Poll Added: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Should

[3dit0r]

For what it’s worth, my 2p is that I think Canon is getting it mostly right, but could also use some solid innovation in a few areas.

Really, in terms of DSLR, I think they’re pretty damn good. There are little things like the above-mentioned 4K crop in the 5Dmkiv, not to mention lack of focus peaking, zebras, etc., which, frankly, were a balls-up and probably lost them countless customers to other brands. That’s not even a question of innovation, they have the tech, that’s just some bizarre perceived need to ‘protect’ their video-centric cinema eos line. Sony also have a video-centric line, they sell tons of both types of camera, Canon could learn from that marketing strategy. Different markets which don’t need protecting from each other.

The biggest area for innovation is obvious: mirrorless. I’ve used a lot of mirrorless cameras, I’m surprised Canon are so late to the serious game. They still have time, but it needs to happen and soon and be great. Actually I think EF mount would be great, but then they could do with a line of EF lenses suited to mirrorless (e.g., an ‘L Junior’ series; a bit like Nikon’s 1.8 primes - fast enough, half the size and weight of the 1.4/1.2Ls, weather sealed, quiet, fast AF suited to stills and video, no focus by wire). They’d have time to develop these properly if the mirrorless were EF mount as everyone could use the wide range of EF lenses in the meantime. Stop holding back and put in the features competitors have but make it Canon colour science and build quality, but lighter weight.

Oh and IBIS, how could I forget? Having used that in a high-res Sony, it is very far from a gimmick, great stuff.

 

[rrcphoto]

That’s not even a question of innovation, they have the tech, that’s just some bizarre perceived need to ‘protect’ their video-centric cinema eos line.

do they?

they have the cini eos cameras stacked with dual DIGIC DV's for video that need to be air cooled and vented to the outside.

it's such a comment statement, that has taken on mythical proportions. I really doubt a DSLR with stills as it's primary focus, and poor video ergonomics and connections is going to replace or even substitute for a CINI camera.

 

[rrcphoto]

May I ask what the need is for full frame 4K? I don't find the crop in the 1d to be a terrible thing.

It's required only by Internet forum "video makers", all [or majority] serious project outside the Internet forum uses S35 format which is very close to APS-C crop, because of which Canon apply a similar crop to 5D IV and 1Dx II (targeting real video makers). Pros knows and appreciate it with no complains, but Internet forum pros rattles like a half empty vessel with a marble in it.

Hm, I do know what you’re saying and sort of partly agree, but with the caveat that while the 1Dxii 1.3 crop is pretty much fine, the 5Div crop of 1.7 is getting a bit unworkable once you consider you can’t use Canon EF-S lenses on it, so no much in the way of wide angles are easily achievable.

sigma says hi. samyang says helllo.

considering EF-S doesn't have cini lenses, and they have APS-C cini lenses...

1.3 crop is in the middle and you can't get UWA with 1.3 crop and you can't use APS-C lenses on it.

Neither Sigma nor Samsung say hello if you want reliable DPAF, which is one of the best things about Canon’s video right now.

the point is, there's ways around that and 1.3 crop is certainly not any better than 1.7.

there's a reason why canon dropped the APS-H format alltogether.

 

[justawriter]

I think a lot of Canon's innovations get overlooked. My own give-up-a-minor-body-part feature is cleaner high ISO and that's an area that Canon is strong in, but it isn't useful for the shoot the lens cap crowd. I take a lot of sports photos in dingy high school gyms and going from the 7D to the 7DII was a really big improvement. Going from seven to ten fps might not make headlines, but I get a lot more keepers. Being able to shoot at ISO 3200 instead of 800 means I can get my shutter speed up to where I like it. If the 7DIII gives me 12 fps and decent noise levels at ISO 12800 I will grab it as soon as possible. In my ideal world I want to be able to shoot 1/1000 at f8 by candlelight.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Re: Poll Added: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.

It seems like the “I switched from canon to _____” confessions are tallying up day by day.

[stentorian referee voice] In this corner, wearing the black-and-white colors of truth and weighing in at 130 million points, we have Facts and Data. And in this corner, wearing the iridescent color of inconsistency and weighing in at some undefined amount of fluff, we have Anecdotes and Opinion. Let the bout begin!

The thing is...Canon has gained market share over the past few years. Don't let reality knock you on your ass with a hard uppercut.

Ford and Chevy have more market share than BMW, Mercedes or Porsche. Does not mean that they are better, just more mainstream.

Sure. Now, please point out where I said Canon was 'better'. I have repeatedly stated that what their greater market share means is that Canon 'better meets the needs of more people'.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I think a lot of Canon's innovations get overlooked.

