What is the problem with Canon

[chauncey]

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???

 

[sanj]

I would not have any clue.

 

[sanj]

Sorry, I do have a thought.

Perhaps milking their existing technology to the fullest and clearing out all inventory. Possible?

Also perhaps the testing is not complete yet?

 

[Don Haines]

If they had such a chip, and it was ready for market with reasonable production yeilds, they would be selling it. It's easy to come up with conspiracy theories as to why something is not happening, but unlike the X Files and "the truth is out there", in the real world it's most likely "we haven't worked the bugs out yet".

You have to ask yourself, if Canon had the technology to obliterate the competition and capture most of the market, why don't they? The answer is that they would if they could... The fact that they don't means that they can't.

 

[Viggo]

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?

 

[Albi86]

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?

 

[David Hull]

Perhaps they want to make sure everything works before the release it and there are no problems -- you know, things like AF that doesn't work right, AF that only works on one side of the image field, Oil spots etc. Things like that.

 

[zlatko]

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?

Hmmm ... that was back in 2007. That was back when the 40D was released and the 5DII had not yet been released. Canon has improved a number of things since then, including high ISO performance.

 

[MLfan3]

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???

as a Nikon user I can tell you it is the Nikon that has really been struggling with its financial and choosing the right future path.
Nikon 's sells was very bad, its stock performing very bad, lost about 23.9 percent in last year and one of the worst in Tokyo stock exchange in last year.

so Nikon has been doing something wrong not Canon.

about DXO score and measurements , it is all about base ISO sensor performance and Canon sensors are not as good as Nikons at base ISO.
but at high ISO about from ISO400 actually Canons tend to do better, but unfortunately in DXO mark final scoring system that might not be seen or intentionally not documented clearly there(you need to look really deep into the measurement numbers and graphs to see it.

and there is another reason why Canon is not really serious about introducing new sensor designs in this old sensor tech called bayer type , is that Canon is investing more money into new gen organic sensor , Fuji , Pana , Samsung all doing the same.
bayer will be dead in a few years , so why do they have to invest more money into the dying tech ?
Nikon is just using the sensor that is the best deal for a time for them.
Now , Nikon quits using Sony sensor , most of new gen Nikon chips are Toshiba and so Sony is trying to sell the 36.3 mp noisy chip used in my A7R and D800E to Oly and Fuji since they are really interested in designing full frame version of OM-D and XE2 respectively.

what I have long been waiting for is fullframe GH3 or GH4k.


I think Pana Canon Samsung Fuji will develop usable organic sensor tech very soon.

Pana and Fuji promised to announce it by end of 2014.

So Nikon Sony wont win in the long run , Sony is seriously struggling financially and losing a lot of money every year, so in the long run they cannot compete against Samsung , Toshiba, Fuji ,etc in this sensor game

 

[Lichtgestalt]

lol.... maybe have a look at todays canon cameras when you want to compare them to sonys latest sensors.

they (sony senors) have great DR and shadows can be pushed more without showing banding.

but high iso performance i would not see as their strongest point.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

It takes several years to spec, design and productionise a camera. From a paper concept to a boxed product takes around 2 years, the top tier pro stuff has a lot of testing which causes it to take even longer. To speed things up, some parts are designed as modular units, the AF system, Shutter mechanism etc.
Some of the development time can be spread out across multiple cameras to spread the engineering load and time across multiple business units. This is why the 1DX and 5DIII were co-developed. Both teams were utilised to create the two cameras with a lot of the tech shared and co-developed. Once developed, Canon will want to re-use this tech as much as possible because the engineering effort is expensive and slow. You can be sure the AF system in the 1DX and 5DIII took a very long time to develop.
Sensor tech takes even longer to develop, the number of MP on a chip is quite simple to etch. It's a simple task, but to re-engineer the entire signal path of the chip will take a lot of effort / time and cash to get right.
Canon are sure to have begun that chip work and it is in their interest to bring it to market ASAP, but it takes as long as it takes...unfortunatly.

 

[distant.star]

.
This seems a staggeringly warped perspective.

Canon is a business. From a business standpoint, they are doing better than any other business in the photographic equipment segment. If a deficiency exists, I suggest it may not be with Canon.

You may want to revisit that old tale of the hare and the tortoise.

Or simply, physician, heal thyself.

 

[SwampYankee]

To paraphrase James Carville: "It's the sensors stupid!" If Canon was sporting a Sony sensor we are not having this conversation. A 5DIII with a Sony A7 sensor for $2,8000 would be something really, really special. Canon needs to make.....or acquire......better sensors. We can talk sames figures and long term strategy all day but Canon Cameras with Sony sensors would make it very, very hard for anybody else to compete

 

[BLFPhoto]

You people act like swapping out sensors is a simple measure like, "Oh, just go get a Sony sensor, slap it in the camera like we swap out batteries, and everything will be more better." The fact is that the sensor is just a single part of a complex camera system and must be not only developed, but designed around. Canon would not necessarily be better off by simply going the Nikon route of buying other sensors.

