# Not only Canon Users are hunting for better specs.... ;-) Alpha 7r II dreams



## xps (Feb 10, 2015)

I read this on www.sonyalpharumors.com:
"_So just to let you dream a bit …_here is what I got and what you don’t have to take seriously for now:"

“Sony has a new global electronic shutter sensor that will be put into our new flagship e-mount camera. The top shutter speed is *1/32000* with flash sync capabilities at that speed.
Sensor resolution will be well *above 50MP*
It will have *In body stabilization* like the A7II
A *new type of AF* will be implemented, it is like DFD from Panasonic but faster.
*196 points of autofocus covering 94%*
-2 ev af acquisition
*faster autofocus than current a6000 CIPA rated*
no 4k on this camera
NEW *Bionz X2 processor, 70% faster per core* (quad core)
no pricing on camera just yet, expected to be *$2700-$3000* for body
TWO new lenses will be unveiled: 85mm Zeiss 1.8 with the performance of the 55mm Zeiss. 135-400mm Sony G 5.6 lens. pricing will be $1300 and $2000
Also: a new A mount camera will be announced, the same processor and DFD like AF module will be in the new camera, as well as SLT flip up mirror mechanism..."


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 10, 2015)

Someone believes a faster shutter speed gives more resolution? It might improve resolution for sloppy practices that do not get what a camera is capable of. It does not give you more resolution than the sensor is capable of, no matter what the shutter speed.


They also believe that you can take a photo at 1/32000 second in normal light? Are they going to use a f/0.01 lens?


----------



## sanj (Mar 4, 2015)

Nice specs! It is nice to have the faster shutter speeds for when one may need it. With those shutter speeds a whole new world opens up to freezing motion… Well done.


----------



## leGreve (Mar 4, 2015)

Heh.... This would be fun to use in our studio along with our Bron Color Graphite generators


----------



## Tugela (Mar 13, 2015)

At least with Sony there is a reasonable hope that they might deliver. With Canon you have dreams but cold porridge in the morning.


----------



## IglooEater (Mar 13, 2015)

That's cool. 1/32000 sec is only 2 stops less light than 1/8000th. People who like fast lenses outdoors will like that.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 13, 2015)

Tugela said:


> At least with Sony there is a reasonable hope that they might deliver. With Canon you have dreams but cold porridge in the morning.



This morning, like every morning, I have a camera *system* from Canon that very effectively meets my needs. 

Enjoy your porridge.


----------



## Ivar (Mar 18, 2015)

Generally speaking CDAF is a prefered solution cause it's more precise and no more calibration issues. Don't know that much about the on sensor AF though, it is faster, what about the preciseness?
Unfortunately CDAF requires massive amount of processing power, so PDAF still has its place.
However as processing capabilities tend to increase I have no doubt the CDAF will be better on the new models.

I don't believe Sony goes much higher than 50MP, maybe just as little more as to have the biggest number of all of the 35mm cameras i.e. slightly more than the Canon 5Ds. 

Electronic shutter would definitely be nice though I have some doubts if they are able to do it yet for this release.
Not to be skeptical, just maintaining reasonable expectations.

All in all, Sony is definitely interesting to watch, they have a lot of money to spend on sensor r&d and seem to be doing a good business in that area, who knows what they surprise with.


----------



## e17paul (Mar 18, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > At least with Sony there is a reasonable hope that they might deliver. With Canon you have dreams but cold porridge in the morning.
> ...



+1
Now, if only I could become the photographer that meets my desires


----------



## Rahul (Mar 18, 2015)

e17paul said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Tugela said:
> ...



+100 ... post of the day!


----------



## 9VIII (Mar 18, 2015)

400mm?
Resolution well above 50MP?

We'll have to wait and see what their actual plans are but if they can best the 100-400ISII in IQ and put out a sensor higher than 64MP then we've got a system that's worth a look.


----------



## TeT (Mar 18, 2015)

I know that there are times that 1/8000 was not enough without a ND filter...

Nice if it holds up....


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Mar 18, 2015)

Having a global electronic shutter would be huge.

I regularly shoot at over 1/8000th with the xt1 if shooting in the middle of the day. Makes a bad time of day to shoot a perfectly good times of day. If it is in fact a global vs just electronic shutter, then it would be even more awesome since it would have flash sync.


----------



## PureClassA (Mar 18, 2015)

Flash Sync speed also at 1/32000 ?! WTF? The fastest t1 time on my Einsteins is something like 1/15,000th of a second. How many strobes can do 1/32000th of a second for a burst? At 1/32000 you wouldn't even get the strobe in time! Your strobe has to be faster than your shutter, soooooo..... how's that work? Someone have more insight than I do right now?


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Mar 18, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> Flash Sync speed also at 1/32000 ?! WTF? The fastest t1 time on my Einsteins is something like 1/15,000th of a second. How many strobes can do 1/32000th of a second for a burst? At 1/32000 you wouldn't even get the strobe in time! Your strobe has to be faster than your shutter, soooooo..... how's that work? Someone have more insight than I do right now?



Not saying you would necessarily use it with flash synce at the maximum shutter speed. But even syncing at anything past mechanical shutters (1/8000th) is useful for some people.

As far as the utility of anything above 1/15000th, it is still useful. With my xt1 with the 23mm 1.4 and 56mm 1.2, I routinely get up past 1/15000th and all the way up to 1/32000th in the middle of the day.


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 18, 2015)

That sync speed... . Would definitely buy one.


----------



## ritholtz (Mar 18, 2015)

Is it going to make HSS functionality redundant.


----------



## quod (Mar 18, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> This morning, like every morning, I have a camera *system* from Canon that very effectively meets my needs.


How proud you must be. Hard to believe that you actually use your *system* given the amount of time you spend lurking on this site.



neuroanatomist said:


> Enjoy your porridge.


Don't worry. We will.


----------



## Sunnystate (Mar 19, 2015)

Yes, some strobes like more expensive Metz have partial light output control up to 1/64000. Here is a sample I shot in the darkroom of subsonic .22 caliber smashing tomato on old Canon 8Mp Rebel and Metz flashlight set to 1/32000. It would be cool to be able to do that in daylight, and I can think of thousands other uses for that 



PureClassA said:


> Flash Sync speed also at 1/32000 ?! WTF? The fastest t1 time on my Einsteins is something like 1/15,000th of a second. How many strobes can do 1/32000th of a second for a burst? At 1/32000 you wouldn't even get the strobe in time! Your strobe has to be faster than your shutter, soooooo..... how's that work? Someone have more insight than I do right now?


----------



## Lawliet (Mar 19, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> The fastest t1 time on my Einsteins is something like 1/15,000th of a second.



Airgap or argon flashes are 2-3 orders of magnitude faster. Or, less challenging in the engineering department, LEDs work in single digit microsecond bursts easily.

Also you'd get rid of traveling curtain artifacts independent of the shutter speed, whether it tops out at 1/4000s or 1/32000s doesn't matter, but kill that 1/200s limit.


----------



## GaryJ (Mar 19, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > At least with Sony there is a reasonable hope that they might deliver. With Canon you have dreams but cold porridge in the morning.
> ...


----------



## Khufu (Mar 19, 2015)

Woo! Keep devaluing that lightest-weight, original A7 for me, SONY... I'll be good to grab one around when the 28mm f/2 finally starts shipping so if you can get this announced in the next week or two that'll be just grand, cheers! 
Cheap, FF, out-and-about, sharp & fast wide angle lensed (that's probably a word) wee, lightweight camera with EVF, possibly under £1,000?! Yesss please


----------



## Neutral (Mar 19, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > At least with Sony there is a reasonable hope that they might deliver. With Canon you have dreams but cold porridge in the morning.
> ...



