Should/can Canon keep making its own sensors?

[dickgrafixstop]

It depends on whether or not they want to stay in the camera business. I will predict that within ten years time
the largest camera manufacturers will be Panasonic, Fuji, Samsung, Canon and Sony - mainly because they make
their own sensors and can control the manufacturing and delivery of improvements. Companies that use OEM
chips, fabricators or modified "custom" chips from the above will always be behind the eight ball. Look at the
dilemma that Leica faces since Kodak gave up the chip business.

 

[Robert Welch]

I love how people want to tell Canon (or Nikon, etc.) what they should do. Don't you think they spend a lot of money doing market research before they manufacture anything. And then after they do make something, they know how profitable it was and that will guide them going forward. I think Canon is doing well enough, unlike some other companies, like Olympus (which has had some scandal issues among management/board members recently), or Sony & Panasonic in the TV market.

 

[TTMartin]

I love how people want to tell Canon (or Nikon, etc.) what they should do. Don't you think they spend a lot of money doing market research before they manufacture anything. And then after they do make something, they know how profitable it was and that will guide them going forward. I think Canon is doing well enough, unlike some other companies, like Olympus (which has had some scandal issues among management/board members recently), or Sony & Panasonic in the TV market.

Do you think that Canon ignores comments on internet sites and only spends a lot of money on market research? Even the smallest companies have employees who regularly monitor appropriate internet threads. Some have active representatives, others simply monitor passively.

 

[marekjoz]

I love how people want to tell Canon (or Nikon, etc.) what they should do. Don't you think they spend a lot of money doing market research before they manufacture anything. And then after they do make something, they know how profitable it was and that will guide them going forward. I think Canon is doing well enough, unlike some other companies, like Olympus (which has had some scandal issues among management/board members recently), or Sony & Panasonic in the TV market.

Do you think that Canon ignores comments on internet sites and only spends a lot of money on market research? Even the smallest companies have employees who regularly monitor appropriate internet threads. Some have active representatives, others simply monitor passively.

If it would be true, with my briliant ideas I would already be offered some good position in their R&D team ;D ;D ;D

 

[Kernuak]

The prices of the current products have already been increased by this amount. The problem is that the new ones are being priced disproportionate more.

Compare the prices of the new big white lenses to the old ones for example!

Most of the older big whites are 10-15 years old, so they're bound to have come down in price. It's the comparison to their release price, adjusted for inflation and exchange that should be made. However, I don't know how any of those factors compare.

 

[ScottyP]

Price of canon gear....

I hope that we all realize that one of the reasons for price increases is that the dollar yen exchange rate has changed from about 110 in 2008 To about 80 now. That's about a thirty percent change, thus gear is more expensive for us.

Exactly! That is why Honda Civics cost $135,000.00 errrr..... no... wait a sec......

Perhaps Japanese companies CAN find a work-around any exchange-rate issues any time they actually want/need to be competetive...

 

[marekjoz]

The prices of the current products have already been increased by this amount. The problem is that the new ones are being priced disproportionate more.

Compare the prices of the new big white lenses to the old ones for example!

Most of the older big whites are 10-15 years old, so they're bound to have come down in price. It's the comparison to their release price, adjusted for inflation and exchange that should be made. However, I don't know how any of those factors compare.

Take also under consideration, that Canon when setting their prices, has also to predict the future inflation as the products will be selling for several years, and no customer expects seeing prices higher, no matter for what the reason.

 

[tron]

Take also under consideration, that Canon when setting their prices, has also to predict the future inflation as the products will be selling for several years, and no customer expects seeing prices higher, no matter for what the reason.

No they don't! The prices of the old lenses continue to rise no matter what!

 

[marekjoz]

Take also under consideration, that Canon when setting their prices, has also to predict the future inflation as the products will be selling for several years, and no customer expects seeing prices higher, no matter for what the reason.

No they don't! The prices of the old lenses continue to rise no matter what!

Then figure out how prices would rise up if Canon didn't consider inflation when setting the initial price ;D

 

[tron]

They can figure instead how much less we will buy if they continue rising their prices ;D

 

[tron]

Then, figure out too how much less we would pay if they didn't consider inflation. In the beginning the prices would be lower so many buyers would take advantage of this. By the way where did you get the information about Canon taking inflation into consideration in the first place?