It is readily apparent that most of you have no experience with actual engineering, design and support of complex electronic systems. It doesn't happen overnight. One person had it right...what is selling and fielding today was begun on napkins several years ago. All along the way, decisions are made and technology is set to produce an end product.

Canon has what it has today. It either works for you or it doesn't. The whole conspiracy industry on why they don't meet peoples' expectations is rather amusing.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The Competition for the 2007 model 1DS III was the D3! The D3 had 12 mp, it did not have more than the 1DS III.
The replacements for these models are the D4 and the 1D X. Once again, the Canon camera is better and sells more. It also has more MP. The D4 sells so poorly that Nikon has tried to jump start flagging sales by butting a D4s on it, much as they did for the D600.
Your comments somehow don't seem to align with the facts.

 

[jdramirez]

I suppose the real question for me is... how often do you shoot at iso 100? I usually kick it to 160 because of all this natural iso I really don't understand (I know... I should bother to read up). But I rarely shot at low isos. 1600 here, 3200 there, 800 at times in doors when I really should kick it higher.

I'd love to shoot at iso 100 all the time, but it isn't likely and consequently some of the Sony sensor advantages would be lost.

Give me my iso performance and I'll be a happy camper.

 

[gbchriste]

To paraphrase James Carville: "It's the sensors stupid!" If Canon was sporting a Sony sensor we are not having this conversation. A 5DIII with a Sony A7 sensor for $2,8000 would be something really, really special. Canon needs to make.....or acquire......better sensors. We can talk sames figures and long term strategy all day but Canon Cameras with Sony sensors would make it very, very hard for anybody else to compete

Except that a large share of the revenue garnered from sales of such a camera would have to pass through to Sony rather than remaining in the coffers of Canon.
In technology there is almost always a "buy vs build" decision that has to be made. You are advocating that Canon should come down on the side of "buy" vis-à-vis sensors. But unless you can show that this would lead to an overall increase in retained profits for Canon, you argument lacks substance. It is more likely that Canon has determined that they can produce a "good enough" sensor in house, efficiently amortize the R&D costs across the entire corporation to design that sensor, and retain 100% of the revenue resulting from the sales.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

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???

You ask "What is the problem with Canon" ... and the answer is they don't like you, so get over it, or buy a Nikon/Sony that you feel will meet your needs. :
BTW, I shoot with Canon, Nikon and Sony, and I find your comments very uninformed and definitely not up to date.

 

[JohnDizzo15]

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???

You're a few sensors behind complaining about how the performance of your 6 year old camera is poor compared to current sensor technology? Update your camera or at least try one first.

As a side note, I personally can't stand that my old desktop's Intel Core 2 Duo processor that I was perfectly happy with sucks compared to the Haswell i7. ;D

 

[SwampYankee]

To paraphrase James Carville: "It's the sensors stupid!" If Canon was sporting a Sony sensor we are not having this conversation. A 5DIII with a Sony A7 sensor for $2,8000 would be something really, really special. Canon needs to make.....or acquire......better sensors. We can talk sames figures and long term strategy all day but Canon Cameras with Sony sensors would make it very, very hard for anybody else to compete

Except that a large share of the revenue garnered from sales of such a camera would have to pass through to Sony rather than remaining in the coffers of Canon.
In technology there is almost always a "buy vs build" decision that has to be made. You are advocating that Canon should come down on the side of "buy" vis-à-vis sensors. But unless you can show that this would lead to an overall increase in retained profits for Canon, you argument lacks substance. It is more likely that Canon has determined that they can produce a "good enough" sensor in house, efficiently amortize the R&D costs across the entire corporation to design that sensor, and retain 100% of the revenue resulting from the sales.

" You are advocating that Canon should come down on the side of "buy" vis-à-vis sensors."
I am advocating no such thing. What I said was : "Canon needs to make.....or acquire......better sensors." I didn't come down on either side. Canon trails Nikon and Sony in only one important category....sensors...Canons are not as good.....Like I said "It's the sensors stupid!" CLOSE THE GAP CANON! as for what my engineering expertise is (Masters in Chemical Engineering) is not at all important. I am speaking as a consumer. Why I want is a Camera with a better sensor. I like really, really , big prints. The Sony A7R and the Nikon D800E are much better at doing that. I like Canon, I have lots of Canon glass....CANON NEEDS BETTER SENSORS