Sorry for saying that but trying to prove oneself of being most smart and most clever person on the forum by trying to humiliate other people or even intentionally trying to offence them is not very smart way to get desired result, result is quite opposite. There are plenty of other people who are not less smart or less clever or less educated)))
Trying to making fun of someone who is dreaming about something better is very unfriendly at least.
Did you try to do the same when your wife was telling you that she is dreaming about something better that she has now? Would be interesting to see results)))

No doubt that your SYSTEM make you happy every morning when you wake up and start thinking about it))) Especially considering how much $$$$$$ was invested in your SYSTEM.
Also no doubt that it is the BEST SYSTEM to meet your current photography needs.
But there is also no doubt that there are many people around whose habits, needs and dreams are different from yours and your SYSTEM not necessarily the best system for them.

Also your sarcastic “joke” has internal contradiction:
Person was telling that it is a bit boring to see very slow Canon progress in sensor technology and it is practically the same as eating the same thing (porridge) every morning for many years (no change).
Your response is that your Canon system is the best and you suggest other person to go and continue to enjoy his porridge every morning for many more years.
If translated from your sarcasm language dialect this means – please go away and enjoy his canon gear while person already told that it is a bit boring for him to see very little progress in Canon sensor technology.

As for SYSTEM in general then every system consist of different system parts, these parts could be different and even could be from different manufactures if final result could be better.
System configuration – combination of different system parts could vary depending on the needs that also could change from time to time.
*Canon lenses *are very good, and zoom and long zoom lenses are probably the best ones.
But what about primes? This is not always true – e.g. Zeiss makes some better primes (e.g. Otus line or 55mm f/1.8 for Sony E-mount considered as mini-Otus). Other brands also have some prime lenses that are better than Canon primes.

*What about autofocus? *
Yes Canon has one of the best autofocus systems - especially when 1DX is combined with latest mark 2 autofocus lenses and especially with long telephoto and long primes.
Do all people require best autofocus? Not really. 
Do all people need autofocus all the time? Not at all. Many people prefer manual focus lenses. Using focus peaking with combination with EVF or live view with manual focus aids makes manual focus extremely easy to use. Here Canon is even trying to hold up their users not allowing Canon Pro and Semi-pro cameras to have manual focus assist features. Very sad for Canon. Totally irrational.

*Do all the Canon lenses are better suited for Canon then for other camera brands?*
Not at all, e.g. Canon TSE manual focus lenses are much easier to use on Sony A7 bodies with Canon to Sony E-Mount adapter.
Daylight still image quality using some Canon lenses (TSE and EF24-70 f/2.8 USM II) on Sony A7R body is better than image quality using existing Canon bodies. Sony A7R with Canon EF24-70 f/2.8 USM II lens is my best daylight walk around system for still photography, better for me than 1Dx with the same lens. 

*Camera body ergonomics?*
Canon 1DX is probably one of the best in this respect for many people for many photographic needs. For some of them this is not true – some people prefer compact FF MILS from Sony due to small size and ability to work as digital back for huge variety of different lenses from almost every manufacture, including medium format lenses and legacy lenses. 

*Camera sensor quality? *
Sensor quality is essential part of the system. And this is where Canon is lagging behind competitors and the technology gap is increasing as Canon itself is not Semiconductor Company and do not have required resources to keep in pace with semiconductors technologies evolution. 
Some time ago Canon 1DX was one of the best camera for low light conditions.
This is not true anymore.
Now one of the best FF low light cameras is Sony A7S initially intended for high quality video requirements. It is now rapidly becoming more and more popular for low light still photography using number of fast prime lenses from different manufactures. 
Also for night sky photography.
As result A7S sales are far above initial Sony expectations .This camera is becoming famous. It can see almost in full darkness. I am no exclusion to this, A7S is my mostly used camera for low light conditions and 1DX is used only for special needs (actions/sports, events).
When new Zeiss prime 35mm f/1.4 will become available then this would give a lot of amazing possibilities for using it with A7S, A7M2 with IBIS and especially sometime later with A7Sm2 with better sensor and IBIS not to mention A7Rm2.

Summary:
Claiming that this or that system from only one brand is the only one best system is pointless.
All depends on each individual person needs which are different.
I myself prefer concept of system toolbox which has all best parts and gears for my needs and this parts could be from different brands. Having such toolbox it is easy to have flexibility in getting best system for particular needs using the best parts combinations.

Also it is very common mistake to underestimate something which is relatively young, still growing, evolving, maturing but evolution curve acceleration is very fast and faster than the same for others. This is applicable to earth live systems, technologies, people etc. There lot of different sad examples in the history for such overlooks.

Sony is only now starting coming more close to gaining critical mass in building their own system (E-mount bodies and lens systems) and we will see soon some more interesting things from Sony (e.g. expected soon A9 which possibly will be around 50mx and latest sensor technology implemented as well as significant AF improvements).
I think that in few years when their system will grow up and mature they will be able reach their ambitious goal – to eat significant part from DSLR market including Canon share on this market.

All the best.


----------



## Sunnystate (Mar 19, 2015)

It is interesting that self proclaimed tzar of this forum with all his credentials has the need to prove his superiority in every word he is writing down. Just show us already all your diplomas and IQ score and be done with it for once... well he probably would like to show us his banks accounts to... ;D



Neutral said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Tugela said:
> ...


----------



## xps (Mar 23, 2015)

Post from Sonyalpharumors.com:
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr4-a-correction-and-a-confirmation-about-the-sony-50mp-camera/

I am very busy working on a whole bunch of rumors but let’s start with an important rumor correction. The highly trusted source who shared as first the 50MP camera rumor said that he misunderstood the release timing info he got directly from Sony. *The 50MP camera is not going to be announced the next few weeks. But it’s definitely ready to be for sale within 2015. *He said sorry to SAR readers for the wrong timing info but there was a miscommunication between Sony and him. The good news is that another source confirmed the camera will come this year and that indeed the Sony 50MP FF sensor has a very new design and will “easily” outperform the Canon 5ds sensor.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Mar 24, 2015)

Tugela said:


> At least with Sony there is a reasonable hope that they might deliver. With Canon you have dreams but cold porridge in the morning.



Bah. I've never seen a company meet or exceed the rumor mill. Sony won't "deliver" on everything in this rumor.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 24, 2015)

Sunnystate said:


> It is interesting that self proclaimed tzar of this forum with all his credentials has the need to prove his superiority in every word he is writing down. Just show us already all your diplomas and IQ score and be done with it for once... well he probably would like to show us his banks accounts to... ;D
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What I stated is that the camera system I have meets my needs. My needs. Not yours, not Bob's, not Susan's. If you want to read more into it than that, that's your problem. Have a nice day.


----------



## NancyP (Mar 24, 2015)

To Neutral: nr; tl

To everyone else: Choice is good. I would really like to have a body with better dynamic range sensor in the 30+ MP range plus a shutter without shutter vibration, specifically for landscape. If Sony fixes its shutter issue with the A7r successor (and global shutter does do that), then I would consider it as an option. I would have considered the existing A7r as a supplemental body if it didn't have the shutter issue. 

Meanwhile I enjoy my 6D, which does fine for the A3 size prints I am likely to make at this time (in a small flat). 

My kit is better than I am.


----------



## Eldar (Mar 24, 2015)

The points from Neutral are good points. I find it absolutely amazing and difficult to understand, how anyone can defend someone for NOT doing anything and claim that everyone being unhappy with Canon´s (apparent) roadmap are incompetent extremes. I my eyes you look stupid!

Every time anyone criticise Canon´s lack of will or ability to deliver sensor performance to compete with the (as of lately) others, a fair number of CR members rush to their defence stating that those who want what the Sony, Nikon, Pentax, Phase One, Hasselblad, Leica ... (you name them) can get from their sensors, does´t know what they´re talking about. The bashing of jrista´s fairly educated posts are good examples. 