Fuji just announced their new flagship APS-C mirrorless. Among other imporvements, they highlight that it has flicker detection to balance out exposure under fluorescent lighting.

That was a Canon innovation from 2014. But Canon doesn't innovate. :

 

[SereneSpeed]

I often feel like I'm the only one who thinks the 5DIV is lightyears ahead of the 5DIII. The 5DIII was incredible. I had two and loved them. It was so nice to have two and switch cameras at events and not (often) switch lenses. But now, with having one 5DIV and one 5DIII, I never use the 5DIII - it's just backup. The 5DIV images are so far ahead of the 5DIII it's silly.

I'm going to stop here and mention that when I got the 5DIV, I noticed the bump in resolution immediately, but it took me a long time (3 months daily professional use) to understand just how much better the sensor was in the 5DIV. Why? Because the files looked and worked the same between the two cameras. It was hard to tell the difference, because the transition was so easy. That's what makes Canon so amazing. I picked up the 5DIV and it felt and worked exactly like my 5DIII. Exactly. Within 48 hours, I was using the new camera as my primary camera for paid work.

But, I think this is also why Canon gets lacklustre reviews... There is no eye-poping differences that are immediately apparent. The cameras all feel the same. I assist a photographer who uses the 1DXII and I can pickup his camera and shoot with it without hesitation. It feels and works the same. This is a huge positive for working professionals. But, in the age of viral internet reviews. Consistency, reliability, and smart thinking just aren't 'sexy'.

Let me reiterate that in a different way. Canon changed their sensor design and yet they kept the same colour science. They increased their dynamic range and file workability and yet, those who work with Canon RAW files can keep their workflow. To me, that's a fantastic implementation of a new feature.

Back to my 5DIV... when I used my 5DIII alongside my 5DIV, as I process the images, I now immediately know which files were shot on which body. The 5DIV has blacks and an amazing range of details in the highlights. Not to mention, once the files are being worked on, there is a massive difference in the processing latitude of the files. The 5DIV files feel like rubber bands.

I am curious about other brands, don't get me wrong. Sony's eye-AF, looks incredible. But, I can't get over the rest. Everyone I know who upgrades to a 42-50mp camera (A7Rii, A7Riii, D850, 5DS) ends up needing to upgrade their computer to maintain processing efficiency. That's a massive expense for most working photographers. Not to be scoffed at, if you aren't already needing an upgrade. And yet, going from the 5DIII to the 5DIV, I've not felt any significant speed/efficiency decline in my workflow. And 30mp is a lot for what I deliver to clients. A lot. More than 98% of my jobs require.

Not to mention, everyone I know who uses Sony A7*'s professionally has had corrupted cards. Everyone, and not just once. That would give me a heart attack during a paid shoot. I could not handle the stress. Yeah, most of the time, the files can be recovered, but not all of the time. That's not a little bug.

I could keep going... but I won't. I'm just surprised that Canon, who makes cameras that work (no corners cut) gets slagged on so often. The other's make great and exciting cameras that have a small (yet tangible) list of sub-standard issues. But, those issues seems to be overlooked, or at least shrugged off, because of a few 'innovative' marketing tool features taht Canon doesn't have, because 'they don't innovate'.

And, as a side topic, perhaps someone can explain to me why the 6DII feature list was such a shock? The 6D cut into 5DIII sales. No doubt. I know enough people (myself included) who compared those cameras against each other when the time came to purchase a body, to understand that the difference was not enough to segregate their market placement. So, why did it come as a surprise that the 6DII held it's intended market position (to be the 'entry level' FF camera)? If you want more bells and whistles, you buy the 5DIV. Seems straight forward to me. Seems like good business practices for Canon, no?

/Rant over...

 

[magarity]

Back when I sold my film cameras and was looking for digital it was between Canon's 400D and Nikon's D50 and the Canon was clearly superior. At any given time there are first time customers who know that whatever system they start with will probably keep them locked in for at least a while so they're going to go with whatever is best in their price range at that moment. Thus I think innovation is important in that regard, attracting future long term customers.

 

[YuengLinger]

Why should they take chances on wasted R&D, marketing campaigns, edgy tech when they have a fat cash cow? They make great cameras backed by the best service in the industry. Their lenses win--and trap a lot of heavily invested owners.

We are talking business decisions. When Sony/Nikon/Fuji/Olympus threaten profits, maybe we'll see some of the innovation they've been sitting on?

 

[HotPixels]

It seems like the “I switched from canon to _____” confessions are tallying up day by day.

