What if Canon were no longer #1?

[unfocused]

For the umpteenth time, though Sony has a clear technological leg up in parts of the spec sheet...

I think you give Sony too much credit. Sony has a "clear technological leg up" only if you consider the difference between receiving a 98 on a term paper a significant leg up over receiving a 97.

Respectfully, I don't think I do.

On sensors, they've gone from a clear gap a few years back (esp. DR for landscape / studio shooters, consider D810/D800/D800E/A7R2 vs 5D3) to a smaller gap now.

On throughput, it's a comical delta between Sony and Canon. Roughly three thousand dollars gets you Sony's 42x10 vs. Canon's 30x7 or 50x5.

On AF, I don't think it's an apples to apples comparison looking at point counts as the systems are different (I prefer SLR setups strongly here). But one could argue that having AF points across the entire frame (without pulling an iPad-photography-like handheld liveview move with an SLR) is a very nice thing for Sony.

On the bigger top-line features, Sony also fares well: IBIS, tilty-flippy in the higher end FF space, the ability to adapt other lenses, amplify light in the VF, not need manual focusing screens, etc. are nontrivial features.

On a less top-line feature level, it's more of a push to me. Sony has Eye AF and a faster flash sync, Canon has DPAF and DPRAW (if that ever blossoms).

I can't speak to video (not my thing), but the 5D4 does some nasty crop things that Sony doesn't, correct?

So I honestly believe there's something to Sony (and Nikon) offering more in their bodies-per-dollar these days. They kind of have to in order to win share from the #1 company. But that doesn't dismiss some huge entrenched 'system advantages' Canon has (EF portfolio, reliability, ergonomics), nor does it tempt me to leave the fold.

- A

Sorry, but I'm not convinced. I realize it's down to personal needs/interests, but all the differences you mention would still count only about 1 point out of 100 if I were grading the two brands -- hence my comment regarding the difference between a 97 and 98 on a term paper.

I don't want to belabor the point (although what's CR Forum for if not to belabor points?), but just to hit a highlight or two:

Sensor: There has never been a "clear' advantage between camera sensors. At least, not if you believe the testing sites or real-world experience of photographers. Canon sensors were modestly weaker in shadow recovery at lower ISOs, until they moved to on-chip conversions. But, there are still plenty of photographers out their using 1DX and 5DIII bodies who don't feel particularly hobbled by these terrible sensors.

Throughput: Yes, the 5DIII was miserable if you made the mistake of shooting at the maximum frame rate using the SD card slot. But, the CF slot always cleared quickly. The 7DII, 1DXII and 5DIV all have sufficient buffers that I seldom run into any problems with them and I shoot a lot of sports at high fps.

Autofocus: DPReview has made much about the difference in performance between Nikon and Canon and I'm inclined to take them at their word, because I do know that Canon's autofocus is less than perfect under challenging conditions shooting sports. Indeed, that's why so many sports shooters stick to single point or expanded modes. But, then we aren't comparing Nikon and Canon are we? And, again, let's keep things in perspective. Autofocus isn't magic. We've still got to take some responsibility for developing our skills.

On the bigger top-line features, Sony also fares well: IBIS, tilty-flippy in the higher end FF space, the ability to adapt other lenses, amplify light in the VF, not need manual focusing screens, etc. are nontrivial features.

Sorry, I don't consider any of those bigger top-line features. I don't shoot enough video to care about IBIS and with the advent of 4K, software stabilization is much easier to achieve. Plus, once again, what's wrong with learning some skills? IBIS holds no advantage for stills and simply introduces one more thing that can go wrong when the camera's banging around in my truck.

I don't have any objection to a tilt screen, but it's not a feature that influences me in the least.

Why would I need to adapt other lenses? I can buy any lens I want in a Canon mount. Don't care about clogging up the viewfinder with gimmicks and would never consider changing focusing screens.

So, I stand by my personal assessment – For me, these are trivial differences. One point on the term paper.

 

[zim]

If Canon were no longer #1, then they would be #2.

That is an assumption and therefore illogical

 

[Don Haines]

If Canon were no longer #1, then they would be #2.

That is an assumption and therefore illogical

So Canon sits in the number one spot......

