offs (apart from the 11-24 so far) and owe me literally zero.

The cost of changing system is trivial when compared to the images you will be able to take with the ground breaking new equipment by Sony/Nikon/blah blah.
 
Upvote 0
OTOH, burning through all that R&D $$$ without making money to cover it is not sustainable.

sek

Etienne said:
dak723 said:
Canon Rumors said:
We all expect the next generation of full frame Canon sensors to be a big leap forward in performance. In our opinion, Canon has no other choice.</p>
[/html]

Presumably those who run Canon Rumors are buyers and supporters of Canon. And yet, with baloney statements such as this, you do more to hurt Canon than you can possibly do intentionally. Compare the pics from today's Canon cameras to Sony or Nikon. Chances are in 99% of cases, you won't be able to tell the difference. (Or quite possibly, you will like the results from Canon better, as I did when I bought the Sony A7 II to potentially replace my Canon 6D). The differences between cameras is minute and the differences between generations is minute, too. If you can't see this, or understand this, you lose all credibility.

Sony is innovating at a blazing pace. Canon has been much more conservative.
I'm a Canon fan, but Canon does have to push the boundaries more, not just in their top products like the 1Dx and the C300, but in their second tier and amateur products too, like the 5D and C100. The A7 series may not be quite there yet, but at Sony's pace, Canon does not have the luxury to wait another model release before wowing their customers. The same can be said about the FS5 vs C100
So although the current Canon cameras are still great cameras, CR guy is absolutely right. Canon cannot afford to sit on their laurels and expect to remain king of the mountain. There's a challenger, and he's getting stronger.
 
Upvote 0
LetTheRightLensIn said:
privatebydesign said:
I forgot nothing, and you are taking the quote completely out of context. Which was, why would changing system from Canon to another company necessitate "dump[ing] $30 - 40K worth of L lenses"? Those lenses do not have zero value, indeed they generally have pretty low depreciation.

What does the original purchase cost of an old Canon lens have to do with the price of a new Nikon or Sony lens? Nothing, your point is completely irrelevant.

Huh? What does it have to do with anything? If you had A money to devote to supertele and will get 0.95*A back when you sell and need to spend say 2*A to get the same supertele you had before you don't think 2*A - 0.95*A will mean anything to anyone?

Or maybe you think that people who care about DR and 4k and so on are not real photographers but just technogeeks and thus won't actually miss not having certain lenses in the new system since they never use them anyway?

Besides, Mr1DX really has two choices for his photography bearing in mind his lens requirements,

don't be so sure

These threads really are pointless ::)
 
Upvote 0
Not really a sensor issue but related is the fact that canon has chosen or been forced to forego the 2015 Christmas selling season with high end bodies. Given their multi year product cycle capturing seasonal selling might not be important to them as they will get it next year it's just that some will migrate to other systems in the mean time.
And the current product cycle is getting long in the tooth by historic refresh. I guess the 5ds,r could be considered a refresh but the high iso variant is what so many of us are waiting for with new sensor technology.

The fact that so few rumors have emerged makes me think that there is a purposeful intent to keep quiet till after the season.

I'd expect the flood gates to open in january.
 
Upvote 0
privatebydesign said:
LetTheRightLensIn said:
privatebydesign said:
you have superteles and they hold their value much better, my 300 f2.8 IS has lost a few hundred dollars in ten years!

You forget that other brand superteles cost a lot more than Canon ones used to and that the new version Canon ones, the only ones being made now, cost radically more than the old ones. I.E. if someone could afford one or a number of super-tele back 10-15 years ago they might not be able to today. Huge, huge price increases on then, way beyond inflation.

I forgot nothing, and you are taking the quote completely out of context. Which was, why would changing system from Canon to another company necessitate "dump[ing] $30 - 40K worth of L lenses"? Those lenses do not have zero value, indeed they generally have pretty low depreciation.

What does the original purchase cost of an old Canon lens have to do with the price of a new Nikon or Sony lens? Nothing, your point is completely irrelevant.

Besides, Mr1DX really has two choices for his photography bearing in mind his lens requirements, Canon or Nikon, and two bodies, the 1DX or the D4s. I have seen many more high profile users that are tele-centirc users, swap from Nikon to Canon in the last few years than the other way around, why would that be? After the 1D MkIII AF fiasco and many tele-centric users moving from Canon to Nikon, the wave of use is very much back the other way again, Canon's MkII teles are unmatched and the D4s is one of Nikon's weaker bodies when compared to it's direct competition.

Heck, anybody who switches systems can just as well run both systems. Once glass is acquired keeping up in the body arms race is easy.

One thing I'd like to know is how many ship jumpers really jump ship or keep switching back and forth in fits of technological obsessive compulsive spasms. These photographers must makes loads of money or people just have more money than sense.

On the other hand... lots of people just like to rant and will never jump ship. It is probably the same people all the time. Anti-cramping medications may help them.

People who don't understand that these companies will be constantly leapfrogging one another technologically will drive themselves mad with gear envy while the sane just slog along making beautiful photos no matter what companies x, y, or z are doing.

If a person is in this to make money and believes he or she cannot compete in the market because of his gear not being the latest... well you can't help him. A person like that is delusional. No amount of gear can compensate for ineptitude. They'll turn to being disgruntled hobbyists before long.
 
Upvote 0