The only way we can make a difference is if we as a joint force push Canon to come up with what we want. I, for one, was so disappointed with the 5DS/5DSR specs, that I have decided not to buy that camera and I will not buy the 11-24mm either, even though it is a very tempting lens. And I will not buy the new 100-400mm and I may not buy another Canon lens again, unless I can get sensor performance that match what the others have. I have stopped recommending Canon to those who come for advice. A drop in Canon´s ocean, but maybe I´m not the only drop. I have a negotiated price for a Pentax 645z package, but I hesitate, because I do not wish to drag two systems around. But if the 1DX-II does not meet my expectations, I will sell every bit of Canon gear I have and start all over with something else.

And, for the record, if anyone is tempted to tell me I don´t know what I´m doing and I don´t know how to use what I have ... Sxxx you!


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 24, 2015)

Eldar said:


> The points from Neutral are good points. I find it absolutely amazing and difficult to understand, how anyone can defend someone for NOT doing anything and claim that everyone being unhappy with Canon´s (apparent) roadmap are incompetent extremes. I my eyes you look stupid!
> 
> Every time anyone criticise Canon´s lack of will or ability to deliver sensor performance to compete with the (as of lately) others, a fair number of CR members rush to their defence stating that those who want what the Sony, Nikon, Pentax, Phase One, Hasselblad, Leica ... (you name them) can get from their sensors, does´t know what they´re talking about. The bashing of jrista´s fairly educated posts are good examples.
> 
> ...


If Sony does make a global shutter that allows crazy sync speeds, I'd probably sell my hassy. I could use all my canon glass, gain the one advantage that pushed me to MF, plus IBIS and 50mp? I'd wait on that 645z just a bit longer as the A7Rii could be very interesting.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 24, 2015)

Eldar said:


> I find it absolutely amazing and difficult to understand, how anyone can defend someone for NOT doing anything and claim that everyone being unhappy with Canon´s (apparent) roadmap are incompetent extremes.



Sorry, but you're completely missing (or else misrepresenting) the point. Who is defending Canon for "NOT doing anything" here? It seems to me that the only people accusing Canon of not doing anything are those unhappy that Canon is not doing the ONE thing that THEY want, namely delivering more low ISO DR (or shadow lifting latitude, if you prefer). Not doing anything? Who else makes a 50 MP FF dSLR with a very comprehensive complement of compatible lenses? Who has a FF rectilinear zoom starting at 11mm, by which you are tempted? I could go on, but you're equally familiar with the lineup. It's manifestly evident that Canon is doing SOMEthing, and equally obvious that they cannot do EVERYthing, particularly given the overall state of the dSLR market. 



Eldar said:


> The only way we can make a difference is if we as a joint force push Canon to come up with what we want



What is it that 'we' want? That can only be a viable strategy if a 'we' with the same want represents a big enough fraction of Canon's user base (current and potential). As I've pointed out before, Canon has been behind in low ISO DR for ~6 years, meaning multiple product development cycles. If their market research showed that particular feature to be something likely to have a significant impact on sales (i.e., a positive ROI), why would they not have addressed it? I'd argue that's because the 'we' to which you refer, in the case of those wanting more low ISO DR, simply doesn't represent a big enough group. Obviously, the 'we' wanting more MP was sufficiently numerous for Canon to devote R&D resources to address their want, and thus they delivered the world's highest resolution FF dSLR.


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 24, 2015)

Eldar said:


> The only way we can make a difference is if we as a joint force push Canon to come up with what we want. I, for one, was so disappointed with the 5DS/5DSR specs, that I have decided not to buy that camera and I will not buy the 11-24mm either, even though it is a very tempting lens. And I will not buy the new 100-400mm and I may not buy another Canon lens again, unless I can get sensor performance that match what the others have. I have stopped recommending Canon to those who come for advice. A drop in Canon´s ocean, but maybe I´m not the only drop. I have a negotiated price for a Pentax 645z package, but I hesitate, because I do not wish to drag two systems around. But if the 1DX-II does not meet my expectations, I will sell every bit of Canon gear I have and start all over with something else.



Wait till the Pentax FF is announced at the end of this year  Actually in all seriousness I think that if you're so disappointed with the 5Ds specs you'd be even more so with the Pentax FF. 

I'm surprised that you're adopting such an intransigent position on the 5Ds. Like yourself I'm disappointed that this camera doesn't use an interchangeable screen, but then I'm prepared to be more phylosophical over it; how many landscape photographers want ultra shallow depth of field, and for studio work you have an excellent AF system that acts as a focus confirmation with manual lenses. And then of course there is always live view. 

I'm really perplexed as to what more a camera generating such huge file sizes should be expected to do that isn't already satisfying the vast majority of potential customers, apart from the dreaded DR, which as sales ( of other models) suggests it's not a big issue for most. I've seen some of the excellent images you've posted on CR and I fail to see where you yourself have been compromised by lack of EV range or noise etc. 

I don't know if you ever used film MF, but my advice is to be cautious; even in the film days when MF offered highly significant IQ improvements over 35mm the inflexibility of the cameras meant that they inevitably gave way the 35 mil much of the time, and of course in this digital age you're actually pushed to see the difference in normal output size, likely as not.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 24, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > The only way we can make a difference is if we as a joint force push Canon to come up with what we want. I, for one, was so disappointed with the 5DS/5DSR specs, that I have decided not to buy that camera and I will not buy the 11-24mm either, even though it is a very tempting lens. And I will not buy the new 100-400mm and I may not buy another Canon lens again, unless I can get sensor performance that match what the others have. I have stopped recommending Canon to those who come for advice. A drop in Canon´s ocean, but maybe I´m not the only drop. I have a negotiated price for a Pentax 645z package, but I hesitate, because I do not wish to drag two systems around. But if the 1DX-II does not meet my expectations, I will sell every bit of Canon gear I have and start all over with something else.
> ...



Oh, that made me think of Galen Rowell.


----------



## Eldar (Mar 24, 2015)

We all have choices. One choice could be to stay with what we have and just learn how to get maximum performance from that (and close Canon Rumors in the process). The other is to always try to push the envelope. I agree Sporgon, I do produce some images now and then, which I am happy with. But, unfortunately, I´m a very competitive person. Within photography I primarily compete with myself though. I strive to see if I can push the quality of what I make just a little further. When my friend, with the D810 and the same Zeiss lineup as I have, and I go on a hike together and shoot pretty much the same stuff and we review our images afterwards. It becomes very simple. I want the same low ISO performance from my sensor as he gets from his.

It may be that I am too harsh on the 5DS/5DSR, since I have not tried it myself and not even seen a proper review yet. But so far it seems I am getting lots of resolution and the rest is more or less same same. Resolution was fifth on my priority list. Canon did what they could, which is to produce a larger sensor within an old proven technology. If they had been able to produce a D810 basher, I´m sure they would. They have made a major PR jippo out of being first past 50MP and I am sure they´ll succeed. But I, being just a drop in the ocean, am not onboard.

And neuro, I don´t believe for a second that you would disapprove of having more DR and improved noise performance. We all want improvements, That is the WE that should be vocal and tell Canon to fix it for us.


----------



## NancyP (Mar 24, 2015)

What! 5Dsx cameras don't have interchangeable screens? To me that is a no-brainer on any full frame DSLR. The lowly 6D has interchangeable screens, which is good, because I like to use fast MF lenses.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 24, 2015)

NancyP said:


> What! 5Dsx cameras don't have interchangeable screens? To me that is a no-brainer on any full frame DSLR. The lowly 6D has interchangeable screens, which is good, because I like to use fast MF lenses.