Another company passes them and takes over the number one spot.....

At that point. Canon is number two.....

This, of course, does not preclude another company then passing Canon and taking over the number two spot, so logically, if Canon slips from #1, they will then be #2 for however long or brief that stay is.

 

[Aussie shooter]

If Canon were no longer #1, then they would be #2.

That is an assumption and therefore illogical

So Canon sits in the number one spot......

Another company passes them and takes over the number one spot.....

At that point. Canon is number two.....

This, of course, does not preclude another company then passing Canon and taking over the number two spot, so logically, if Canon slips from #1, they will then be #2 for however long or brief that stay is.

Not true. You are forgetting WHY canon are going to lose the number 1 spot. They are doomed remember. They will lose the spot because they are going to go out of business overnight due to the CEO having nightmares about SONY sneaking up behind them. They won't go to No2. They will disappear from the list altogether

 

[Don Haines]

If Canon were no longer #1, then they would be #2.

That is an assumption and therefore illogical

So Canon sits in the number one spot......

Another company passes them and takes over the number one spot.....

At that point. Canon is number two.....

This, of course, does not preclude another company then passing Canon and taking over the number two spot, so logically, if Canon slips from #1, they will then be #2 for however long or brief that stay is.

Not true. You are forgetting WHY canon are going to lose the number 1 spot. They are doomed remember. They will lose the spot because they are going to go out of business overnight due to the CEO having nightmares about SONY sneaking up behind them. They won't go to No2. They will disappear from the list altogether

I disagree!

I think that Canon will buy Olympus, and print a pile of 1DX3 labels to put over top of the E-M1 Mark2 labels

 

[Aussie shooter]

Exactly. Which is why we continue to fight for competitive features from Canon because the system itself is superior.

The system is superior which why they have to fight to be competitive....run that by me again....

Ergonomics, lens selection is all better than the competition. DPAF is great. But other sensor tech and video features are lacking. Being #1 in sales means they’re not incentivized to adopt competitive video features or the processing power to keep up with them. One can only hope that their next generation of cameras (including the rumored FF mirrorless) will do so.

I don't really buy this argument. If being second was the incentive to improve the features that your superiors have over you then why do SONY refuse to make an ergonomically better product? Making a camera that most serious photographers cannot stand the feel of seems strange to me when it is obvious that they have decided the potential size advantage of mirrorless is lost in the pursuit of image quality(ie .quality lenses negating size benefits)

 

[ahsanford]

I don't really buy this argument. If being second was the incentive to improve the features that your superiors have over you then why do SONY refuse to make an ergonomically better product? Making a camera that most serious photographers cannot stand the feel of seems strange to me when it is obvious that they have decided the potential size advantage of mirrorless is lost in the pursuit of image quality(ie .quality lenses negating size benefits)

Just riffing:

1) Maybe Sony thinks their ergonomics are more on-target for the mirrorless community than SLR veteran skeptics like us might believe. Sony may have its own data that says that a beefier / easier to hold bigger glass body is not what the market wants, that only a small percentage of A7/A9 owners want to put f/2.8 zooms and f/1.4 primes on it, or that the product becomes decidedly less desirable to the target market if it is bigger than X.

2) Sony may want to 'minimize the new' and maximize the reusability of body componentry, batteries, etc. for cost or speed to market reasons. That lets them focus on sensor/VF/AF/pipeline internals or possibly free up folks to design other types of camera bodies.

3) Sony has data that 'MORE HORSEPOWER MORE NOW GIMME MOOOOHAAHAHA' remains the #1 ask of their user base, and not designing a new body shape lets them dole out the drugs new bodies more quickly.

I personally don't know what glue they are sniffing with the A7R3 coming out with (ostensibly) an A9 / thicker but very similar grip A7R2 body. The grip to mount side-to-side distance is too small for the GM lenses and the grip itself is not thick/chunky enough to shoot fast glass all day as comfortably as a CaNikon one.

- A

 

[bwud]

Just riffing:

2) Sony may want to 'minimize the new' and maximize the reusability of body componentry, batteries, etc. for cost or speed to market reasons. That lets them focus on sensor/VF/AF/pipeline internals or possibly free up folks to design other types of camera bodies.

