Still waiting for high MP canon while Nikon is coming out with new 800

[Aglet]

I hate to agree with Neuro, so I won't.
I'll try to make a real explanation of what's happening instead of merely crowing about market share.

Yup, Canon makes niche lenses, but they mount on "good enough" bodies. That's likely to fill out the niche needs of a few pro's and enthusiasts who otherwise don't mind using a commodity camera body.

But Canon knows how to coast on its market share, much like many other companies do after they make a big market breakthru at some point in the past.
You have to go back to film days when Nikon, Pentax and even Olympus and Minolta were BIG. Canon was in there too but were, as an also-ran, laughed at by Nikon and Pentax users. (kinda like now too but the ratios were different then)

Canon seemed to gain some traction when they went to the EOS mount, developed some good stabilized lenses for that, then made another good surge when their "new" CMOS sensor was outperforming other digital offerings in the new DSLR market. They also developed tremendous market share in compact digital cameras at the outset of that category.
They built a LOT of mindshare and it's stuck, despite the fact that, right now, every other major mfr (Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Fuji, Panasonic, Olympus, maybe even Samsung) use sensors that outperform Canon's in most metrics, despite being smaller.

Canon makes cameras that are "good enough" for many pro's, and more than good enough for most consumers and enthusiasts. Their biggest benefit is they are easy to use and produce decent results, and the common folk like that.
The rest of us buy the "good stuff" from the others, for whom I'm thankful for their continued existence.

 

[zlatko]

I hate to agree with Neuro, so I won't.
I'll try to make a real explanation of what's happening instead of merely crowing about market share.

Yup, Canon makes niche lenses, but they mount on "good enough" bodies. That's likely to fill out the niche needs of a few pro's and enthusiasts who otherwise don't mind using a commodity camera body.

But Canon knows how to coast on its market share, much like many other companies do after they make a big market breakthru at some point in the past.
You have to go back to film days when Nikon, Pentax and even Olympus and Minolta were BIG. Canon was in there too but were, as an also-ran, laughed at by Nikon and Pentax users. (kinda like now too but the ratios were different then)

Canon seemed to gain some traction when they went to the EOS mount, developed some good stabilized lenses for that, then made another good surge when their "new" CMOS sensor was outperforming other digital offerings in the new DSLR market. They also developed tremendous market share in compact digital cameras at the outset of that category.
They built a LOT of mindshare and it's stuck, despite the fact that, right now, every other major mfr (Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Fuji, Panasonic, Olympus, maybe even Samsung) use sensors that outperform Canon's in most metrics, despite being smaller.

Canon makes cameras that are "good enough" for many pro's, and more than good enough for most consumers and enthusiasts. Their biggest benefit is they are easy to use and produce decent results, and the common folk like that.
The rest of us buy the "good stuff" from the others, for whom I'm thankful for their continued existence.

So much distaste for Canon. Why are you on a Canon forum?

 

[Sella174]

So much distaste for Canon. Why are you on a Canon forum?

Although not (quite) directed at me, I'll still answer from my perspective ... As to your second question, I've been using Canon cameras for about, oh, sixteen or seventeen years now. As to your first question, technology is moving ahead (read: mirrorless), yet Canon is stuck in mirrorland.

 

[3kramd5]

The question is why has Canon not released a 36MP'ish FF camera when both Nikon and Sony have done it.

It's a business decision.

So, if according to you, the ability of the processor(s) to handle the data is not the issue, then what is the excuse? Crummy lenses without the resolving power? No. Slow SD and CF cards? No. Inability to actually make such sensors? No. What then?

Their market analysis, likely.

To those chucking Moore's Law around ... yes, possibly the DiG!C architecture can handle the data, but at what cost in terms of power consumption and thermal management? Both these factors can negatively impact on the actual use of the chips ... which leads to the same conclusion.

As has been noted multiple times, canon already churns through 18MPx2 @ 12-14FPS in a two year old body. Clearly processing a 36MP image is NOT beyond their past architecture, so assuming that it's beyond their future architecture is pretty ridiculous.

Canon is very calculating. They won't bring a high dollar camera to the market until a) their infrastructure (lenses, primarily, and I suspect they're there now) is ready, and b) the market can support the investment.

 

[Sporgon]

Canon makes cameras that are "good enough" for many pro's, and more than good enough for most consumers and enthusiasts. Their biggest benefit is they are easy to use and produce decent results, and the common folk like that.
The rest of us buy the "good stuff" from the others, for whom I'm thankful for their continued existence.

Aglet; I hope your day job's a stand up comic. Don't pretend to know the first thing about what real 'pros' do or don't need.

Despite the mighty exmor sensor and 36 mp Sony have failed to meet Canon ( and Nikon ) head on in DSLR sales, the DSLR still being by far the most versatile camera system, and this is rather irrefutable evidence that it takes more than a good sensor and high mp to make a winning system.

