Why did Canon Release the 5D MkIII (pure conjecture)

[V8Beast]

DR? Not mentioned in 'real world' context. Can you find out about DR, if you really want? Yes - and I bet you could find out about the cameras' snargleoptical quotients, too, if you really look. Most consumers won't. Forumenon.

Sorry, that's harsh...but reality often is.

Nonsense. I was looking at a D800 brochure the other day that read: "14.4 stops of dynamic range, beeyotch, recognize!"

I found it quite effective, and immediately posted my 5DIII on ebay ;D

 

[Loswr]

DR? Not mentioned in 'real world' context. Can you find out about DR, if you really want? Yes - and I bet you could find out about the cameras' snargleoptical quotients, too, if you really look. Most consumers won't. Forumenon.

Sorry, that's harsh...but reality often is.

Nonsense. I was looking at a D800 brochure the other day that read: "14.4 stops of dynamic range, beeyotch, recognize!

I found it quite effective, and immediately posted my 5DIII on ebay ;D

But they didn't mention the D800's snargleoptical quotient?!? Geez, Nikon's marketing = fail, no wonder Canon has way more market share!

 

[TrumpetPower!]

But they didn't mention the D800's snargleoptical quotient?!? Geez, Nikon's marketing = fail, no wonder Canon has way more market share!

Probably has somethihng to do with e fact that Nikon isn't exactly all that snugglegasmic and they know better than to play to their weakness.

I'm just sayin', is all.

b&

 

[NormanBates]

if I was Nikon, I'd start marketing "Dynamic Range 20000:1 (Canon 5D3 can't even reach 3500:1)"

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

But relying on customer lock-in rather than true innovation is, I believe, a losing proposition. It may work for one product cycle, maybe even two, but it hurts in the long run.

Both Canon and nikon do this. Its essentially the same model. Spam the market with P&S cam's, update them twice a year, people buy em up like hotcakes, one for me, one for gf, one for mom...eventually, on of those people will upgrade to a slr. Which system do you choose....and from there on up you got your cheap body and an expanding bag of glass. If your on either system this is true - an it ain't like canon and nikon play nice enough that they can ssy, lets just share mounting techinology (that would make it easier if we could all just buy the best body and interchange lenses with no loss of anything)...

just as a side note here, with how the new nikon/sony sensor is being received, I gotta wonder how safe nikon is. Could nikon be in danger of sony just saying, yeah, about that sensor, i think we want that to be ours and just ours now? Wonder what the time frame and limitations of the contract/partnership with sony is?

 

[DavidRiesenberg]

If I were Nikon, I'd be more worried about the financial situation at Sony.

 

[DavidRiesenberg]

I don't think that stock levels are are a good parameter in gauging success. Especially considering Nikon's problematic supply levels even when they don't have a hot new product on the market.

 

[moreorless]

Let me explain, no, there is too much, let me sum up. There is some truth to the idea that ISO is the new megapixels. But at this point, DR is a forumenon - discussed almost exclusively by people here, most of whom have no real intention of buying either a 5DIII or a D800 (meaning, frankly, that neither Canon nor Nikon care about them). Think about it. MP? That's a top line spec. ISO? It's at least in the specs, and highlighted in the feature lists. DR? Not mentioned in 'real world' context. Can you find out about DR, if you really want? Yes - and I bet you could find out about the cameras' snargleoptical quotients, too, if you really look. Most consumers won't. Forumenon.

Sorry, that's harsh...but reality often is.

I'd say theres always a tendancey for net forums and some review sites to focus on an aspect on IQ that seperates camera equipment and greatly over emphasize it. I'd guess because its easier to throw stats around than talk subjectively about other features for cameras you've never used.

DR seems rather similar to lens boarder performance to me, obviously not irrelivant but greatly dependant on intended use. For landscape its obviously a plus but unlike the 5D mk2(or the D800) it seems clear to me that the 5D mk3 was not built primarly to cater to this market.

 

[JR]

I tried to take a genuine stab at the question of how Canon let themselves get surpassed in the area of "sensors brought to market" by a competitor. Specifically, the Sony FF sensor in the Nikon D800.

