What is the problem with Canon
- Thread starter chauncey
- Start date
What exactly is wrong with Canon's sensors? The ones in my "ancient" 5DII and 7D still work the same as the day I bought them all those many lifetimes ago.
I guess I missed the memo.
I guess I missed the memo.
Upvote
0
SwampYankee said:
1. What you want is a sensor that performs better at low ISO ranges with more pixels. What will the people that shoot at higher ISOs say when it doesn't perform as well there?
2. How big are you printing?
3. Is it impossible to accomplish the types of prints you are making with the gear that you have?
4. Why do you "like" Canon?
2. Based on your gear list, you don't actually have a ton invested in Canon glass that it would be astronomically hard to make a move. If you are that discontent with Canon sensors and think that the A7R or D800/e will give you what you need, switch.
Upvote
0
Why has Canon not come out with their 50-100MP camera?
Because they can't make a business case for it.
The engineers tell management that the "new" camera will cost X
The marketing department tells management that the "new" camera will sell for Y
The sales department tells management that Canon can expect to sell Z number of units
The managment subtracts X from Y and multiplies the answer by Z.
The management then compares this number with a whole bunch of numbers that Engineering, Marketing, and Sales have no idea about and makes a business decision.
That's why Canon is not releasing their new mega mega pixel camera. The numbers are not just right yet.
This why Engineering, Marketing, and Sales departments don't make these types of corporate decisions.
Because they can't make a business case for it.
The engineers tell management that the "new" camera will cost X
The marketing department tells management that the "new" camera will sell for Y
The sales department tells management that Canon can expect to sell Z number of units
The managment subtracts X from Y and multiplies the answer by Z.
The management then compares this number with a whole bunch of numbers that Engineering, Marketing, and Sales have no idea about and makes a business decision.
That's why Canon is not releasing their new mega mega pixel camera. The numbers are not just right yet.
This why Engineering, Marketing, and Sales departments don't make these types of corporate decisions.
Upvote
0
You don't have to jump ship in order to rent ship.
But the gear you need today to get these giant prints and then sell that gear when Canon holds serve. It will cost you a few hundred dollars selling the gear at a loss, but at least you won't be handcuffed in what you can do.
But the gear you need today to get these giant prints and then sell that gear when Canon holds serve. It will cost you a few hundred dollars selling the gear at a loss, but at least you won't be handcuffed in what you can do.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
Canon's problem is they don't make products specifically to suit ME. After all…
No, I am Canon. No, no, I am Canon. No, no, no, I am Canon.
Well, that's the problem right there…Canon isn't making every single product to satisfy the individual whims of every customer or potential customer. After all, they're all Canon. Somehow, Canon is leading the market anyway.
No, I am Canon. No, no, I am Canon. No, no, no, I am Canon.
Well, that's the problem right there…Canon isn't making every single product to satisfy the individual whims of every customer or potential customer. After all, they're all Canon. Somehow, Canon is leading the market anyway.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:Canon's problem is they don't make products specifically to suit ME. After all…
No, I am Canon. No, no, I am Canon. No, no, no, I am Canon.
Well, that's the problem right there…Canon isn't making every single product to satisfy the individual whims of every customer or potential customer. After all, they're all Canon. Somehow, Canon is leading the market anyway.
Canon has a really good line up right now. The t3 is a really good solid entry level camera that doesn't cost a ton to make, they can sell it at 300 bucks and that is such a cheap price for someone getting into the hobby. The t3i is a solid step up that has been around for several years so it is cheaper to make, the t5i is taking the place of the 60d and the 70d is taking the place of the 7d. Image quality is great when combined with good lenses.
The real bottle neck for the cameras tend to be behind the camera. I won't gush about the fill frame options, but they have their space in the lineup and it seems really well spaced.
Upvote
0
Beside the fact that it does not make sense to compare a 2007 model (1DsM3) with todays Sony cameras - the 1Ds I think was aimed for studio photography. (while the 1DM3/1DM4 was the "sports" camera)
I don't see why i ever would shoot at high ISO in studio? And 16MP was highend for DSLRs at that time.
For very low light conditions (like indoor sport) you would need to look at the High ISO capabilities of e.g. the 1D-X - and they are very good at least.
I don't see why i ever would shoot at high ISO in studio? And 16MP was highend for DSLRs at that time.
For very low light conditions (like indoor sport) you would need to look at the High ISO capabilities of e.g. the 1D-X - and they are very good at least.
chauncey said:I shoot with a 1Ds MkIII and basically love it but, it has horrible ISO performance and relatively low MP count as compared to Sony's chip in their, and Nikon's, cameras. I continue to read that Canon has a comparable chip in testing as well as a crop chip, also in testing, that supposedly surpasses anything out there.
