Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]

[jrista]

I rented a d800 and two good lenses . My test shoots with my own 5dmk3 and D800 shows that Canon are far behind in digital imaging , resolution , color depth and dynamic range.
Sony 36Mp together with my Canon lenses will be next rental try fom my side

A Swedish Winnie the Poo (Nalle Puh)... Post 1, love anything but Canon, concerned with DR ... Give us a break :

Swedish Winnie the Poo also ignores the empirical facts. Even DXO, the organization much loathed by Canon users, demonstrates that a 5D III with most L-series lenses (usually on the longer end) is actually BETTER than the D800 with Nikon's best glass from a resolution standpoint. All those extra megapixels on the D800 are only enough to bring it up to par with the 5D III on longer glass. Canon still suffers on the wide angle end of things, but hopefully 2014 will be the year that changes that.

 

[MichaelHodges]

Canon is not the one playing catch up here.

In terms of low ISO IQ they most certainly are.

 

[100]

From:
http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/01/canon-to-haul-capacity-back-home-as-yen-continues-slide/#more-15486

"Canon’s global shipments of interchangeable lens cameras accounted for 45.1 percent of global shipments in July-September, according to IDC, a 5 percent drop in share from the year prior and a 25.7 percent drop in unit sales."

You are conveniently ignoring the fact that Nikon's sales also dropped significantly, and that since Canon has a greater marketshare than Nikon, Canon could lose more unit sales than Nikon yet still sell more cameras.

Plus, I thought you didn't care about sales figures and don't think they are relevant.

Expand the quote from dilbert just a little bit and you get a different story.
The next line:

However, Mitarai said Canon had increased its share of the SLR market by a few percent over the whole year....

 

[jrista]

Canon is not the one playing catch up here.

In terms of low ISO IQ they most certainly are.

Low ISO IQ is a tiny factor out of hundreds that affect image quality. I find it so incredibly ironic that low ISO IQ is apparently the single most important thing for so many "photographers". How many of you who complain about low ISO IQ actually use low ISO all that often? And for those of you who do use low ISO, how often is it that you actually need to lift your shadows more than a few stops? Canon's current crop of cameras is quite capable of being lifted 2-3 stops without issues at low ISO...it is only when you get into the realm of lifting 4-6 stops (or, if you are a true psycho, 8-10 stops by using Lightroom's exposure brush!!)...but lifting any photo's shadows by that much inevitably results in other issues...funky contrast transitions as you move from bright midtones to shadows, strange noise and color fidelity gradients, etc. I would honestly be extremely surprised if as many people who complain about low ISO performance actually lift shadows 4+ stops on a consistent basis.

Statistically, higher ISO settings are used more frequently these days than lower ISO settings...so it really baffles me that this is such a broad and ubiquitous issue. I am not saying that better low ISO DR is a bad thing, of course it's good...but it is still only one IQ factor out of many. Given how well the D800 has sold, I wouldn't go so far as to say Canon is now playing "catchup" in the low ISO DR arena yet.

 

[MichaelHodges]

Canon is not the one playing catch up here.

In terms of low ISO IQ they most certainly are.

Low ISO IQ is a tiny factor out of hundreds that affect image quality. I find it so incredibly ironic that low ISO IQ is apparently the single most important thing for so many "photographers". How many of you who complain about low ISO IQ actually use low ISO all that often? And for those of you who do use low ISO, how often is it that you actually need to lift your shadows more than a few stops?

This is a logical fallacy. The same argument could be applied to the first implementation of auto focus, Image stabilization, etc:

"How can image stabilization possibly be important? How many of you actually use a tripod?"

"Aren't you quick enough to focus manually? There's no need for auto focus if you refine your skills..."

When approaching the conversation with intellectual honesty, one cannot dispute that low ISO IQ is an important aspect of photography....especially for nature photographers.

 

[privatebydesign]

That is an interesting question that illustrates why there are so many diverse opinions about th same piece of equipment, we all use them differently.

As for me I took a look, of my last 19,500 images, 9,000 were at 100iso, 7,500 at 200iso, 2,000 at 400 iso and 1,500 at 800 and other random intermediate iso stops.

I'd like higher low iso image quality. But I am not going to spit my dummy out waiting for it.

 

[Loswr]

As for me I took a look, of my last 19,500 images, 9,000 were at 100iso, 7,500 at 200iso, 2,000 at 400 iso and 1,500 at 800 and other random intermediate iso stops.