Is _that_ why nobody bought the 5DIII?


----------



## quod (Mar 25, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sorry, but you're completely missing (or else misrepresenting) the point. Who is defending Canon for "NOT doing anything" here?... Not doing anything? Who else makes a 50 MP FF dSLR with a very comprehensive complement of compatible lenses?... It's manifestly evident that Canon is doing SOMEthing, and equally obvious that they cannot do EVERYthing, particularly given the overall state of the dSLR market.


Since you are being your usual argumentative self, let's cut through your parsing of other people's words, shall we? If it isn't evident, YOU are defending Canon for "NOT doing anything" in the minds of some on this forum, myself included, regarding sensor performance. How do you defend Canon with your usual rigorous fanaticism? You point out that Canon delivers a 50 MP FF dSLR with a "very comprehensive complement of compatible lenses." Although Canon is the only company that has announced a 50 MP FF sensor so far, there is also a credible rumor that Sony will deliver a 50 MP FF sensor, and if the past is any indication of the future, Sony's sensor will be superior to Canon's in ways that matter to many people on this forum, perhaps with the exception of you. Such rarified air that you breathe! Ah, yes, but then there is the plethora of lenses. In your argumentation, you failed to mention Canon's "very comprehensive complement of _native_ compatible lenses." Well, just in case you haven't heard, you can shoot Canon lenses, Nikon lenses, Leica lenses, and other lenses on Sony's mirrorless FF cameras. It is "manifestly evident" to many, including myself, that "Canon is doing SOMEthing" not to our liking. It is "equally obvious that they cannot do EVERYthing" such as develop a sensor that competes with Sony in ways that matter to some of us, but CLEARLY not you. :



neuroanatomist said:


> As I've pointed out before, Canon has been behind in low ISO DR for ~6 years, meaning multiple product development cycles.


And we are so dearly grateful for your sacrifice! You are in the medical field and you are an expert on sensor development. You have such a bevy of skills! 



neuroanatomist said:


> If their market research showed that particular feature to be something likely to have a significant impact on sales (i.e., a positive ROI), why would they not have addressed it?


You are being argumentative, yet again, and now you are opining on product marketing. It's amazing the skills that you feel that you have developed in your photography pursuits!  The flipside to that argument is why have other companies delivered on dynamic range in their sensor development? Since you are the product marketing genius, perhaps you can inspire us with your dazzling intellect on the matter.



neuroanatomist said:


> I'd argue that's because the 'we' to which you refer, in the case of those wanting more low ISO DR, simply doesn't represent a big enough group. Obviously, the 'we' wanting more MP was sufficiently numerous for Canon to devote R&D resources to address their want, and thus they delivered the world's highest resolution FF dSLR.


Well, the Sony rumor also includes the boast that the Sony sensor will be much better than Canon's 50 MP FF sensor. Presumably they are relying on the 7D2 performance to assert such a claim. If they deliver on the claim, obviously "the 'we' wanting more MP [and DR] was sufficiently numerous for [Sony] to devote R&D resources to address their want, and thus they delivered the world's highest resolution FF dSLR [with spectacular DR]." I could not have said it better! :


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 25, 2015)

quod said:


> It is "equally obvious that they cannot do EVERYthing" such as develop a sensor that competes with Sony in ways that matter to some of us, but CLEARLY not you.



Where is your evidence that Canon _cannot_ develop a sensor with relatively greater low ISO DR? I trust you realize that cannot and chooses not to are two very different things.




quod said:


> The flipside to that argument is why have other companies delivered on dynamic range in their sensor development?



Have those other companies surpassed Canon in dSLR market share? If not, how important has 'delivering on DR' been to them? 




quod said:


> Well, the Sony rumor also includes the boast that the Sony sensor will be much better than Canon's 50 MP FF sensor.



Where are the samples from the preproduction camera? What's the release date? Do you often boast about images you have captured with a rumor? :


----------



## sanj (Mar 25, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> quod said:
> 
> 
> > It is "equally obvious that they cannot do EVERYthing" such as develop a sensor that competes with Sony in ways that matter to some of us, but CLEARLY not you.
> ...



You seriously think that them improving technology for betterment of photography and ease of photography is a bad thing? Is it all only about sales for you? I find this mentality so regressive.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 25, 2015)

sanj said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > quod said:
> ...



No, that isn't what he is saying at all. What he is saying is some amongst us consider DR as this massive imperative, Canon clearly don't and they have the market research and sales to confirm they have been better putting that R&D budget into new lenses and a choice of new high MP bodies with the same DR.

The reference to sales is merely conclusive evidence that those that consider DR imperative are in the vast minority. Canon have done the bean counting and they think the cost return is going to be better with the same DR sensors and more MP and a wonderful selection of new lenses across the board in value and capabilities.


----------



## Eldar (Mar 25, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> NancyP said:
> 
> 
> > What! 5Dsx cameras don't have interchangeable screens? To me that is a no-brainer on any full frame DSLR. The lowly 6D has interchangeable screens, which is good, because I like to use fast MF lenses.
> ...


I dis not even check, because the thought of not having it never crossed my mind. As Nancy says, it's a no-brainer ...


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 25, 2015)

Eldar said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > NancyP said:
> ...



It's a no brainier for the likes of _us_, I agree. But is it for the bigger picture ? I guess time will tell: if enough people have complained about it maybe Canon will revert back to it for the 5DIV. Apart from anything else it's much easier to clean !


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 25, 2015)

sanj said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Have those other companies surpassed Canon in dSLR market share? If not, how important has 'delivering on DR' been to them?
> ...



Good job shooting the messenger. A regressive mentality is ignoring basic facts of reality. Canon, Sony, Nikon, these are _businesses_, not philanthropic organizations. Is anyone really so naïve as to think they make R&D investmentment decisions for the 'betterment of photography' or to help photographers? Grow up, Pollyanna. They do it for *profit*. Do you seriously think they sponsor sporting events because they just really love football and baseball? : 

Personally, I don't care how many cameras Canon or Sony sell. But you can bet your ass that Canon and Sony care. If you want to understand a decision, the best place to start is the motivation of the decision makers. So...why hasn't Canon expended resources to improve low ISO DR? Because they want photographers to suffer? : Most likely because their research has shown it won't significantly help them sell more cameras. Why has Sony expended resources to do so? Most likely because they think it _will_ help them sell more cameras...perhaps precisely because Canon has chosen not to invest in that area.


----------



## fragilesi (Mar 25, 2015)

I've got to stick up for Neuro here . . . as ever on Internet fora opinions have become polarised to no-one's advantage.

But look back, it started with a cheap dig at Canon, Neuro responded in not unreasonable fashion but is still escalated somehow.

I think a reasonable summary is that Canon, Nikon and Sony produce DSLR systems. NONE OF THEM IS PERFECT and each has its strengths and weaknesses.

Cameras are used by different people in different ways so it's damn obvious that people will be drawn to the system that best suits them. AND there will ALWAYS be things about the other systems that look more attractive - whether they actually are is another matter of course but the differences will always be there. Sorry, that's just life.

So Eldar saying that we should all group together because they aren't listening to "us" doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Canon DID listen to me, they are producing what I want. Sure an extra couple of stops of low ISO DR would be nice as well and I don't think anyone is denying that but AF for example is a lot higher on my list. It really is. Anti flicker, I sooooo wish I could afford to upgrade for that, it would do a lot more for me.

No one system is going to have it all. Sony invested in sensor tech, prioritised it. Canon recently went for High MP bodies, anti-flicker, a fantastic set of lenses and so on. There is only so much R&D budget.

It's that simple.