[stentorian referee voice] In this corner, wearing the black-and-white colors of truth and weighing in at 130 million points, we have Facts and Data. And in this corner, wearing the iridescent color of inconsistency and weighing in at some undefined amount of fluff, we have Anecdotes and Opinion. Let the bout begin!

The thing is...Canon has gained market share over the past few years. Don't let reality knock you on your ass with a hard uppercut.

Ford and Chevy have more market share than BMW, Mercedes or Porsche. Does not mean that they are better, just more mainstream.

But Ford and Chevy do have better pickup trucks, and they have better cars under $10,000. ;D

It's funny: I actually have owned a Ford (Thunderbird SC), a Chevy (two Corvettes), and a Mercedes (an AMG).

The AMG is the only 6-figure car I have ever purchased, and what a piece of garbage it was. I've never had so many problems with a car in my life, including my first vehicle, which was a second-hand Chrysler LeBaron. Other than the amazing look the AMG had, a gorgeous interior, and the ability to suck gas like nobody's business the AMG was best at nothing other than time in the dealership for warranty repairs (over 3 months in 3 years).

I had the same type of experience owning an Infiniti. Worst car I've ever used. Expensive to maintain, and too many gimmicky, gadgety features. There was even a problem with the braking software that caused an accident when my wife was parking it. I was never so glad as when I got rid of the Infiniti and got a good reliable Honda Accord. Usable and practical for me are far superior to impractical gadgetry and feature bloat.

 

[HotPixels]

I think part of the problem is that internet reviewers/bloggers/commenters tend to have a bias towards that which is new and novel, whether it is better or not. It gives them something to write about and justifies what they do.

So a company like Sony comes around and gives them quick iterations of camera models, and that gives them work. Canon updates less frequently, and when they release a feature, like Dual Pixel AF, they tend to get it right the first time, so they don't need so many updates.

Another example: ergonomics. Canon gets it right and has for years. So their new models tend to follow a familiar design layout for controls and ergonomics. That's a good thing, and it makes it easy for a user to go from one Canon model to another. But there's not much to comment on.

Sony seems to wrestle with its ergonomics with every release, and so internet pundits have something to write about.

With Canon, internet reviewers don't want to just write something like "well, it's another super solid, performing release from Canon."

Bottom line: that which makes for an interesting life as a reviewer is not the same that makes for a great product for customers, and is often the opposite.

 

[SkynetTX]

What kind of innovation Canon should make?

Sensors with better noise performance
Faster and lighter zoom lenses
Compact cameras with large sensor and zoom range (PowerShot APS-C 24-360mm f/3.3-5.6)

What kind of innovation Canon should not make?

65536 Pixel AF, all cross-type, f/1.4 and 65536 AF point
Video support for still cameras
More automatic modes (snow, waterfall, cat, dog, mouse, roach, whatever)
Built-in GPS, Wi-Fi, NFC, fingerprint scanner, whatever for DSLR

In my opinion, of course.

 

[alienman]

My problem with canon's innovation is strictly on the video side. Other companies are just giving you more for your money, I don't have to go down the list. I understand some things with other companies may not work how you would expect but if you have any skill with a camera it isn't hard to overcome. Also I do not appreciate that people are saying that you do not need 4k as if it were some future technology only available to NASA. 4k displays can be found for a cheaper price than I would pay for a battery grip and with a reasonable codec editing 4k footage on consume laptops and desktops is not an impossible task how people make it seem.

For stills I am not a pro but form observation sony has closed the gap with the a9 and riii. They may not have the color science down but in terms of detail and DR I would say they have the upper hand. Focus speed seems to be equal if not sony has the upper hand. In terms of low light performance I believe Sony has the upper hand here as well. It seems like the only thing holding sony back from pros is a mature line of glass and it is simply new to them. This makes me wonder why people are complacent with canon being complacent.

 

[RayValdez360]

Why should they take chances on wasted R&D, marketing campaigns, edgy tech when they have a fat cash cow? They make great cameras backed by the best service in the industry. Their lenses win--and trap a lot of heavily invested owners.

We are talking business decisions. When Sony/Nikon/Fuji/Olympus threaten profits, maybe we'll see some of the innovation they've been sitting on?

You sound like a sheep. How about we all eat sterilized poop with vitamins in it. It will save companies a lot of money and more profit for them because why should a consumer get what they want if it potentially decreases a company's revenue. If people want to believe that all a company should do is make profits by any means necessary (that is legal) than that is sad. That is also the problem with pure capitalism.

 

[transpo1]

Looks like the poll is a resounding No, No, No. I think we have our answer

 

[Tahoejr]

I see this slightly differently. Canon doesn't need to extensively innovate the professional DSLR market given its maturity and also due to the fact that this isn't likely to bring in significant new users (DSLR sales decreased 9% in 2017 continuing a 6 year decline).