What I think it lacks is the best "film" on the market.

A fair question, but essentially irrelevant. Canon has certainly shown a desire to innovate in the sensor arena - has Sony produced the largest CMOS sensor ever made, or a 120 MP APS-H sensor (equivalent pixel density as a 71 MP FF)? No. It's not like Canon doesn't care about sensor technology.

But what matters isn't selling sensors, it's selling cameras. The 5DIII is designed to sell as a camera, not merely as a sensor-enclosure. Time will tell, but I expect the 5DIII will sell like proverbial hotcakes. Given the relative market share of the 5DII vs the D700, I expect there will be more upgraders on the Canon side, and given Canon's >14% greater market share overall, and thus a greater number of people already invested in the Canon system, I expect the 5DIII will outsell the D800, sending Canon a clear message that they made the right design choices.

Even though some people have trouble grasping the 'big picture' and prefer to 'focus in' on individual features (puns intended), Canon's overriding consideration is and must remain making a profit (something they, unlike Sony of late, seem able to do).

While I totally agree with your assessment on this one Neuro, it is interesting that over the week-end I got a different sound bell from my local store. Ok I know this is not a big sample but from this store (only sell pro stuff from all brand) the D800 is outselling the mkIII big time. The sales rep mentionned they have a lot of Canon user actually ordering the D800 instead of the mkIII.

In local store you can actually find mkIII available to buy from time to time while for the D800 the backlog is very large. Now I know Nikon is having shipment problem with its D800, but none the less the order list from that store was all Nikon and no Canon. If this was true across the board, then for sure we will see a large MP camera from Canon as soon as they can and it will become a priority for them.

I actually had a D800 for the week-end from a friend and I must say it is a great machine. ISO 100-400 is simply spectacular compared to my "old" 5D mkII and the mkIII file i have... but that is a different topic all together...

 

[psolberg]

I don't think Canon planned to release the 5D MkIII as it exists today. I think Canon intended to put a much higher MP, lower noise sensor with greater DR in it, but it wasn't ready in time. This is all pure conjecture.

I think Canon was fully aware of the Sony sensor and Nikon's plans, and physics and electronics being what they are, was able to produce a sensor equal to the one in the D800 using Canon technology. There's nothing revolutionary about the Sony/D800 sensor. But I don't think Canon could get it produced in the quantities they needed.

There may not be anything revolutionary about EXMOR but it is better than what canon has today... Then there are patent issues we don't know about. Canon may be able to make an equal sensor but then why didn't they? And why have they been consistently trying to catch up in DR? Canon either can't match the sony/Nikon team or won't because of its own reasons. And whatever those reasons, we won't know what will change until the 5Dmk4.

I suspect there was a quality control/yield issue. Yes, the sensor worked, but not enough of them were coming off the production line that met their standards - too many rejects in each batch.

Unless you have evidence, there is little to suggest this is the case. If your premise was that there was nothing special about the D800 exmor then why would canon not be able to manufacture it with similar yields to Nikon/Sony? This seems contradicting to your prior point.

This left Cannon with some choices:
- Release no update to the 5D MkII, already 3+ years old until the sensor was ready, and in so doing, appear to cede that market segment to Nikon.
- Put the top of the line 1D series sensor in the MkIII - an improvement, but the only way to maintain the price point would be to take a loss/break even on every body.
- Put a slightly tweaked MkII sensor back into the MkIII along with the other planned feature upgrades and basically mark time until the new sensor was ready.

I think it was far more simple a choice. Canon thought Nikon would keep the D700's successor to be a lowMP high FPS body, and so because the 5DII did very well, saw nothing wrong with its strategy. Even jacked up the price. By the time it was revealed Nikon was going big MP, the 5DmkIII was in the final stages of planning and canon thought the 36MP Nikon sensor wouldn't be as good as it is now known to be. Then nikon came out at 3K and not 4K as rumored. Canon simply had a case of hubris.

Nikon took advantage of the situation by knocking down the price, and I think that, more than anything else caught Canon off guard. Canon would do well to take a price cut on the MkIII.

somewhat revisionist history. The D800 came out BEFORE the MKIII at 3000USD. Nikon didn't knock down the price. Canon entered the market fully knowing the D800's capabilities and price point. Nikon had no idea of the mkIII's price.