----------



## Eldar (Mar 25, 2015)

There are lots of functionality in a camera. But the value of that functionality varies from photographer to photographer, depending on what you are shooting. But the core of any camera is what you are able to record from the sensor. Colour, contrast, resolution, dynamic range, noise, banding ... and all the rest of it. 

When we are discussing personal preferences, it may be ergonomics, AF system, fps, weight, size, menu systems, customisability, (anti flickr mode) etc. etc. But at the core of all cameras are still the qualities listed above, colour, contrast, resolution, dynamic range, noise, banding ... and all the rest of it. 

So I fully agree that there are major differences between the available cameras out there, when it comes to user-friendliness, flexibility, speed, AF-systems and modes etc. And we all have our preferences. But, even with the differences between action photographers and landscape photographers in mind, every single photographer will benefit from the best possible color , contrast, resolution, dynamic range, noise, banding ... and all the rest of it. Yes, to produce a best in class high ISO camera, you must compromise, compared to a best in class low ISO camera. But as good as possible color , contrast, resolution, dynamic range, noise, banding ... and all the rest of it, will benefit any photographer, whatever niche he or she is in. So those of us on this forum wanting improved DR and noise performance from Canon sensors are only saying what everyone should be saying. We are no minority. This WE should include every single one of you. Some may say it is very important, some may say it is not. But everyone would benefit from it.

Ask yourself; If you could choose between two equal cameras with 5DIII ergonomics. One had 36MP resolution, 14,8 stop DR and clean shadows. The other had 50MP, 12 stop DR and 5DIII shadow noise? It would take me less than a second to decide.

A lot of us are still using Canon cameras, because we have a fortune locked up in Canon and Canon compatible lenses. If I could have used them on a D810, I would have had one a long time ago. Quite a few has added a Sony to get access to that sensor. I have not, because I hated pretty much everything about that body, except the sensor. So to explain the wisdom of Canon´s strategy by referring to sales figures, does not work with me. There is either an arrogance to how they behave or it is a lack of capability. Both are bad. The 5DS is in my view a camera that should never have been in Canon´s roadmap (unless it proves to be a lot more potent than the initial information indicates). But I suspect that was what they were capable of.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 25, 2015)

That presupposes that the sensor input can be equalised for all systems, and that is not the case. What if I need a 17TS-E, or a 200-400 with built in TC, or a 65MP-E etc etc? At what point does one system advantage overcome a system disadvantage?

Also, the assumption is that only the very best sensors output is ever good enough, that also is not true. I print regularly from Sony, Nikon, and Canon files, there is no effective difference to the output, certainly if you see a print from any of them nobody can say _'ah that one was shot with X brand'_.

"The best" is only ever going to be the best in a specific situation. Cerainly where I do a ot of shooting, higher end real estate interiors, the 17TS-E functionality vastly outweighs the lower performing DR. Besides, the manufacturers give us the choice, I can have 17TS-E with low (native) DR, or a D810 and 14-24 with more DR, for my uses the former returns far higher quality images.


----------



## Eldar (Mar 25, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> That presupposes that the sensor input can be equalised for all systems, and that is not the case. What if I need a 17TS-E, or a 200-400 with built in TC, or a 65MP-E etc etc? At what point does one system advantage overcome a system disadvantage?
> 
> Also, the assumption is that only the very best sensors output is ever good enough, that also is not true. I print regularly from Sony, Nikon, and Canon files, there is no effective difference to the output, certainly if you see a print from any of them nobody can say _'ah that one was shot with X brand'_.
> 
> "The best" is only ever going to be the best in a specific situation. Cerainly where I do a ot of shooting, higher end real estate interiors, the 17TS-E functionality vastly outweighs the lower performing DR. Besides, the manufacturers give us the choice, I can have 17TS-E with low (native) DR, or a D810 and 14-24 with more DR, for my uses the former returns far higher quality images.


That is not the point. If you could hook up your 17mm TS-E to a camera with improved noise performance and 14.8 stop DR or the same body with 12 stop DR and more noise. Which one would you choose?

The argument is not whether we want a D810 or a 5DIV and use different lens alternatives for each of them. The argument is whether we want Canon to deliver more DR and improved noise performance, with everything else being same same. I don´t expect to have One body that can do everything. But I want options.


----------



## Neutral (Mar 25, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> <...>
> As I've pointed out before, Canon has been behind in low ISO DR for ~6 years, meaning multiple product development cycles. * If their market research showed that particular feature to be something likely to have a significant impact on sales (i.e., a positive ROI), why would they not have addressed it?* I'd argue that's because the 'we' to which you refer, in the case of those wanting more low ISO DR, simply doesn't represent a big enough group. Obviously, the 'we' wanting more MP was sufficiently numerous for Canon to devote R&D resources to address their want, and thus they delivered the world's highest resolution FF dSLR.



Who knows, maybe they would be willing to address that as well to make 5Ds more competitive but they just cannot do that now. I do not think they are lagging behind in sensor technology (not only for DR but also for many other things) only because their market research team tells them that these improvements are required only for minority of their users and not for the rest of them.
*I suspect there are some more fundamental reasons for this rather than only market research advice.* 

One of the Canon officials told in recent interview that they did not learn anything new from Sony recent developments. This possibly mean that they know how to do better sensors and could design such ones (as most things how to do that are well known) but they cannot produce them using their manufacturing facilities.
There were recently some discussions about sensor design process vs. fabrication process and which is more important for sensor quality. In fact both are equally important. Company might design some fantastic things but they just might not be able to manufacture them. There are many theoretical things well known for many decades but only now, with latest technologies, it is possible to implement them. 
Canon was also making statements earlier that they could use the best sensors from other manufactures for their cameras (if those sensors would be better than Canon) but they do not do that for high-end cameras. 
For some not known to us reason they do not want to design sensor to be produced on other semiconductor companies (e.g. Samsung, Aptina, Sony etc.) manufacturing facilities with better manufacturing/technological processes allowing for better and more complicated sensor design which are not possible to implement using Canon current manufacturing processes. 
Canon just sticks to their own processes, which limit their designs to what they can do now. 
In general, any design is done taking into account what actually could be manufactured and at which cost/budget. Moreover, changing/upgrading manufacturing processes in semiconductor industry requires huge investments. 
So for 5DS Canon probably has some balanced tradeoff between all their limitations to maximize their profit and minimize required investments which actually could not be considered as bad thing in general.
There were also rumors/speculations about Canon negotiations with Sony for using Sony new sensor in 5DS. Who knows maybe that was something of this kind in reality but nothing came out as Sony possibly want to eat significant part of Canon share in high-end FF cameras market with upcoming 50mpx A9 and updated A7m2 line. Who knows if this true or not. We can only speculate about that. However, fact is that if Canon would put better sensor in 5DS then it would be much more competitive to the all-possible rivals (Pentax 645Z and coming Sony A9). 
I suspect that many on this forum would not be considering Sony A7Rm2 or coming this year 50mpx A9 as a second body to existing Canon body or even as replacement if 5DS sensor tech would be up to date and up to performance to the rivals.
I am sure 5DS will have some success but competition is going to be very tight.