What they must weigh is how heavily they want to invest in the mirror-less market as that is growing steadily. It was up 32% in 2017 and 10 fold in the last 5 years. Will these cameras truly be preferred by a professional cannibalize existing model franchises.

Can Canon match someone like Sony in mirror-less with no impact to existing product development?

Source: Industry figures from CIPC (Camera and Imaging Products Association). January 2018 Annual Report

 

[HotPixels]

Why should they take chances on wasted R&D, marketing campaigns, edgy tech when they have a fat cash cow? They make great cameras backed by the best service in the industry. Their lenses win--and trap a lot of heavily invested owners.

We are talking business decisions. When Sony/Nikon/Fuji/Olympus threaten profits, maybe we'll see some of the innovation they've been sitting on?

You sound like a sheep. How about we all eat sterilized poop with vitamins in it. It will save companies a lot of money and more profit for them because why should a consumer get what they want if it potentially decreases a company's revenue. If people want to believe that all a company should do is make profits by any means necessary (that is legal) than that is sad. That is also the problem with pure capitalism.

I think the point is that in market capitalism, the people have a voice and vote with their dollars. Sure a company could release a food that was sterilized poop with vitamins, but it would not be a viable product in the market. The idea is that what maximizes profits for a company is to better serve the market. Granted, companies sometimes do the wrong thing to try to make a profit, but in general the only way a company can succeed long term is by providing value to its customers.

The point of the article linked to on Fstoppers, is that Canon has innovated in important areas but that others have not caught up. The question perhaps one needs to ask is why others like Sony, after all of these years, have not yet caught up to Canon in color science, or in dual pixel AF, or in customer service, or in ergonomics? These are pretty foundational and obviously they matter more to more people than the advantages of the competition.

 

[YuengLinger]

Why should they take chances on wasted R&D, marketing campaigns, edgy tech when they have a fat cash cow? They make great cameras backed by the best service in the industry. Their lenses win--and trap a lot of heavily invested owners.

We are talking business decisions. When Sony/Nikon/Fuji/Olympus threaten profits, maybe we'll see some of the innovation they've been sitting on?

You sound like a sheep. How about we all eat sterilized poop with vitamins in it. It will save companies a lot of money and more profit for them because why should a consumer get what they want if it potentially decreases a company's revenue. If people want to believe that all a company should do is make profits by any means necessary (that is legal) than that is sad. That is also the problem with pure capitalism.

I'm guessing that English is not your native language; otherwise, you would have seen that I'm grinning and bearing this situation with Canon.

Now this is the second time you've replied to a comment of mine with references to a Marxist struggle. Could you please try to avoid dumping your ideology here?

 

[neuroanatomist]

I see this slightly differently.

What they must weigh is how heavily they want to invest in the mirror-less market as that is growing steadily. It was up 32% in 2017 and 10 fold in the last 5 years.

Source: Industry figures from CIPC (Camera and Imaging Products Association). January 2018 Annual Report

Sorry, but WTF? It seems that in your case, 'seeing it differently' likely involves hallunications induced by a psychoactive substance.

Here are the CIPA numbers plotted for MILC shipments since 2012 (when they started reporting MILCs separately, 6 years of data):

Does that look like 'steady growth' to you? (Hint: what it really looks like is basically flat with the increase from 2016 to 2017 being the exception.)

Does 3.3 million to 4.1 million (the last 5 years) look like 'up 10-fold' to you? (Hint: it's a 23% increase form 2013 to 2017.)

Geez, there's exaggeration...there's hyperbole...then there's bat-sh!t crazy.

 

[Mikehit]

If people want to believe that all a company should do is make profits by any means necessary (that is legal) than that is sad. That is also the problem with pure capitalism.

You may call it sad but I look at it another way.
A company will maximise its profits by selling the largest number of units it can within its market sector. It does that by identifying what most people will buy and making it.
Sony cold not compete in DSLR so went mirrorless - and they have wowed the reviewers and internet forums
Nikon did it by buying in superior sensors than they could make - and they have wowed the reviewers and internet forums
Canon do it my developing parts of the camera that may not be spectacular but make the photographic experience overall more reliable and satisfactory - and they have grown year on year and been number one for a decade

So outside of internet forums and reviewers, who seems to understand best precisely what it is that most people want to buy?

Yes, a company can take on the role of educator ('this is what you need') and setting trends - Canon did that in making the first commercially viable DSLRs and inventing DSLR video. Sony started the ball rolling with mirrorless (though IMO its significance is greatly overplayed at the FF end - I think the MFT was far more significant). But those moments are fleeting and rare.