Or is it just that the sensor they are trying to compete against isn't that bad ?

Ah yes, it's because mirrorless is the way forward, and Sony are in the lead - if you ignore the likes of Fuji and such - and ignore the fact most people still want the 'flappy' mirror.......

 

[Orangutan]

I hate to agree with Neuro, so I won't.
I'll try to make a real explanation of what's happening instead of merely crowing about market share.

What kind of photography do you do? You're obviously not unintelligent or completely ignorant, but you strike me as the kind of person who sees everything from his own perspective, as though your type of photography is the only kind that's important.

I have a friend who is a die-hard Nikon fanboi. He has a D800 and some nice glass. He mostly shoots portraits, and loves his D800, and made jokes about Canon products not keeping up. Then he shot a wedding using someone else's 5D3, and nearly switched to Canon.

If you shoot landscapes, or other slow-moving objects, you can get really great photos from Nikon, Sony, etc, especially using lens adapters and third-party (even Canon) glass. If your subject is moving, it doesn't matter how good the sensor if the rest of the camera can't give you a well-focused shot at the moment you want it.

The rest of us buy the "good stuff" from the others, for whom I'm thankful for their continued existence.

I appreciate that. I would like some pressure on Canon to continue to improve. However, I don't want them to drop all their strong features just to be a hunk of metal with a great sensor.

 

[Loswr]

I hate to agree with Neuro, so I won't.

I hate to be wrong, good thing it doesn't happen often.

...right now, every other major mfr (Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Fuji, Panasonic, Olympus, maybe even Samsung) use sensors that outperform Canon's in most metrics, despite being smaller.

When did low ISO DR suddenly become 'most metrics'? Oh, I see, you meant 'most important to Aglet and others who represent a minority of consumers'.

I'll try to make a real explanation of what's happening instead of merely crowing about market share.

Canon makes cameras that are "good enough" for many pro's, and more than good enough for most consumers and enthusiasts. Their biggest benefit is they are easy to use and produce decent results, and the common folk like that.
The rest of us buy the "good stuff" from the others, for whom I'm thankful for their continued existence.

A 'real explanation' from your personal, biased, 'I need to push images 4-5 stops in post' perspective. I think you should ask Sella174 to explain the concept of 'minority' to you...

Canon makes a system of cameras, lenses, flashes, etc., that collectively meet the needs of the majority of photographers in the world. The sensor may only need to be be 'good enough' - recall that the 5DIII + Canon 24-70/2.8L II outresolves the D800 + Nikon 24-70/2.8G.

As to your first question, technology is moving ahead (read: mirrorless), yet Canon is stuck in mirrorland.

Stuck? Canon sold nearly twice as many dSLRs last year as ALL mirrorless cameras from all makers combined. Worldwide, MILC sales are falling faster than dSLR sales for the second straight year. Explain how mirrorless is moving ahead? Perhaps you mean mirrorless is a better technology format...just like Sony's Betamax?

 

[Orangutan]

technology is moving ahead (read: mirrorless), yet Canon is stuck in mirrorland.

I would also like Canon to release a fully-mature mirrorless. It would probably suit my needs very well, but there are a few outstanding issue that make the technology unready to replace DSLRs completely

• AF tracking fast moving objects (progress has been made, but there's still a gap with reflex)
• battery life (this has a long way to go)
• EVF (this is getting close for general use, but not for low-light manual focus)

That's all I can recall for now.


As with Aglet, don't fall into the trap of assuming everyone's needs are the same as yours.

 

[unfocused]

I used to get annoyed at Neuro's sarcasm. Now I think he's a hero for having the patience to explain basic economic concepts to the same people over and over again.

Unfortunately, it's pretty clear that these folks are really saying: "I've already made up my mind. Don't try to confuse me with the facts."

Nonetheless, I can't help myself.

So, let's see if I've got this right: Canons are available in a wide variety of stores in southern Africa, but Nikon and Sony are not. Umm...That would mean that the proprietors of those stores have figured out that if they want to sell products, they need to stock Canon. It would also mean that the market for Sony and Nikon is smaller and better suited for specialty shops. And, I'm guessing those specialty shops carry Canon as well. Regardless of what you might think, I'm sure Nikon and Sony aren't happy about that. They are mass marketers and if the mass market stores can't sell their product, that's a huge problem.

I love the old "I'm a more discerning customer" trope. It's one of the last refuges of someone who has lost every rational argument. It's been used hundreds of times on this forum, always by people who have run out of logical arguments to make. "Market share is for the unwashed masses – those poor poor amateurs and professionals leading their lives of quiet desperation. I'm an artiste and as such am blessed with superior taste that makes all your plebeian concerns insignificant."

