# What is the problem with Canon



## chauncey (Jan 9, 2014)

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 (Jan 9, 2014)

I would not have any clue.


----------



## sanj (Jan 9, 2014)

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 (Jan 9, 2014)

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 (Jan 9, 2014)

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?


----------



## Albi86 (Jan 9, 2014)

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.
> ...



+1

Are we really comparing a camera from 2007 with cameras from 2012-2013?


----------



## David Hull (Jan 9, 2014)

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 (Jan 9, 2014)

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.
> ...



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 (Jan 9, 2014)

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???



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 (Jan 9, 2014)

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 (Jan 9, 2014)

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 (Jan 9, 2014)

.
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 (Jan 9, 2014)

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 (Jan 9, 2014)

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 (Jan 9, 2014)

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 (Jan 9, 2014)

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 (Jan 9, 2014)

SwampYankee said:


> 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 (Jan 9, 2014)

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???


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 (Jan 9, 2014)

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???



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 (Jan 9, 2014)

gbchriste said:


> SwampYankee said:
> 
> 
> > 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
> ...



" 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


----------



## Larry (Jan 9, 2014)

SwampYankee said:


> I like Canon, I have lots of Canon glass....CANON NEEDS BETTER SENSORS



Could you be more specific?

What is it that Canon needs?


----------



## pdirestajr (Jan 9, 2014)

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.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Jan 9, 2014)

SwampYankee said:


> " 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
> 
> 70-200 IS F4L | 24-105L |50 1.8 I |1002.8L | Tokina 16-28 2.8



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.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jan 9, 2014)

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.


----------



## jdramirez (Jan 9, 2014)

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.


----------



## jdramirez (Jan 9, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Why has Canon not come out with their 50-100MP camera?
> 
> Because they can't make a business case for it.
> 
> ...



Don't forget the loss of sales from the other products they offer. It is likely that someone buying this huge megapixel body will consequently not purchase a 5d mkiii or 1dx.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Jan 9, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> 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.



Also a good option.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 9, 2014)

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.


----------



## jdramirez (Jan 9, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon's problem is they don't make products specifically to suit ME. After all…
> 
> 
> 
> ...



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.


----------



## ykn123 (Jan 9, 2014)

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.



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???


----------



## Halfrack (Jan 9, 2014)

SwampYankee said:


> I like Canon, I have lots of Canon glass....CANON NEEDS BETTER SENSORS


So buy a Sony a7R and a Metabones adapter for EF and go shoot something. 

Oh, you want your snappy auto-focus, sorry, can't do that with current Mirrorless tech. Might want to go complain about that on the Sony boards about how Sony has a problem and that they should buy or build a better AF system.
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.


----------



## DanielW (Jan 9, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Why has Canon not come out with their 50-100MP camera?
> 
> Because they can't make a business case for it.
> 
> ...



Great way to put it.


----------



## zlatko (Jan 9, 2014)

SwampYankee said:


> 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.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 9, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> AcutancePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Why has Canon not come out with their 50-100MP camera?
> ...



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,.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 9, 2014)

Halfrack said:


> SwampYankee said:
> 
> 
> > I like Canon, I have lots of Canon glass....CANON NEEDS BETTER SENSORS
> ...



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....


----------



## Skulker (Jan 9, 2014)

Albi86 said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > chauncey said:
> ...



and some of us are ignoring the blimming obvious 1Dx that many people manage to take some great pictures with.


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 9, 2014)

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.


----------



## lilmsmaggie (Jan 9, 2014)

SwampYankee said:


> 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
> ...



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?


----------



## Skulker (Jan 9, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> all fine and well.
> BUT ... a high-res, high DR, hi-ISO 1Ds III succesor is now overdue by more than a year.
> 1D X really is only the - very good! - successor to the 1D IV.
> 
> Same situation as the overdue D4x for Nikon. But at least they got a D800E for hi-res, high DR.



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.


----------



## bchernicoff (Jan 9, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> 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/


----------



## unfocused (Jan 9, 2014)

zlatko said:


> SwampYankee said:
> 
> 
> > 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
> ...



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.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 9, 2014)

bchernicoff said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > 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).
> ...



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 (Jan 9, 2014)

BLFPhoto said:


> 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 (Jan 9, 2014)

David Hull said:


> 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 (Jan 9, 2014)

> 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 (Jan 9, 2014)

SwampYankee said:


> gbchriste said:
> 
> 
> > SwampYankee said:
> ...


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 (Jan 9, 2014)

bchernicoff said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > 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).
> ...



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


----------



## jdramirez (Jan 9, 2014)

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



neuroanatomist said:


> bchernicoff said:
> 
> 
> > jdramirez said:
> ...


----------



## chauncey (Jan 9, 2014)

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 (Jan 10, 2014)

eml58 said:


> David Hull said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


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 (Jan 10, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> 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 (Jan 10, 2014)

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 (Jan 10, 2014)

ME said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Canon's problem is they don't make products specifically to suit ME.
> ...


Ha! Ha! Ha! Good one!

Good to see a sense of humour on this thread


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jan 10, 2014)

ME said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Canon's problem is they don't make products specifically to suit ME.
> ...


Ha ha ha ... Good one ;D


----------