As for me, I have A7R as a complementary body to my 1DX for almost a year now.
I was tired to wait until Canon high res camera would come up and now 5DS is too late and sensor tech is outdated for me. 
So I use A7R with Canon 17TSE and Canon EF 24-70 F/2.8L USM II and I am happy with that combos. These two Canon lenses work perfectly well on A7R and resolve to every pixel on 36mpx sensor even when shooting handheld. In addition, as I mentioned earlier 17TSE is much more convenient to use on A7 bodies than on Canon body and resulting image IQ is much better to my eyes. And this combo with 17TSE is very light as well.
In fact, I am glad that Canon was late with high-res body and forced me to try Sony A7R and see the difference. 
Recently added A7S to my kit and since then I enjoy it very much. Tested recently EF85 f/1.2L USM II wide open on A7S for extremely low light conditions (almost full darkness) and this combo works together perfectly well. For A7R EF85 was not good enough wide open. Now waiting when I can get new Zeiss 35 f1.4 for Sony e-mount to use it with both A7S and A7R.
In general, I am indifferent to any brand and prefer to use what is better and more convenient for me for specific conditions.
For the time being, Sony does not have anything to compete with 1DX for sports/action/events, birds in flight etc. when instant and precise autofocus is required (especially combined with long telephoto lenses) but who knows what will be in some future from now.
Therefore, I possibly will be upgrading my 1DX to 1DXm2 when it comes if satisfied with improvements (just be half stop better high ISO performance than current A7S plus ability to focus like a7S almost in full darkness would be OK for me )


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 25, 2015)

Eldar said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > That presupposes that the sensor input can be equalised for all systems, and that is not the case. What if I need a 17TS-E, or a 200-400 with built in TC, or a 65MP-E etc etc? At what point does one system advantage overcome a system disadvantage?
> ...



Of course it is the point. Canon made a conscious decision to spend their R&D money and invest a lot in the tooling to give us the 17TS-E (amongst other amazing lens choices), not improved DR, that is the choice. Obviously if Canon made a sensor with more DR I'd happily use it, but the comparative lack of it does not make as much of an impact on the shot as Nikon not making a 17TS-E, or MP-E65, or 11-24 etc etc.

Nikon/Canon/Sony have limited R&D budgets and investing in any product is expensive. Sony reap the rewards of sensor development far outside their own, small, camera division so to them it makes far more sense investing in that aspect of their business, just look at their lens selection and price. Canon are much more focused on their DSLR's and feel their investment budgets are better spent developing new lenses to set their system apart from others. Nikon are a joke, they don't do either, they buy sensors from Sony and their lens selection is comparatively much weaker, the demise of Nikon since I was starting out where bought Canon because I couldn't afford Nikon (and the AE-1 was shutter priority) is a sad long and painful demise. They have clearly lost their way and need strong management.


----------



## Eldar (Mar 25, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


Sorry Private, I don´t buy that. I don´t claim to know Canon´s organization, or how they manage their R&D budgets. But I am sure that it does not work as you describe it. The R&D organization for lenses are clearly not the same organization that develop sensor technology. You would probably have to go very high in the Canon organization before you found someone responsible for both.

Both of these organization needs annual funding, unless they are sourced from a third party supplier, which I doubt. I would be willing to bet that these organisations are fairly stable from one year to another. That also means that Canon, from a corporate perspective, must fund both fairly stable from one year to the next. The fact is, the lens engineers have produced some stunning lenses within their budgets, the 17 TS-E being one of them and they manage to keep Canon on top of the lens heap. But the sensor engineers, including their production colleagues have done a lot less to justify their bonuses (if they had any) and they are not keeping up with the competition.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 25, 2015)

Whether you buy it, my rationalisation, or not, is irrelevant, that is the choice we have. 

I don't believe for one instant Canon are not capable of producing sensors with more DR, they choose not to as a business decision, I am very happy with the product choices they do give us over the competition, indeed I feel recently they have hammered home their position and are leaps and bounds above all other camera system manufacturers at this point.

The plus point feature list for the Canon system is a genuine 20+ items long, the negative list numbers just 1, and that 1 doesn't impact my work to any tangible degree. If none of those 20+ leading items are important for your shooting and the negative 1 is then Nikon or Sony etc makes much more sense, sell the Canon stuff and be happy, they are just cameras after all.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 25, 2015)

Eldar said:


> Ask yourself; If you could choose between two equal cameras with 5DIII ergonomics. One had 36MP resolution, 14,8 stop DR and clean shadows. The other had 50MP, 12 stop DR and 5DIII shadow noise? It would take me less than a second to decide.



I'm sure many people could decide just as quickly - but that doesn't mean the majority would make the same choice as you. 




Eldar said:


> The argument is whether we want Canon to deliver more DR and improved noise performance, with everything else being same same.



Shall we also argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Of course we want more DR...but we also want more resolution...more fps...more AF points...more lenses to choose from...but here in the real world where we don't see angels dancing on pinheads, *everything else is not and cannot be the same*. Resources are finite, there's always a trade off. Clearly you understand this, based on your question above. Canon is betting that more people would choose 50 MP 12-stops DR over 36 MP 14-stops DR (it's only 14.8-stops if you believe downsampling can create data not captured by the 14-bit ADC).


----------



## Neutral (Mar 25, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Of course it is the point. *Canon made a conscious decision to spend their R&D money and invest a lot in the tooling to give us the 17TS-E (amongst other amazing lens choices), not improved DR, that is the choice*. Obviously if Canon made a sensor with more DR I'd happily use it, but the comparative lack of it does not make as much of an impact on the shot as Nikon not making a 17TS-E, or MP-E65, or 11-24 etc etc.
> <..>




17TSE is amazing Canon lens designed for use on Canon bodies but nothing prevents to use it on Sony A7R.
1. Just consider A7R (or coming A9) as compact digital back for huge variety of lenses from ANY manufacture (including Canon 17TSE)
2. IBIS on A7Rm2 and coming A9 will instantly provide IS to any non IS lenses (including best ones from Canon - e.g. 24TSE or new EF11-24) and this alone would give a lot of possibilities and additional flexibility. 
I see also a lot of potential for IBIS and there could be some very useful applications for IBIS in addition to just only image stabilization. For example, A7Rm2 could have 90mp resolution mode using pixel shifting – similar to implementation on the latest Olympus OM-D E-M5 II. On coming Sony A9 this IBIS application could give 125mpx resolution and at the same time absolutely eliminating moiré. 
This is just amazing possibility, hope Sony would implement that in coming A9 and SW upgrades to a7Rm2 if not implemented at the very beginning.
What is more important -combination of features 1&2 above together is TOTALLY impossible with Canon bodies.

As I mentioned in my resent post I use A7R with Canon 17TSE for almost a year from now and this combo works perfectly well. 
Moreover, I bought A7R specially to be used as compact digital back for Canon 17TSE which I got since it became available and I was never disappointed with that. 
This combo is very light and easy to use handheld.
17TSE resolves to every pixel on A7R on 36mpx sensor even when shooting handheld though getting a bit softer to the frame edges.
Most important 17TSE is much more convenient and easy to use on A7R than on Canon body.
If I could use best lenses from Canon combined with best sensor from Sony then nothing could prevent me from doing that. 
As I mentioned in another post concept of SYSTEM does not mean that all system parts should be from the same vendor or manufacture. SYSTEM parts could be from different vendors/manufactures to be able to get best possible system performance for specific needs


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 25, 2015)

Neutral said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Of course it is the point. *Canon made a conscious decision to spend their R&D money and invest a lot in the tooling to give us the 17TS-E (amongst other amazing lens choices), not improved DR, that is the choice*. Obviously if Canon made a sensor with more DR I'd happily use it, but the comparative lack of it does not make as much of an impact on the shot as Nikon not making a 17TS-E, or MP-E65, or 11-24 etc etc.
> ...



If I wanted a mixed system then maybe I would think about a Sony, but the results I get do not demand that I consider it. I hate mixed systems too, batteries, chargers, different cards, lens functionality changes, menus, custom settings, blah, you can keep it for. I am happy with the compromise Canon afford me, very happy. I can understand those that are not, I don't understand why they keep demanding Canon must do something about it, clearly, if we take success as a measure of needing to change, they do not.


----------



## CaiLeDao (Mar 25, 2015)

Good debate with some passion.