Oh and don't forget the one about how we were all "brainwashed" into wanting more pixels and then Canon quit delivering more pixels and that's some sign of failure on their part. Someone quoted Moore's Law but ignored the very real law of diminishing returns.

Yes, when Cameras had four, six or eight pixels, having more pixels was better and it made sense in the early years of DSLR development to focus on greater pixel density. Which Canon did far better than any of its competitors. But, having won that race, give Canon credit for recognizing that there are tradeoffs to producing ever-higher density sensors. The benefits of going from 10 mp to 20 mp are much greater than the benefits of going from 20 mp to 30 mp.

Canon, as the leader in megapixels, figured that out and changed course. They took a risk and it paid off big time for them. One could even argue that they played a pretty good dodge here, sending Nikon and Sony down the high megapixel path, while veering off into the high ISO path themselves.

Why is it that people always give Nikon and Sony so much credit for being "leaders" when they both are now desperately trying to catch up to Canon by now offering lower megapixel, high ISO models.

Oh, I get it...the facts are too inconvenient for some people.

 

[Rocky]

As to your second question, I've been using Canon cameras for about, oh, sixteen or seventeen years now. As to your first question, technology is moving ahead (read: mirrorless), yet Canon is stuck in mirrorland.

What makes you think mirrorless is newest technology?? If it is so good why DSLR outsells mirrorless by such a wide margin??? With IS lenses, the advantage of less vibration of mirrorless has been eliminated. As for weight saving, it is also misleading. Try to hold a M9 or M-E, you will agree that they are as heavy or heavier than the average SLR. As for size, mirrorless does have an advantage. But with a few lenses in the bag, the size of the body will not be the determining factor. Do not get me wrong, I like mirrorless too. With a small short prime (35mm) you can put in in a large coat pocket if you do not mind the weight.

 

[zlatko]

So much distaste for Canon. Why are you on a Canon forum?

Although not (quite) directed at me, I'll still answer from my perspective ... As to your second question, I've been using Canon cameras for about, oh, sixteen or seventeen years now. As to your first question, technology is moving ahead (read: mirrorless), yet Canon is stuck in mirrorland.

Mirrorless cameras have been around forever, from before the film era through the film era and to the present. And Canon makes lots of mirrorless cameras today, just not a high quality mirrorless system camera with an EVF, etc. However, while mirrorlessland offers some good options, DSLR mirrorland happens to be quite good for photographers and for Canon. Just because you personally want Canon to make better mirrorless cameras doesn't mean that Canon is "stuck". After 16 or 17 years using Canon, your personal needs have changed. Canon doesn't serve you personally and is not at fault for not following changes to your personal camera needs.

I use mirrored (Canon) and mirrorless (Olympus) and each has its pluses. I'm not annoyed that Canon doesn't make my mirrorless. They have a business to run as they see fit. As neuro has pointed out, Canon is concentrating on 90% of the camera market. Does that mean they're stuck?

 

[RustyTheGeek]

No offense intended but this is one of those threads that I start to read, then I begin to skim and eventually I start to wish I had that 10 minutes of my life back.

Although I have to admit that what kept me reading as long as I did was seeing how far Neuro would be sucked in! It's not often I see him post this much bantering!

Regardless, it's all good guys!

And FWIW, I am extremely glad Canon hasn't participated in the high megapixel race. There are so many better things to improve first and I think that's what they are doing.

 

[danski0224]

You are probably right, but then again there are many people like me who don't really care about "high-ISO" performance and are instead always griping about the lack of 50 ASA and ... ... 25 ASA equivalent. Plus it now seems that even 100 ASA/ISO is biting the dust. :'(

All I can say is I don't play too much at either extreme.

I don't look for high ISO performance, but it is really nice to not need a flash and still have the image come out nice.

I don't get the whole low ISO thing, either. Not saying that it isn't important, but if Canon isn't delivering the product that fits that niche then someone else will.

From what I remember of 35mm film photography, pretty much any digital body I have tried since (and including) the 5DII beats my memories. And, I never had a darkroom- digital allows me to do so much more than just getting 4x6 prints developed. Suffice it to say that I am pretty happy with what some call "mediocre" offerings from Canon. I get many compliments on mediocre shots with said mediocre equipment too ;D

It would be nice to try one of those Sony's with an adapter, but that is a niche purchase for my uses. Maybe I'll rent one to see what the hubbub is about. I should have picked up one of those DP3 Sigmas when they went on sale... but the lack of a viewfinder really put a damper on things.

 

[100]

Canon as market leader don’t need an excuse to not bring a 36 mp camera to the market.

Canon sells the most camera, thus Canon makes the best cameras. How about: the majority of people live in cities where they breathe polluted air, thus air-pollution is good for us?