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

CR Forum Logic.
1. 5D2 IQ = Praiseworthy, even today. (general agreement)
2. 5D3 IQ > 5D2 IQ (general agreement)
3. 5D3 IQ = unsatisfactory

8) 8) 8) 8) ;D 8) 8) ;D

so very true....I asked it on another lets bash the mk3 thread, how many naysayers own either camera????

 

[marekjoz]

Then, figure out too how much less we would pay if they didn't consider inflation. In the beginning the prices would be lower so many buyers would take advantage of this. By the way where did you get the information about Canon taking inflation into consideration in the first place?

Here is some calculation: http://www.eos-network.com/2012/03/cameras-banks-and-the-financial-crisis-or-why-cameras-prices-seem-so-high-these-days

 

[RLPhoto]

I just go my MK3 today and shot some High ISO. Un-believeable performance @ ISO 51,200 for High speed B&W's. My previous limit for High Speed B&Ws was 6400 on the 7D but the mk3 is just epic!

Good enough for a 4x6 print and thats fine for ISO 51,200!

 

[ScottyP]

I see Nikon using Sony sensors, and Sony itself is using its new sensors in its new well-received bodies, and I read people discussing how the Canon sensors seem to be falling behind.

I wonder if Canon will reach a kind of "Apple Moment", like when Apple quit spending its R&D money trying to beat Intel on a component (CPU's) and started just using Intel chips like everyone else.

As was pointed out earlier, Apple never built their own chips. Also, Intel aren't the only company who manufactures x86 chips.

Apple made a number of smart business decisions and released several very successful products (imac, ipod, OS X) after Jobs took the helm in 98 (and well before they adopted the intel architecture in 2005)

One of the problems with having Canon drop sensors is that most of the companies who build sensors are either their competition, or companies who would like to become their competition.

Canon makes better lenses than Nikon, and could focus on staying ahead on that. They could/should take a page from the perfectionist Steve Jobs, and focus on addressing all the 1000 little niggling customer gripes and wishes about cameras, and making Canons just work better and smoother than Nikon (or Sony). Outclass the competition by thinking of everything, and including it; and by not withholding simple little crap in hardware and firmware that they could instead make standard in all their cameras for very little cost.

Providing nicer products is always a worthy goal, but the Apple way is not to push high end functionality down to low end models so that users of said low end models may aspire to have high end functionality made available at the low end price. Rather it would be to simplify and clean their product lineup by simply eliminating those "tweener" product lines so that these users are left to choose between (for example) the Rebel and the 5D.

Another lesson from Apple, by the way, is that they have never been leaders from a pure price to performance standpoint. Instead, they always lived or died by the idea that users would pay a premium (in some cases a fairly hefty premium) for a well crafted product.
Canon have an analogous though not identical approach -- their plan is essentially to build a compelling system. A good system is not just about sensor performance. It is a comprehensive product line, which includes professional grade support, bodies, lenses, and even printers. The only other manufacturer who can play in the same ballpark at present is Nikon.

Canon has the part about "not leading from a pure price to performance standpoint" and "charging a premium" down pat. Do they have the all-important counterbalancing point about superior user-experience/funcionality sewed up, or are they resting on the security of having people heavily committed/invested in its lenses not being able to switch easily? In the face of real competition to its market share, Canon should compete by being better for the same price, just as is standard practice in all consumer goods. If you can steal a march against Nikon by putting better firmware into a lower model body, DO IT. And how much could AMFA really cost to include??

 

[Menace]

My 2 cents worth...

Canon would have done their market research so they know how many units of a particular line they can sell at a given price point - too high and a lot of potential buyers will be put off and no doubt venting off frustration in various online forums

I sold my 7d and bought the 5D III soon as it came out, I winced when I handed over my credit card but knew I'll be able to sell more / larger prints with the new body.

Btw, I'm very satisfied with its performance and canvas prints up to A0 size

 

[Hillsilly]

If Canon became a pure marketing company, selling a camera made of components from other supplier's spare parts bins, it would quickly dissolve into irrelevance. I'm not keen for that to happen and encourage Canon to keep making their own sensors.

Despite numerous claims that Sony sensors are better, where is the real world proof? They might have a slightly different "look", but better? I've never taken a photo and thought it would be better if I'd used a Nikon or Sony.

Anyway, arguments about sensors pale in consideration to the real issues - black and white vs colour, negatives vs transparencies, Velvia vs Provia vs Astia, kodak vs Ilford vs Rollei vs Fuji vs Fompan vs Agfa vs .... If only there was one film!