Canon still do make the best sensors, may not be the most popular statement based on the thread but it is a fact. The measured sensor performance of Canon Sensors is better than Sony, Where canon go wrong is the electronics and amplification off the sensor, they have longer signal paths than Sony (on chip) to Canon who have off chip. The day Canon announce a On Sensor design for their Pre amp processing I will rejoice. As the camera will then compete better and probably out perform a Sony based system.

I bought an A7R, as did a lot of people in the UK, It was the most returned camera on the UK market last summer. For me it was about not being able to use lenses above 100mm without shake, that was a deal breaker as I wanted to shoot gigapans. I did't really see any benefit in the resolution over a 5dmark3 as the focus and shake where so bad. The A7R mark 2 sounds much better. I still won't get one as the eco system for remote shutters and third party bits an bobs is a lot less mature and ended up researching how to build one myself. So I remain compromised by the limited DR of Canon, when in reality I can use a lot less of it's DR either on Screen or even worse, print. so are we really having a semantic argument about the tone rendering abilities of different manufacturers.


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 25, 2015)

You can be sure of one thing, Sony needs more R&D money put into lenses. :/


----------



## Eldar (Mar 25, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Ask yourself; If you could choose between two equal cameras with 5DIII ergonomics. One had 36MP resolution, 14,8 stop DR and clean shadows. The other had 50MP, 12 stop DR and 5DIII shadow noise? It would take me less than a second to decide.
> ...


Canon is in a better position than any of the other camera and/or lens producers. They are bigger, more profitable and they have a much larger market share. Any new product they launch will address a large population of existing customers. Pretty low risk. Whereas, as an example, Sony need(ed) to convince people to jump ship first. If we were asking for ground breaking research, never before seen by man, I may agree with your budget argument. But that is not the case. (All) The other sensor producers (including the surrounding electronics) has proven they can deliver what we ask Canon to deliver, with less money to spend.

I run an IT company. We have systems operating in more than 120 countries around the world and competition is fairly stiff. Based on the position we have in the market we operate, there is absolutely no excuse for us not to deliver as good or better products, systems and services than the competition. Especially on those areas where the competition has shown that it can be done. Why should Canon´s position be different? Why do we make excuses for their lack of ability to deliver? Nobody in this business is better positioned than them.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 25, 2015)

Eldar said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



Your perception is that Canon are not, cannot, or don't want 'to deliver'. My perception is that Canon are delivering, in droves, so much high quality gear I can't actually keep up with what I want to take a keen interest in!

It is just a difference in perception, or priorities, I have wanted high quality ultrawides from Canon for a long time, and it is an area Canon could very legitimately be said to be lacking, now I am drowning in world class options. The 17 TS-E kept me on Canon, the 16-35 f4IS, the 11-24 the 24TS-E II and the 35 f2 IS will keep me here for the end of my career.

I don't take pictures with sensors alone, I need lenses to do it, the combination of Canon lenses (much better than the competition) and the sensors (not as good as the competition at lower iso's) gives me the results I need better than the competition. If that equation doesn't work for you just get the tool that does. But to say Canon are not innovating or coming out with new and incredible equipment is ridiculous, that those innovations might not align with your particular needs is a completely different matter.


----------



## Eldar (Mar 25, 2015)

Private, I do 't disagree on the lenses and I don't disagree on the system approach. If Canon had just done what they should on the sensor side, they would leave the others in the dust.


----------



## Stu_bert (Mar 25, 2015)

Here's what I don't get.... why post such stuff ?

Surely if you want to really communicate with Canon to influence their decisions you have 2 options.

Swap vendors or try to communicate directly with Canon. As an individual, I would guess you don't stand much chance. If however there are enough, then you stand a better chance. Most companies who have something to sell, be that a product or a service need feedback, from many sources, including their customers.

If the sensor "limitations" are really that much of an issue, then surely people should get a petition together and send it to Canon. Add your CPS ID so they can see what you own, and see if that will influence.

I get the point to discuss, I get frustration and the need to vent....

But ultimately, if you don't talk to Canon, I dont see anything changing. If sufficient people, from Pro's through to Amateurs with significant investment lobby Canon, then maybe it will change.

Right now, either Canon has not had that feedback, does not feel the feedback is of sufficient volume to worry about, cannot address that cost-effectively, or cannot address that based on patents....

The average Poll on Canon Rumors seems to get anything from a 50 to a few hundred responses. I would suggest to get Canon's attention, you need the tens of thousands. I'd be interested to know how many people would support such a petition... "Canon, improve this or we're leaving you"....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 25, 2015)

Eldar said:


> Canon is in a better position than any of the other camera and/or lens producers. They are bigger, more profitable and they have a much larger market share. Any new product they launch will address a large population of existing customers. Pretty low risk. Whereas, as an example, Sony need(ed) to convince people to jump ship first. If we were asking for ground breaking research, never before seen by man, I may agree with your budget argument. But that is not the case. (All) The other sensor producers (including the surrounding electronics) has proven they can deliver what we ask Canon to deliver, with less money to spend.
> 
> I run an IT company. We have systems operating in more than 120 countries around the world and competition is fairly stiff. Based on the position we have in the market we operate, there is absolutely no excuse for us not to deliver as good or better products, systems and services than the competition. Especially on those areas where the competition has shown that it can be done. Why should Canon´s position be different? Why do we make excuses for their lack of ability to deliver? Nobody in this business is better positioned than them.



The budget argument is logical and trumps other reasons. If, in your opinion, it was less profitable in both short and long term for your IT company to deliver 'as good or better' than the competition and more profitable to not do so, which would you choose? The latter would be more logical. As a public company in Japan, the USA, and many other jurisdictions if you chose the former you'd be engaging in illegal actions. 

Moreover, you're drastically oversimplifying the issue. When you state, "...there is absolutely no excuse for us not to deliver as good or better products, systems and services than the competition," are you suggesting that every single one of your products, systems and services is equal or superior to your competition on *every single component, parameter, and metric*? With respect, I just don't believe that. Canon is behind in a few areas, equal in many, superior in many. That's entirely consistent with their market-leading status.


----------



## RGF (Mar 26, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Canon is in a better position than any of the other camera and/or lens producers. They are bigger, more profitable and they have a much larger market share. Any new product they launch will address a large population of existing customers. Pretty low risk. Whereas, as an example, Sony need(ed) to convince people to jump ship first. If we were asking for ground breaking research, never before seen by man, I may agree with your budget argument. But that is not the case. (All) The other sensor producers (including the surrounding electronics) has proven they can deliver what we ask Canon to deliver, with less money to spend.
> ...



It would be very simple for Canon (or any company) to create the argument that they are are head or behind in any area. It is all how you spin the numbers and decide what is important. Number are the metrics, not necessarily what is important.


----------



## Eldar (Mar 26, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Moreover, you're drastically oversimplifying the issue. When you state, "...there is absolutely no excuse for us not to deliver as good or better products, systems and services than the competition," are you suggesting that every single one of your products, systems and services is equal or superior to your competition on *every single component, parameter, and metric*? With respect, I just don't believe that. Canon is behind in a few areas, equal in many, superior in many. That's entirely consistent with their market-leading status.


No, I'm not saying in every and I don't ask that of Canon either. But in my company´s case it is based on professional customer´s written requirements and their established evaluation criteria. There are primary functions, secondary functions etc. Some are must, some are shall, some are nice to have. On the primary functions we have to be best in class. On the others we have to make sure the sum of our score is good enough.