Why did Sony and Nikon succeed with the new sensor where Canon did not?

I'm not so sure they did. First, I think Nikon may be creaming the sensor production - paying a premium to Sony for the very best of each run. They don't need that many, since the D800 is a relatively expensive, low volume camera.

I find it hard to imagine Nikon can come out at 3000 dollars if the sensor was all that more expensive than the 5DIII. The sony/Nikon partnership goes both ways. Nikon uses a lot of its IP and sensor design experience to help sony. Sony uses its fabrication muscle to help nikon. It is a partnership which benefits both and it makes no sense for Sony to lose Nikon by ripping them off. The demand on the D800 is unprecedented and all the switchers on top of Nikonians upgrading have made it worse. Combine that with multiple people placing orders in multiple dealers to get a hold of one, and you have the perfect supply storm we have. I was able to switch to a D800 by placing an order with a small local chain. They only have gotten 5 - 10 cameras per week but their wait list is single digits. not triple digits unlike B+H which just release the following:

Because the backlog in fulfilling these orders is unprecedented in our history we want to let you know we’re aware of your frustration -BH

http://nikonrumors.com/2012/05/06/amazon-uk-started-canceling-nikon-d800-pre-orders-due-to-restricted-supply-from-the-manufacturer.aspx

I think what we have here is not a low volume camera but a home run which clearly Nikon wasn't prepared for. The switchers like myself are only making it worse because Nikon assumed we'd stay with canon. For B+H to say this is unprecedented in their history clearly shows Nikon wasn't expecting such a hit. Lloyd Chambers had this to say:

I’m not inclined to disagree here. BTW, the rumor I’m hearing indirectly as word on the street from various dealers is that the Canon to Nikon switch is of tidal proportions, unprecedented.

http://diglloyd.com/blog/2012/20120504_3-ReaderComment-5DM3.html

Lastly from amazon's ranking alone, we know the D800 is hauling much more preorders and sales than the 5DmkIII.

Conclusion:
D800 demand may not match cheaper bodies but it is far bigger than the industry expected. The D800 is this generation's 5DmkII popularity wise. I think we're just seeing the beginning.

I think Canon's next full frame camera will be very informative. If it is in the 18-24 MP range, but retails near the 7D, then I would bet that these are based on the same sensor that was originally planned for the 5DMkIII, but represent the lesser quality production yields. (18-24 usable low noise, high DR pixels vs 36-45)

I bet that within a year, Canon updates the 5D MkIII type camera with a much higher MP count, lower noise, higher DR sensor. They may not call it the 5D, but it will be what they had originally planned for the MkIII.

I honestly think that talk about said cheaper canon FF camera is just a bunch of nonsense in reaction to Nikon's alleged D600, which still just a rumor. The next canon FF body will likely be a big MP 1Ds4 to compete with nikon's upcoming D4X. I think Canon fully realizes they are being trashed in the high res market when Nikon's entry level DSLR out-resolves ever canon camera ever made. Nikon has proven a 36.3MP sensor is perfectly capable of outstanding quality. It is higher resolution over the old 20MP standard to make a difference but not too high to cause too many problems. It is literally the sweet spot of technology as 20MP was in 2007, but for 2012. The question is will canon over-react and overshoot just to look good on paper at the expense of quality.

 

[UrbanVoyeur]

There may not be anything revolutionary about EXMOR but it is better than what canon has today... Then there are patent issues we don't know about. Canon may be able to make an equal sensor but then why didn't they?

I suspect there was a quality control/yield issue. Yes, the sensor worked, but not enough of them were coming off the production line that met their standards - too many rejects in each batch.

Unless you have evidence, there is little to suggest this is the case. If your premise was that there was nothing special about the D800 exmor then why would canon not be able to manufacture it with similar yields to Nikon/Sony? This seems contradicting to your prior point.

I did say this was pure conjecture, right?