So, I ask you...what is the delay???
Upvote
0
So buy a Sony a7R and a Metabones adapter for EF and go shoot something.SwampYankee said:
Cameras are highly integrated systems, and sensors really are low on the totem pole of things that that consumers care about. Everything from battery power to life expectancy and cost rate much higher. Work within your gear, or change your gear. This 'topic' is almost 2 years old.
Upvote
0
SwampYankee said:
It depends on what you are photographing. Canon sensors work very well for me. Canon knows their market. They know that most photographers don't make really, really big prints (and many don't may any prints). Many of their customers don't want/need a really high pixel count and have expressly said, "Please don't give us more megapixels!". They also know that their current sensors are excellent for high ISO — important for many customers. They also know that some photographers prefer Canon color to Nikon/Sony color, especially for photos of people. So Canon doesn't actually "need" better sensors, although I'm sure they are working on that. No doubt they'll offer better sensors some day, and that will be welcome, but for the time being they are really doing OK.
Perhaps you really do need a better sensor, I don't know. But I do know that Canon sensors have served well for all sorts of professional work: advertising, landscape, portraits, weddings, photojournalism, fine art, sports, etc., etc., etc., ... including, for example, Salgado's magnificent, over-sized book "Genesis". And I won't mention filmmaking. So that covers rather a lot.
Upvote
0
jdramirez said:
Yes... the incremental cost....
I'm going to buy a 5D3 for $3000..... Canon comes out with a new $5000 camera that I like more and am willing to pay for..... It's not just Canon selling a $5000 camera, it cost them sales of a $3000 camera, so the net gain is an extra $2000 in sales from that $5000 camera....
I'm sure that thier business planners have considered this,.
Upvote
0
Halfrack said:
When I came over to Canon, it was the glass and the user interface that I came for... Cameras are a disposable item... you use it for a few years and then it gets replaced by a newer/better/less worn out model.. The glass is around a LOT longer....
Upvote
0
Albi86 said:Viggo said:chauncey said:I shoot with a 1Ds MkIII and basically love it but, it has horrible ISO performance and relatively low MP count as compared to Sony's chip in their, and Nikon's, cameras. I continue to read that Canon has a comparable chip in testing as well as a crop chip, also in testing, that supposedly surpasses anything out there.
So, I ask you...what is the delay???
What did Sony have at the time of release for the 1ds3?
+1
Are we really comparing a camera from 2007 with cameras from 2012-2013?
and some of us are ignoring the blimming obvious 1Dx that many people manage to take some great pictures with.
Upvote
0
all fine and well.
BUT ... a high-res, high DR, HI-ISO successor to the "ancient" 1Ds III is definitely overdue for more than a year.
And no, it is not the 1D X which is a - really good! - successor to the 1D IV.
Same situation as with Nikon: D4x is equally overdue. But at least they got a D800E for hi-res, high DR.
BUT ... a high-res, high DR, HI-ISO successor to the "ancient" 1Ds III is definitely overdue for more than a year.
And no, it is not the 1D X which is a - really good! - successor to the 1D IV.
Same situation as with Nikon: D4x is equally overdue. But at least they got a D800E for hi-res, high DR.
Upvote
0
SwampYankee said:
Yeah, why does it have to be a Canon sensor? Got to thinking about that as well. The KAF 8300 came to mind (Kodak). Although a CCD chip, it finds its way into CCD cameras for astronomical and scientific applications. And I think at one time, Kodak was looking at putting more money towards CMOS R&D.
Yes, Yes, CCD sensors are much more expensive to manufacture than CMOS.
But then Kodak's fortunes took a turn for the worse and they sold off their CCD Image Sensor Solutions business to a private equity firm (Truesense Imaging I think).
Not sure but maybe Canon could have acquired that technology but this is all fantasy speculation anyway right?
Upvote
0
AvTvM said:
Overdue in some peoples opinion, and I expect they want it for p&s money. :
I took this shot today. It had far more resolution than I needed as I had to reduce the size considerably. And I'm happy with how it handled challenging lighting. And it was a grab shot in a hurry as I was limited by not wanting to fly into the flight path of a fast jet.
Some people make do with what they have and can still be creative.
Attachments
Upvote
0
jdramirez said:
I believe this has been shown to be false. ISO 160 appears to have lower noise because it's really ISO 200 that is then digitally underexposed to get to an effective ISO of 160. This has the effect of suppressing noise, but clipping highlights and limiting DR.
EDIT: http://indigoverse.com/the-truth-about-native-iso-for-canon-dslrs/
Upvote
0
Similar threads