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

I see Nikon using Sony sensors, and Sony itself is using its new sensors in its new well-received bodies, and I read people discussing how the Canon sensors seem to be falling behind.

I wonder if Canon will reach a kind of "Apple Moment", like when Apple quit spending its R&D money trying to beat Intel on a component (CPU's) and started just using Intel chips like everyone else.

As was pointed out earlier, Apple never built their own chips. Also, Intel aren't the only company who manufactures x86 chips.

Apple made a number of smart business decisions and released several very successful products (imac, ipod, OS X) after Jobs took the helm in 98 (and well before they adopted the intel architecture in 2005)

One of the problems with having Canon drop sensors is that most of the companies who build sensors are either their competition, or companies who would like to become their competition.

Canon makes better lenses than Nikon, and could focus on staying ahead on that. They could/should take a page from the perfectionist Steve Jobs, and focus on addressing all the 1000 little niggling customer gripes and wishes about cameras, and making Canons just work better and smoother than Nikon (or Sony). Outclass the competition by thinking of everything, and including it; and by not withholding simple little crap in hardware and firmware that they could instead make standard in all their cameras for very little cost.

Providing nicer products is always a worthy goal, but the Apple way is not to push high end functionality down to low end models so that users of said low end models may aspire to have high end functionality made available at the low end price. Rather it would be to simplify and clean their product lineup by simply eliminating those "tweener" product lines so that these users are left to choose between (for example) the Rebel and the 5D.

Another lesson from Apple, by the way, is that they have never been leaders from a pure price to performance standpoint. Instead, they always lived or died by the idea that users would pay a premium (in some cases a fairly hefty premium) for a well crafted product.
Canon have an analogous though not identical approach -- their plan is essentially to build a compelling system. A good system is not just about sensor performance. It is a comprehensive product line, which includes professional grade support, bodies, lenses, and even printers. The only other manufacturer who can play in the same ballpark at present is Nikon.

Canon has the part about "not leading from a pure price to performance standpoint" and "charging a premium" down pat. Do they have the all-important counterbalancing point about superior user-experience/funcionality sewed up, or are they resting on the security of having people heavily committed/invested in its lenses not being able to switch easily? In the face of real competition to its market share, Canon should compete by being better for the same price, just as is standard practice in all consumer goods. If you can steal a march against Nikon by putting better firmware into a lower model body, DO IT. And how much could AMFA really cost to include??

Other than being bitter, having a hard time figuring your logic. The mk3 is selling quite well as are canon models in general. I think you got it right for nikon though. Niokon is smaller than canon and has been trying to catch up over the past 5 years. I'm not sure if the d800 is priced the way it is due to outsourcing the sensor from sony, or, maybe nikon is trying to undercut canon by selling a product at close to a loss (or, maybe sony is taking a loss on the sensor just to get it out there). Either way, the mk3 is holding its own. Amazon is one of the only sites i have found that publish this data and keep it up to date. Since release, both the d800 and the mk3 have been in the top 20, more often than not in the top 10. As i write this post, the d800 is at 11th, and the mk3 is at 8th.

So I'm really kind of wondering why canon would listen to you and drop prices? If they were in trouble, they would. Hell, I don't even see them scrambling to get a media campaign together to get people on board with the 5d series. What I do see canon doing is preparing to launch new lenses and new bodies. Your post describes canon as a company that sinking in quick sand, and they better listen to you or else...or else what? Sounds to me like listening to you would be a good way for canon to destroy their business. Would the mk3 sell at $2999, sure. Would the complainers still complain? Yes. Hell, if they released it at $1999 I'm sure people would still complain! Bottom line is if you want the best studio landscape cam out there then the mk3 may not be the best choice for you. Suck it up, stay on your current gear and wait, or make the decision and sell your gear to invest in nikon. Those are your choices. I made mine - I bought my mk3 a few weeks ago and it is a joy to use. The files are just awesome to work with, and the high ISO capabilities are just plain outrageous!

 

[Cgdillan]

I see Nikon using Sony sensors, and Sony itself is using its new sensors in its new well-received bodies, and I read people discussing how the Canon sensors seem to be falling behind.

I wonder if Canon will reach a kind of "Apple Moment", like when Apple quit spending its R&D money trying to beat Intel on a component (CPU's) and started just using Intel chips like everyone else.