Of those low ISO images, for how many did you have to blow highlights or block shadows to preserve the other end AND you had a difference of not more than 2-stops such that the greater low ISO DR of the Sony/Nikon sensor would have solved the problem AND of that subset, how many of those shots were rendered unusable by the lost detail in the shadows or highlights?

Listening to the DRones, you'd think that Canon sensors completely suck to the point of being unusable at ISO 100 or that a Canon camera would simply explode if you try to take an image of a scene with 13-stops of DR.

Let's be clear - more is better! Faster AF, faster FPS, better IQ, more DR, all good. Well, not more noise - less of that, please. But those things are not always necessary.

 

[Orangutan]

one cannot dispute that low ISO IQ is an important aspect of photography....especially for nature photographers.

Of course it is. But what fraction of the total market do nature photographers comprise? I think everyone agrees that that D800's sensor is great at low ISO's. For those people whose style of photography plays to the D800's strengths, it's obviously a fine tool. But many have noted weaknesses in the D800 for other styles of photography. (I can't speak to it directly since I've never used one) Other cameras (e.g. 5D3) are reported to have better AF, ergonomics, high-ISO IQ etc.

The complaint from those such as yourself seems to ask why Canon doesn't put a D800-class sensor in a 5D3 type package to give Canon customers the best of both worlds. (I'll leave aside the reverse question: why Nikon didn't put 5d3 strengths into the D800) The answer, as numerous replies have repeated, is the magic word "business." It costs money (and reduces profit) to use new/innovative components. It costs for R&D, it costs for tooling, it costs for support (e.g. when you have problems with the new tech that don't appear until after there are thousands in the hands of customers). All this reduces profit. Neither Nikon nor Canon are charities.

For the foreseeable future you will not be able to buy a camera that "has it all" and is also affordable.

 

[mkabi]

This is interesting. I've never tested it in pictures, but I know in video that ISO noise is non-linear. So technically 160 is better than 100, and 320 is better than 200 or 250, so on and so forth. Wouldn't it be the same in terms of pictures?

 

[100]

Statistically, higher ISO settings are used more frequently these days than lower ISO settings...so it really baffles me that this is such a broad and ubiquitous issue. I am not saying that better low ISO DR is a bad thing, of course it's good...but it is still only one IQ factor out of many. Given how well the D800 has sold, I wouldn't go so far as to say Canon is now playing "catchup" in the low ISO DR arena yet.

Which statistic? Can you point to the result of a scientific study?

And what exactly do you mean by “higher ISO settings”? Higher than 100, 400, 800, 1600…?

I buy into a camera system and the sensor is just one part of the system, but I would love to have the low iso DR of the D800 in my 5DIII.
It’s the one area Canon is really outperformed by just about all other manufacturers. I think they should address that for the next generation and they probably will.
All manufacturers are playing catchup in some way, because none of them are the best at everything.

 

[MichaelHodges]

Of those low ISO images, for how many did you have to blow highlights or block shadows to preserve the other end AND you had a difference of not more than 2-stops such that the greater low ISO DR of the Sony/Nikon sensor would have solved the problem AND of that subset, how many of those shots were rendered unusable by the lost detail in the shadows or highlights?

You could apply this logic to every facet of image taking when arguing against technological improvements:


"Of all your high ISO shots, how many were so truly noisy that you simply couldn't use the image?"

"Of all those shots of grizzly bears, how many were truly ruined by using only a 2-stop IS system?"

etc....

 

[MichaelHodges]

Of course it is. But what fraction of the total market do nature photographers comprise?

A ton of people get into DSLR's for landscape and wildlife. This is where you have zero control of light (or wildlife) so the ability to recover highlights is critical.

 

[Loswr]

Of those low ISO images, for how many did you have to blow highlights or block shadows to preserve the other end AND you had a difference of not more than 2-stops such that the greater low ISO DR of the Sony/Nikon sensor would have solved the problem AND of that subset, how many of those shots were rendered unusable by the lost detail in the shadows or highlights?

You could apply this logic to every facet of image taking when arguing against technological improvements:

Yes, and if you had quoted my entire post, you'd see that I'm not arguing against it. Rather, I'm stating that such technological improvements aren't necessary in every situation.

There have been significant technological improvements from Canon in AI Servo subject tracking thanks to the high-density 61-pt AF sensor and continual improvements in predictive algorithms. How necessary are those technological improvements to your tripod-based low ISO landscape shooting?

 

[CarlTN]

Regardless of the sensor (which I doubt will be much if any superior to the current D4)...based on other performance aspects such as autofocus performance, isn't the 1DX already the answer to the D4S?