Or did you mean Canon is the market-leader through technological superiority? Sorry to burst that bubble, but even Olympus makes better mirrorless cameras than Canon.

Wow, you manage to get air pollution, tilt & shift lenses, a 600mm lens and global recession in one reply on an answer to the question why Canon didn’t bring a 36mp camera to the market (yet).
It seems to me you have trouble focusing on the subject…
Not something one would expect of a photographer though. You should buy a D800, the left focusing of some of those bodies is all over the place too but it has 36mp.

Anyway. I didn’t say Canon makes the best cameras (best is depending on what you want, so no objective measure) I just say Canon is market leader and they are because they sell the most camera’s, nothing more, nothing less. A commercial company is about selling things for profit.

My guess is they thought they wouldn’t make enough profit with a 30+ mp FF camera on top of the 1DX, 1DC, 5DIII and 6D. High mp 135 format cameras are a niche market (landscape, advertising, architecture) with competition from Nikon, Sony and from the medium format manufacturers.

And yet Canon still makes tilt & shift lenses even though the application these lenses are design for, is, according to you, a niche market. And on the flipside, Canon makes a 600mm lens, which is also a niche product. Sorry, but that argument of "niche products" never floated.

When they designed the 24mm TS-E II and the 17mm TS-E their cameras had the most megapixels so what’s your point this time? They should stop selling those lenses because Sony put more megapixels on a sensor in 2012?

About niches, do you think that if Canon makes a product for one niche, they should make products for all niches all the time?

Canon has been market leader for 11 years in a row, so they know they can rely on their market research people.

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!! Then why are sales figures down? And please don't blame the "global recession", 'cause a really decent marketing dept. would still be able to increase sales by tapping into new markets ... using niche products.

So you believe you can do better than Canon? How much did you turn over last year and what kind of profit did you make? It must be more than $ 3,212,162,000 because that Canons 2013 operating profit in USD with their “laughable marketing department”.

 

[nda]

Oh... and it's made in Thailand, not that there is anything wrong with that

http://nikonrumors.com/2014/05/29/the-nikon-d800e-replacement-will-be-made-in-thailand.aspx/

 

[eml58]

"Market share is for the unwashed masses – those poor poor amateurs and professionals leading their lives of quiet desperation. I'm an artiste and as such am blessed with superior taste that makes all your plebeian concerns insignificant."

Geez, unfocussed, that's almost...poetic, I picked out this section because I thought it was so well put, but the whole Post was just as good.

I think the issue Aglet in particular has is that he sees himself as not being like most of us, you know, the "Common Folk" those majority of "enthusiastic amateurs", the majority of those "Pros", the incredibly mentally challenged....Canon users, poor people, the misguided.

I think Sporgon had it in one

Aglet; I hope your day job's a stand up comic.

Personally I have no real clue why Canon haven't developed as yet a higher MP Sensor, I'de like to see them do it, I'de likely buy it, but in the meantime I'm sort of Ok with my 1Dx & 5DMK III, you know... Those Cameras used by the majority, the "Common Folk".

 

[danski0224]

I hate to be wrong, good thing it doesn't happen often.

It's a good thing you are modest too

 

[sanj]

Canon as market leader don’t need an excuse to not bring a 36 mp camera to the market.

Canon sells the most camera, thus Canon makes the best cameras. How about: the majority of people live in cities where they breathe polluted air, thus air-pollution is good for us?

Or did you mean Canon is the market-leader through technological superiority? Sorry to burst that bubble, but even Olympus makes better mirrorless cameras than Canon.

My guess is they thought they wouldn’t make enough profit with a 30+ mp FF camera on top of the 1DX, 1DC, 5DIII and 6D. High mp 135 format cameras are a niche market (landscape, advertising, architecture) with competition from Nikon, Sony and from the medium format manufacturers.

And yet Canon still makes tilt & shift lenses even though the application these lenses are design for, is, according to you, a niche market. And on the flipside, Canon makes a 600mm lens, which is also a niche product. Sorry, but that argument of "niche products" never floated.

Canon has been market leader for 11 years in a row, so they know they can rely on their market research people.

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!! Then why are sales figures down? And please don't blame the "global recession", 'cause a really decent marketing dept. would still be able to increase sales by tapping into new markets ... using niche products.

It is amazing how many people believe in this crap.

 

[Roo]

The rest of us buy the "good stuff" from the others, for whom I'm thankful for their continued existence.

And I thought Walter White died ;D It seems like most of your posts are written using his stuff.

 

[Sella174]

I have a friend who is a die-hard Nikon fanboi. He has a D800 and some nice glass. He mostly shoots portraits, and loves his D800, and made jokes about Canon products not keeping up. Then he shot a wedding using someone else's 5D3, and nearly switched to Canon.

But he didn't actually switch ...