As was pointed out earlier, Apple never built their own chips. Also, Intel aren't the only company who manufactures x86 chips.

Apple made a number of smart business decisions and released several very successful products (imac, ipod, OS X) after Jobs took the helm in 98 (and well before they adopted the intel architecture in 2005)

One of the problems with having Canon drop sensors is that most of the companies who build sensors are either their competition, or companies who would like to become their competition.

Canon makes better lenses than Nikon, and could focus on staying ahead on that. They could/should take a page from the perfectionist Steve Jobs, and focus on addressing all the 1000 little niggling customer gripes and wishes about cameras, and making Canons just work better and smoother than Nikon (or Sony). Outclass the competition by thinking of everything, and including it; and by not withholding simple little crap in hardware and firmware that they could instead make standard in all their cameras for very little cost.

Providing nicer products is always a worthy goal, but the Apple way is not to push high end functionality down to low end models so that users of said low end models may aspire to have high end functionality made available at the low end price. Rather it would be to simplify and clean their product lineup by simply eliminating those "tweener" product lines so that these users are left to choose between (for example) the Rebel and the 5D.

Another lesson from Apple, by the way, is that they have never been leaders from a pure price to performance standpoint. Instead, they always lived or died by the idea that users would pay a premium (in some cases a fairly hefty premium) for a well crafted product.
Canon have an analogous though not identical approach -- their plan is essentially to build a compelling system. A good system is not just about sensor performance. It is a comprehensive product line, which includes professional grade support, bodies, lenses, and even printers. The only other manufacturer who can play in the same ballpark at present is Nikon.

Canon has the part about "not leading from a pure price to performance standpoint" and "charging a premium" down pat. Do they have the all-important counterbalancing point about superior user-experience/funcionality sewed up, or are they resting on the security of having people heavily committed/invested in its lenses not being able to switch easily? In the face of real competition to its market share, Canon should compete by being better for the same price, just as is standard practice in all consumer goods. If you can steal a march against Nikon by putting better firmware into a lower model body, DO IT. And how much could AMFA really cost to include??

Other than being bitter, having a hard time figuring your logic. The mk3 is selling quite well as are canon models in general. I think you got it right for nikon though. Niokon is smaller than canon and has been trying to catch up over the past 5 years. I'm not sure if the d800 is priced the way it is due to outsourcing the sensor from sony, or, maybe nikon is trying to undercut canon by selling a product at close to a loss (or, maybe sony is taking a loss on the sensor just to get it out there). Either way, the mk3 is holding its own. Amazon is one of the only sites i have found that publish this data and keep it up to date. Since release, both the d800 and the mk3 have been in the top 20, more often than not in the top 10. As i write this post, the d800 is at 11th, and the mk3 is at 8th.

So I'm really kind of wondering why canon would listen to you and drop prices? If they were in trouble, they would. Hell, I don't even see them scrambling to get a media campaign together to get people on board with the 5d series. What I do see canon doing is preparing to launch new lenses and new bodies. Your post describes canon as a company that sinking in quick sand, and they better listen to you or else...or else what? Sounds to me like listening to you would be a good way for canon to destroy their business. Would the mk3 sell at $2999, sure. Would the complainers still complain? Yes. Hell, if they released it at $1999 I'm sure people would still complain! Bottom line is if you want the best studio landscape cam out there then the mk3 may not be the best choice for you. Suck it up, stay on your current gear and wait, or make the decision and sell your gear to invest in nikon. Those are your choices. I made mine - I bought my mk3 a few weeks ago and it is a joy to use. The files are just awesome to work with, and the high ISO capabilities are just plain outrageous!

I agree +1 =-) LOVE my mkiii

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

If Canon became a pure marketing company, selling a camera made of components from other supplier's spare parts bins, it would quickly dissolve into irrelevance. I'm not keen for that to happen and encourage Canon to keep making their own sensors.

Despite numerous claims that Sony sensors are better, where is the real world proof? They might have a slightly different "look", but better? I've never taken a photo and thought it would be better if I'd used a Nikon or Sony.

Anyway, arguments about sensors pale in consideration to the real issues - black and white vs colour, negatives vs transparencies, Velvia vs Provia vs Astia, kodak vs Ilford vs Rollei vs Fuji vs Fompan vs Agfa vs .... If only there was one film!

at low iso for high dynamic range scenes there is tons of proof, it's been given here and all over the net

at high iso it's not so much different