 

[9VIII]

Canon is not the one playing catch up here.

In terms of low ISO IQ they most certainly are.

Point being as an industry wide trend, Nikon is playing catch up, as they have been since the 90's.
This time last year I was dead set on getting a D800, it was the best thing since sliced bread and I could easily have bought a D800 instead of the 5D2. However, as I looked into it more the advantages presented to me did not outweigh the disadvantages, I chose the Canon system as a whole over the temporary advantages of one camera. For some people I'm sure the D800 is everything they could have wanted.
I guess one way to tell how people truly feel about it would be to ask how many people have actually bought one. It would also be interesting to compare that with the effect of the 5D2 on the industry a few years ago.

Here's a poll I made on the topic.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19012.0

 

[dufflover]

This is a logical fallacy. The same argument could be applied to the first implementation of auto focus, Image stabilization,

Definitely agree. In fact I'm getting tired of that lame line, in the exact same bucket as "it's not the gear it's photographer". I do not disagree with those statements at all; it's just that in the context of gear, money and let's face it just being camera enthusiasts, we want to improve things, and spend our hard earned with good return - it is not good return when spending top dollar in a given price bracket for something that is old tech, and the competition has proven things can be better.

Obviously some people have money to burn. Good for you, not for most other people .

Same with Canon business vs. users' wishes. I don't disagree that Canon don't have to do anything with sales figures and what not - that doesn't make the camera any better or the "wishlist" any less valid (or factually untrue). It's a point that just kills discussion in a forum.

 

[Orangutan]

Of course it is. But what fraction of the total market do nature photographers comprise?

A ton of people get into DSLR's for landscape and wildlife. This is where you have zero control of light (or wildlife) so the ability to recover highlights is critical.

Why aren't those people buying a ton of D800's, since it appears to be the best landscape DSLR on the market now? I can think of two explanations: either landscape photographers don't know how to choose the right gear, or the number of landscape-oriented photographers is not as large as you believe.

I suspect most consumers buy a DSLR for vacation photos, bling, and to be their children's first paparazzo.

The reason sales numbers are important is that they give us data against which to test our assumptions. If we believe that most people want model X, but many more people buy model Y, then it shows that our belief is not supported by the data, and may well be wrong.

 

[MichaelHodges]

I suspect most consumers buy a DSLR for vacation photos, bling, and to be their children's first paparazzo.

True, but then again I doubt most of us active on the CR forums are like that. There's nothing wrong with that at all, but most of these conversations steer towards the middle and upper end of the gear spectrum, and for specialist uses. Not too many people are buying 800 5.6's, but it's still a kick ass lens. Based on these conversations, we're sort of the crowd that is listening for production and engineering background noise on super audio cd's or vinyl, and wondering if the remaster of Dark Side of the Moon has more "air" than the previous versions.

To consistently quote what the average user buys/does has no bearing on most of these technological discussions on CR. It's simply a red herring.

 

[CarlTN]

I suspect most consumers buy a DSLR for vacation photos, bling, and to be their children's first paparazzo.

True, but then again I doubt most of us active on the CR forums are like that. There's nothing wrong with that at all, but most of these conversations steer towards the middle and upper end of the gear spectrum, and for specialist uses. Not too many people are buying 800 5.6's, but it's still a kick ass lens. Based on these conversations, we're sort of the crowd that is listening for production and engineering background noise on super audio cd's or vinyl, and wondering if the remaster of Dark Side of the Moon has more "air" than the previous versions.

To consistently quote what the average user buys/does has no bearing on most of these technological discussions on CR. It's simply a red herring.

Nice to see the audiophile analogy!

 

[Orangutan]

I suspect most consumers buy a DSLR for vacation photos, bling, and to be their children's first paparazzo.

To consistently quote what the average user buys/does has no bearing on most of these technological discussions on CR. It's simply a red herring.

But I don't think it is a red herring: while the folks on this forum want 1DX features plus a D800 sensor packed into a 5D3 body, it's the "average user" who drives profits. And without profits there is no business. I think most folks would totally agree with you that it would be nice, and occasionally essential to have more DR and IQ to get a specific shot the way we want it. But we recognize the reality that there is no perfect product, so we choose the brand that comes closest to meeting our needs.

There are plenty of folks who express their wishes that Canon would include certain features in the next model; however, what's tedious -- and pointless -- is the few who step well beyond that, and become nearly frothy in their vehement denunciation of Canon's product choices, as though it were a deep personal insult.