I think the reality is closer to: Sony leadership sites size (ie the ability to be small) as *the* number one advantage of the alpha mirrorless line over SLR. Right or wrong, that’s their strategy.

3) Sony has data that 'MORE HORSEPOWER MORE NOW GIMME MOOOOHAAHAHA' remains the #1 ask of their user base, and not designing a new body shape lets them dole out the drugs new bodies more quickly.

I personally don't know what glue they are sniffing with the A7R3 coming out with (ostensibly) an A9 / thicker but very similar grip A7R2 body. The grip to mount side-to-side distance is too small for the GM lenses and the grip itself is not thick/chunky enough to shoot fast glass all day as comfortably as a CaNikon one.

I got a finger stuck once but I was holding the camera in a weird way. My hands are slightly above average per http://www.theaveragebody.com/average_hand_size.php. There is clearance to the GM bulge, but not much.

As for comfort, A7Riii is in my estimation no more comfortable than A7Rii. However with the vertical grip it’s much better. I don’t have to death grip it, it will just hang from my fingertips like my 5D3. Controls are well located though I still struggle with the rear dial (probsbly from decades using cameras without them).

 

[Mikehit]

I think the reality is closer to: Sony leadership sites size (ie the ability to be small) as *the* number one advantage of the alpha mirrorless line over SLR. Right or wrong, that’s their strategy.

....


As for comfort, A7Riii is in my estimation no more comfortable than A7Rii. However with the vertical grip it’s much better. I don’t have to death grip it, it will just hang from my fingertips like my 5D3. Controls are well located though I still struggle with the rear dial (probsbly from decades using cameras without them).

So size is the number one factor in their appeal but you need a grip to make it comfortable. Adding cost as well.

Hmmm.....great design philosophy.

 

[bwud]

I think the reality is closer to: Sony leadership sites size (ie the ability to be small) as *the* number one advantage of the alpha mirrorless line over SLR. Right or wrong, that’s their strategy.

....


As for comfort, A7Riii is in my estimation no more comfortable than A7Rii. However with the vertical grip it’s much better. I don’t have to death grip it, it will just hang from my fingertips like my 5D3. Controls are well located though I still struggle with the rear dial (probsbly from decades using cameras without them).

So size is the number one factor in their appeal but you need a grip to make it comfortable. Adding cost as well.

Hmmm.....great design philosophy.

It is what it is. In product development there are are often compromises made due to the weird whims of leadership.

I think Sony would be wise to make the alpha line about 1/2” taller. It would be far more manageable (I barely get two fingers on without the vertical grip), the battery capacity could increase significantly, etc. But until leadership changes, size is king.

 

[Talys]

So size is the number one factor in their appeal but you need a grip to make it comfortable. Adding cost as well.

Hmmm.....great design philosophy.

Keep in mind that some people don't rent/use before they buy. Instead, they go to the camera store, where something like an A7RII/III feels pretty good with a relatively small lens attached. Also, they're holding it for a thirty seconds at a time. "Wow, look, OMG, I can have a FF camera that feels like a point and shoot! How awesome is that!"

 

[ahsanford]

Keep in mind that some people don't rent/use before they buy. Instead, they go to the camera store, where something like an A7RII/III feels pretty good with a relatively small lens attached. Also, they're holding it for a thirty seconds at a time. "Wow, look, OMG, I can have a FF camera that feels like a point and shoot! How awesome is that!"

...or they walk into B&H in Manhattan, play around with an A7R2 for about 10 seconds and realize what a fail the ergonomics are. It was an pretty quick reality to absorb.

Thanks for the pics, Bwud!

Working with that grip and working well with that grip are a different things. I see Sony wheeling out a smaller crop body (non-7D) grip on their FF rigs -- it's a grip reminiscent of my old T1i. You can shoot with it, but it's not comfortable. A few prior posts on this:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=33709.msg693701#msg693701

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=33528.msg688331#msg688331

I continue to contend that the A7/A9 size is fine if you don't plan on using heavier non-monopodded/non-tripoded glass -- but in fairness, it is well designed for a the 'keep it small' shooter of the Fuji, EOS M or m43 mold who may not be slapping huge lenses on it.

- A