What is the problem with Canon

[unfocused]

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

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.

Very well put.

I have to wonder what SwampYankee considers really, really big prints, what sort of post-processing he/she does to prepare the files for large prints and if he/she is using a professional printer. It isn't always the sensor.

 

[Loswr]

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).

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/

Except that ISO 160 appears to have more DR than ISO 200, 320 more than 400, etc. There are a couple of other threads on this that have been active within the past day or two.

 

[David Hull]

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.

Well put IMO. I have often wondered just how easy it would be for Canon to drop the Sony sensor in there. Is the electrical interface the same between the Sony sensor and the DiGiCV (or which ever)? It seems that the Sony sensor does ADC on chip with one HS output to the Bionz DSP (me guessing). The Canon uses multiple ADC's external to the actual sensor so the DiGiC must accommodate this sort of interface. OTOH, they have mated up DiGiC's to sony sensors before (G11 I think).

 

[eml58]

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.

Ouch !!!

 

[Lurker]

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,.

The flip of this is just as important and probably even more so. If they don't produce the $5000 camera that you like more but someone else does they may be out any camera sale as well as associated lens, flash, and battery sales. For most people once they start in a direction it's hard to get them back. Canon would have to produce something so spectacular that you're willing to forgive and forget and re-invest in their cultcamp.

Look in the toothpaste isle, Crest has been doing this for years. They introduce a new variation and it takes sales away from some of their existing products. They live with it because it does more damage to the competition and they don't care if your money is in their left or right pocket. Look at how much Crest there is and see if you can find Close-up, Pepsident, Perl Drops, or Aim.

Model-T - You can have any color you want as long as it's black. By ignoring consumer sentiment Ford basically made their competition and sent their customers over.
If Nikon (or Sigma, or Tamron, or ...) produces glass to rival Canon and can make if more affordable then Canon could be lining up their customers for the competition.

To me it makes no difference, this is a hobby. I use a 50D so there is plenty of room for improvement within the current Canon lineup. I would however like a high MP camera. Not to impress anyone or to make large prints, but to put more dots on small subjects. I'd rather spend $5000 on an excellent high MP body and use "digital zoom", than to spend $12,000+ on superior telephoto lens (or maybe 2, the 200-400 and 600). Personally I think that's part of the Canon formula, they'd rather sell high $ glass than high MP bodies that let you zoom digitally.

Because Canon glass holds it's value so well, and it seemes like Nikon has less expensive glass, my next upgrade may well be to Nikon. I've got a long way to go before that happens though. I need to take care of soooo many other things before I can make any major camera purchases. Unless Canon comes out with the perfect camera before then, that's what it will take - my perfect camera, the camera people will have to wait 3 or more years to get any of my $. If they can live with that so can I.

 

[David Hull]

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

Actually that isn't true -- Canon needs a better implementation of their sensor, the sensor is pretty good. If you look at the measurements from sites like Sensorgen the 5DIII sensor has something on the order of 15 stops of DR. And really, the only place where Canon really lags is in low ISO read noise (due to their back end electronics not their sensors).

 

[jdramirez]

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).

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/

Damn natives. I'm just going to start shooting everything at 6400

 

[jdramirez]

So back to 160. I should just start taking lsd so I can see all the pretty colors in my head

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).

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/

Except that ISO 160 appears to have more DR than ISO 200, 320 more than 400, etc. There are a couple of other threads on this that have been active within the past day or two.

 

[chauncey]

If memory serves me correctly, I coughed up almost 8 grand for that Ds3 years ago and have amassed a plethora of glass since then...to much to jump ship, else I would have.

 

[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.

Ouch !!!

Yea cheap shot, I know. I would rather that they work extra hard to make sure it is well wrung out (whatever IT is) than release too soon -- not that I will probably be in the market for it (sounds expensive).

 

[ME]

Canon's problem is they don't make products specifically to suit ME.

You are correct, but I am for the most part happy with my Canon gear. ;D

 

[dash2k8]

Encouraging progress and innovation is a good thing. Griping just for gripes sake is foolish. It's one thing to give Canon a push in the butt (thank you Sigma), it's another to hate on this brand because Nikon or Sony or someone else is announcing new stuff and Canon isn't. Do remember that it was Canon cameras running the last Olympics. If Canon was really that lousy, no amount of marketing money would help them become the official camera of the Olympics. And honestly, if anyone feels that Canon is lagging/not up to par/sucks/whatever, why not just switch brands instead of blowing off steam? Switching to another brand and killing Canon's sales will speak louder than anything we can post online.

 

[rpt]

Canon's problem is they don't make products specifically to suit ME.

You are correct, but I am for the most part happy with my Canon gear. ;D

Ha! Ha! Ha! Good one!

Good to see a sense of humour on this thread

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Canon's problem is they don't make products specifically to suit ME.

You are correct, but I am for the most part happy with my Canon gear. ;D

Ha ha ha ... Good one ;D