I don't think the Sony senor is revolutionary because it is not based any break through in physics or CMOS design. It uses the same basic materials in the same layers and circuitry as before. (silicon, gallium oxide, etc) It is evolutionary - a dense packing of sensors over a large area. That's why I don't think there in anything special about making one, other than manufacturing technique.
(for example, revolutionary would be using buckey ball nano tech coated with room temp superconductors )

Increasing the size of a chip or the density of devices on it is always difficult in semi-conductor manufacture. Both factors multiply to increase the likelihood of failure or at lest than ideal performance. The cost of a chip with a new design is never a function of the materials or the process to make the actual chip being sold. It is measure of how many chips were rejected to get one that works.

Perfecting a semi-conductor production line for higher yields is as much an art as a science. Just because it is not new science, there is no reason to believe that every manufacturer can do it. AMD struggled for years with Athlon chip yields, where for Intel, fabricating CPU's with equivalent complexity seemed effortless. Likewise, Nvidia vs ATI on graphics chips. Or it could just be bad luck. A fire. The Thai floods. Contaminants. It has happened to others.

Nobody gets it perfectly right the first time, and sometimes, companies only break even or take a loss on the runs in the early years to be first to market with a performance boost. As I mentioned, Sony did this with the cell processors for the PS1 and PS II and Intel has done it repeatedly over the years with various Pentiums.

Because large, high density CMOS chips have low yields, Sony may have gambled that with big enough production runs, they could produce enough chips that meet the 36 MP, FF Nikon spec. One percent of 1,000,000 chips attempts is still 10,000 good sensors. And there may be enough market for the various types of rejects to offset the cost of some of the discards.

It is not a rip off in any way for Sony to charge a premium to Nikon for the "cream of the crop". Sony says: we're planning to attempt 1 million chips. Out of that, 5,000 will meet your strictest criteria, and another 5,000 will come really really close. Nikon replies: rather than attempting 1 million chips, we'll pay the extra cost for 10 million chip attempts so we can have our pick of the best, and you're free to use any we pass on it any way you want.

That's why I don't think Sony necessarily got any better yields than Canon - with a much larger semi conductor business, Sony may have been willing to float much larger runs at the same low yield as Canon.

I am sure Canon knew about the Sony chip years ago - the may even have considered using it. They certainly saw the specs, if not the chip itself.

Why do I think the Nikon price caught Canon off guard? Retail price is one of the last things a company set when releasing a new product. There are cost targets during design and manufacture, but actual retail price is set very late. The fact that the D800 preceded the 5DMkIII by a few weeks didn't lessen the surprise, and at that point, Canon's promotional material and product channels were already set up for $3500. It takes a little while to turn a ship that big. Nikon may have even faked Canon out by preparing two sets of channel materials - one with the higher price in the weeks leading up to release, and one with the real price, released at the last minute. It's been known to happen. But I do agree with you, there is a bit of Canon hubris in that $3500 price tag.

I honestly think that talk about said cheaper canon FF camera is just a bunch of nonsense in reaction to Nikon's alleged D600, which still just a rumor. The next canon FF body will likely be a big MP 1Ds4 to compete with nikon's upcoming D4X.

Maybe. I think the next Nikon FF will have fewer MP's (18-24) and will be made from the same production runs as the 36 MP sensor, and will therefore exhibit the same DR, noise and color capabilities.

Here's why:
Just because you can't get 36 perfect MP's with low noise and high DR, doesn't mean the chip isn't good. The pixels of many 10-12 MP chips are not actually 10-12 million single sensors, but grouped sets of 18-24 million sensors, which taken separately, have less than ideal performance, but taken together, produce very good results. One pixel in the group may give you great DR info, another, the best noise floor. Taken in combination, they produce perfect, if lower resolution results.

So a rejected 36 MP FF sensor may make a perfect 18 MP FF. And the yields will be much higher, and therefore the cost of the sensor much lower because you don't need 36 million perfect sensors.

If Canon releases a FF 18-20 MP at substantially less than the 5DMkIII (with fewer bells and whistles of course) then it would be a good indication that they are on their way to a high MP FF like the Sony, and these these are the rejects from that line.

In any case, I think Canon is working extremely hard to get it's high MP, high DR senor production to scale.

 

[AdamJ]

If you don't see the value in the 5DIII, don't buy it. Nothing will speak louder to Canon than sales figures. And if they hit their sales targets, then don't expect a better sensor any time soon. Equally, if 5DIII sales don't meet forecasts after the early adopter honeymoon is over, then expect something better sooner.

 

[moreorless]

I think it was far more simple a choice. Canon thought Nikon would keep the D700's successor to be a lowMP high FPS body, and so because the 5DII did very well, saw nothing wrong with its strategy. Even jacked up the price. By the time it was revealed Nikon was going big MP, the 5DmkIII was in the final stages of planning and canon thought the 36MP Nikon sensor wouldn't be as good as it is now known to be. Then nikon came out at 3K and not 4K as rumored. Canon simply had a case of hubris.

My guess would be that Canon believed there was an untapped market in essentially a cheape/smaller, version of the 1Ds mk3 + video while being unsure of the market for megapixels much beyond 20.

Staying with 22 MP allowed for a higher FPS without having to include 2 chips and also allowed for pixel binning offering improved video ISO performance.

Going from some of the comments we've heard I'd guess they were unsure of the market for more megapixels due to the fact that a FF camera will never be at the top of the market for resolution in the same way it can be for AF/ISO/FPS. Rather than aiming for the top of the sports/jurno/wedding market your potentially aiming below MF that has been coming down in price recently.

Perhaps the mistake was focusing too much on speaking to pro's? I can see AF, FPS and video appealing to more of them but for amatures I'd say "budget MF" resolution is exactly what many people have been hoping for.

Still I wouldnt say we'll nesserally have to wait until the 5D mk4, it could well be that much of the tech for a high resolution sensor already exists. Its unlikely we will hear Canon say, "yep the 5D mk3 wasnt really designed for landscape and studio work, don't buy and and wait for something we'll release in 2013".

somewhat revisionist history. The D800 came out BEFORE the MKIII at 3000USD. Nikon didn't knock down the price. Canon entered the market fully knowing the D800's capabilities and price point. Nikon had no idea of the mkIII's price.

It was released before it but prior to that release the rumours were pegging it at 4000 USD.

I'd say that Canon also need to deal with the fact that the 5D mk3 steps on the toes of the 1DX more than the D800 does the D4, if the price is dropped too low it could cost them sales.

 

[NormanBates]

Canon entered at $3500 believing Nikon had made a "too many mpix" mistake, then kept it there knowing that supply of their camera would be short, so they'd sell as many cameras as they could take to the stores anyway

And it will fall to $2700 once production is at regular levels, once it's out of backorder, IF it starts to pile up in the warehouses

This is nothing new, it's happened many times before (D700 vs 5D2, D7000 vs 60D)


edit:
grabs popcorn, heads over to amazon's best selling dslr list, to see D800 still at 5th place, and 5D3 quickly moving up, from 19th to 12th since yesterday, as they start to receive the cameras and people line up to get theirs
http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Camera-Photo-Digital-SLR-Cameras/zgbs/photo/3017941

if you don't like this kind of entertainment, here's something else to keep you busy while you wait for this to happen (or not):
http://color.method.ac/
(my scores: 1st try 7.8, 2nd try 8.7, 3rd try 8.7, 4th try 9.3)

 

[V8Beast]

Perhaps the mistake was focusing too much on speaking to pro's? I can see AF, FPS and video appealing to more of them but for amatures I'd say "budget MF" resolution is exactly what many people have been hoping for.

That's an interesting comment. Outside of professional use, $3,000-plus full-frame bodies are very much niche products. If the 5DIII's feature set is perceived to be target toward pros, I suspect that Canon conducted extensive market research, and determined that pros were the largest pool of potential buyers for the 5DIII. If that's the case, there's no way Canon would risk pissing off the 5DIII's largest segment of buyers to appease a small number of very vocal hobbyists.

What's considered a "budget MF" resolution body, anyways? Even if you consider the D800 a "budget MF" resolution body, its $3,000 price makes it target primarily to pros, and the occasional wealthy hobbyist.

 

[unfocused]

...Outside of professional use, $3,000-plus full-frame bodies are very much niche products. If the 5DIII's feature set is perceived to be target toward pros, I suspect that Canon conducted extensive market research, and determined that pros were the largest pool of potential buyers for the 5DIII...

What! How DARE you suggest that Canon's primary goal was to sell actual cameras to genuine customers. Everyone knows they SHOULD be designing cameras to satisfy forum geeks.

 

[moreorless]

Perhaps the mistake was focusing too much on speaking to pro's? I can see AF, FPS and video appealing to more of them but for amatures I'd say "budget MF" resolution is exactly what many people have been hoping for.

That's an interesting comment. Outside of professional use, $3,000-plus full-frame bodies are very much niche products. If the 5DIII's feature set is perceived to be target toward pros, I suspect that Canon conducted extensive market research, and determined that pros were the largest pool of potential buyers for the 5DIII. If that's the case, there's no way Canon would risk pissing off the 5DIII's largest segment of buyers to appease a small number of very vocal hobbyists.

What's considered a "budget MF" resolution body, anyways? Even if you consider the D800 a "budget MF" resolution body, its $3,000 price makes it target primarily to pros, and the occasional wealthy hobbyist.

Do pro's make up the majority of buyers for 5D level cameras? I was under the impression that the amatues market was larger. If thats the case I'm sure Canon knows it but the impression I'v gotten is that they tend to have a greater focus on the pro market than Nikon generally offering cheaper amatures products and more expensive professional ones.

I spose one thing that body sales figures alone do not tell you is the lens and other gear users buy with pro's likely to spend more.

 

[V8Beast]

Do pro's make up the majority of buyers for 5D level cameras? I was under the impression that the amatues market was larger.

Of course the amateur is far larger, but most of them aren't spending $3,500 for an SLR. I don't have stats or sales figures, but based on price alone, I'd think that the bulk of the hobbyists market is in the Rebel and xxD line, not the 5D line. I see tons of soccer moms and casual users with Rebels and xxD bodies, but very few of them with 5Ds. Conversely, I know a ton of pros that shoot with 5D series bodies. The fact that it's a very capable camera is just one reason. IMHO, with how much the market for pro photographers has dwindled, and the undercutting that has ensued from a new wave of hungry competition that's willing to work for free, the 5D's represents a very good balance of performance for the money.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

Do pro's make up the majority of buyers for 5D level cameras? I was under the impression that the amatues market was larger.

Of course the amateur is far larger, but most of them aren't spending $3,500 for an SLR. I don't have stats or sales figures, but based on price alone, I'd think that the bulk of the hobbyists market is in the Rebel and xxD line, not the 5D line. I see tons of soccer moms and casual users with Rebels and xxD bodies, but very few of them with 5Ds. Conversely, I know a ton of pros that shoot with 5D series bodies. The fact that it's a very capable camera is just one reason. IMHO, with how much the market for pro photographers has dwindled, and the undercutting that has ensued from a new wave of hungry competition that's willing to work for free, the 5D's represents a very good balance of performance for the money.

Id say it falls in along general socioeconomic lines. The vast majority (bottom 90%) of regular folk are gonna buy P&S, rebel and xxd bodies. Next up is the 5% in the almost rich categories, they will buy 5d's causer they are nice and give them bragging rights. But the top 2% will buy 1D's or MF camera's - yeah, these amatuers will never use these cameras anywhere near their potential, it would be more of a trophy piece. Like the rich guy that buys a warehouse to store fancy cars they never drive. That sums up the consumer market in a nut shell...

 

[Marsu42]

Next up is the 5% in the almost rich categories, they will buy 5d's causer they are nice and give them bragging rights.

It would be interesting to know how large the 5d market really is - around Berlin, every tech store has it in its showcase, but maybe just to make the wife say "well, at least you didn't get the most expensive model". But then again, at least a 5d3 isn't that expensive in comparison to other hi-fi and tv stuff people buy when they work all day and have more money than time to spend it. And all dedicated photo stores live from selling this stuff to amateurs who won't max it out - one guy called his own customers "noble amateuers" once to me, but still wanted to sell me something that didn't fit me and was beyond my budget.