In Canon´s case, being a photography tool supplier, the primary requirement is top IQ, including color, contrast, resolution, noise, dynamic range ... and all the rest of what constitutes IQ. Today they're not, primarily due to lack of dynamic range and poor noise performance. There can be no question that IQ is the primary feature of a camera system. Canon is scoring high on lenses, ergonomics and a lot of other areas, when looking at their total system. There is no disagreement on that. But their IQ suffer from not having equal sensor quality to the others, primarily dynamic range and noise. That´s the only point I am making and there is no reason to blow that argument out of proportions.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 26, 2015)

Eldar said:


> But being a photography tool supplier, they should make sure their cameras provided the best possible IQ, including DR and noise performance. Today they're not. IQ is the primary feature of a camera system. Other feature are like makeup compared to that.



Being an automobile supplier, Toyota should make sure their cars provide the best possible engine performance, including horsepower and torque. Today they're not. Engine performance is the primary feature of a car. Other feature are like makeup compared to that.

Well, now...that's a pretty silly argument, isn't it? :

Oh, and by the way if you're right then Canon and Nikon would have to put medium or even large format digital sensors into their dSLRs...after all, they should deliver the best possible IQ because that's the primary feature, right? Those puny 'full frame' sensors are like lipstick on pigs compared to that.


----------



## Snodge (Mar 26, 2015)

I can't help but wonder if a lot of folk are seeing the 5Ds and the 5Ds R as replacements to cameras in the existing line up of camera bodies from Canon, instead of seeing them as niche products. Looking at the the capabilities of these new bodies, it seems to me that they are specifically targeted at studio and landscape photographers, rather than being a bit more of a Jack of all trades that perhaps the 5D3 is.

To me it would seem almost comparable to a Leica user complaining that the Monochrom doesn't do colour.

As Canon already offer camera bodies aimed at astro photography, I can't help but wonder if going forward there will be other camera bodies aimed at specific shooting scenarios, with improvements over time gradually being incorporated into the Jack of all trades camera bodies that will also be released. After all, we've heard that the 5D4 is on the radar...


----------



## Eldar (Mar 26, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Oh, and by the way if you're right then Canon and Nikon would have to put medium or even large format digital sensors into their dSLRs...after all, they should deliver the best possible IQ because that's the primary feature, right? Those puny 'full frame' sensors are like lipstick on pigs compared to that.


John, I´m glad you are so happy with your gear. i hope Canon is aware of how lucky they are to have such an energetic defender of what they deliver. It might be that they would think some of your arguments are a bit on the far side, but any defence is better than no defence.

To me it is simple. I want the best possible IQ from my camera. I have the lenses I want (for now), I have the body ergonomics that I want, I have the AF system, fps and in camera functions that I need, but I don´t have the right sensor. That´s all.

I get bored when others derail these threads, so I´ll stop my contribution to it and let you continue with your rather derailed, but quite creative arguments.

Have a nice day!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 26, 2015)

Defending? No – explaining. I understand you basically want an Exmor-type sensor (sourced or internally developed) dropped into your Canon dSLRs with nothing else about them changed. You're not the only one. We all want things. But when, "I want Canon to...," becomes, "Canon should...," "Canon must...," or, "Canon will fail unless they...," people making those statements are often simply wrong...usually because of the mistaken assumption that their own wants/needs are those of the majority. 

Yes, I'm happy with my gear. Would I like more low ISO DR? Sure. Would 2-stops be enough? Almost never, because when 12-stops isn't sufficient (bald eagle in flight with sun on head feathers and shadow under wings, cathedral interiors with stained glass windows, etc.), 14-stops is also not sufficient. A 16-bit ADC with a sensor that used the entire range might be. 

People are welcome to dream about their fantasy gear, but in the real world dream cameras don't take very good pictures. People are also welcome to try and get reality changed to match their dreams, by agitating for Canon to produce what they want. However, continually (incessantly?) doing so here, on an Internet forum, is a bit like trying to teach that lipstick-wearing pig to sing – as Heinlein said (lipstick notwithstanding), it frustrates you and annoys the pig.


----------



## sanj (Mar 26, 2015)

Eldar said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, and by the way if you're right then Canon and Nikon would have to put medium or even large format digital sensors into their dSLRs...after all, they should deliver the best possible IQ because that's the primary feature, right? Those puny 'full frame' sensors are like lipstick on pigs compared to that.
> ...



Me too. I will also stop giving my juvenile comments soon to this thread as:
1. I am busy trying to grow up.
2. Trying to digest that Canon as a company is not interested in improving photography tools but just in making money.
3. Trying to figure out how a person who keeps chanting 'Canon sells most' mantra suddenly says that he does not care about sales. 

And yes, have a nice day.


----------



## sanj (Mar 26, 2015)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Defending? No – explaining. I understand you basically want an Exmor-type sensor (sourced or internally developed) dropped into your Canon dSLRs with nothing else about them changed. You're not the only one. We all want things. But when, "I want Canon to...," becomes, "Canon should...," "Canon must...," or, "Canon will fail unless they...," people making those statements are often simply wrong...usually because of the mistaken assumption that their own wants/needs are those of the majority.
> ...



No no no. All is great in fairyland. It's about the system. The system. The handhold able 600mm and some TS lenses. Why bother about sensor... actually why bother about anything except making money.


----------



## sanj (Mar 26, 2015)

To put things straight: I am very happy with my Canon gear BUT wish it to improve it's sensor tech so much that it beats the better sensors in market. I DO face issues with banding around sun when I try to darken it and DO find noise when I raise shadows. Many times I work in total uncontrolled, harsh light and I want the sensor to work with me, not against me. At these points 'the system' is worth nothing to me.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 26, 2015)

sanj said:


> Me too. I will also stop giving my juvenile comments soon to this thread as:
> 1. I am busy trying to grow up.
> 2. Trying to digest that Canon as a company is not interested in improving photography tools but just in making money.
> 3. Trying to figure out how a person who keeps chanting 'Canon sells most' mantra suddenly says that he does not care about sales.



1. Good luck with that. 
2. Is it really so hard to grasp that a corporation's primary goal is to make money? Sure, they care about improving photography tools, but really only insofar as that increases the 'P' and does not increase the 'L' in the PnL. 
3. Also not complex. The point of sales figures is that despite claims of doom for Canon if they don't do 'X' (where X is usually address someone's personal niche desire), Canon clearly has a track record of successfully meeting customer needs. They also meet most my personal needs (not all, but moreso than other systems), but that's independent of the number of cameras they sell. If you have trouble distinguishing the message from the messenger, see point #1.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 26, 2015)

sanj said:


> I am very happy with my Canon gear ... Many times I work in total uncontrolled, harsh light and I want the sensor to work with me, not against me. At these points 'the system' is worth nothing to me.



If I was using a system that "many times" was "worth nothing to me"...well, in fact it's moot – I wouldn't be doing that because it would be quite foolish. But if you are happy with your Canon gear despite what from your description is a major handicap for you in one specific aspect of performance, then I'd say it *is* about the system...or else you'd have switched.


----------



## bwana (Mar 27, 2015)

I've been a Canon fan-boy almost since they released their first DSLR but Canon didn't have what I wanted about a year ago. I bought elsewhere. All my Canon, Pentax, Minolta, M42, Tamron, Sigma & T2 lenses work nicely with the new bodies (now two). I'll probably be picking up my third camera from "elsewhere" in the next month or so.

Maybe Canon will catch up to my demands at some point? If they do, I may buy from them again...

Technology waits for no one!! And brand loyalty is even more fleeting.

bwa


----------



## fragilesi (Mar 27, 2015)

Eldar said:


> So those of us on this forum wanting improved DR and noise performance from Canon sensors are *only saying what everyone should be saying.* We are no minority. This WE should include every single one of you. Some may say it is very important, some may say it is not. But everyone would benefit from it.
> 
> A lot of us are still using Canon cameras, because we have a fortune locked up in Canon and Canon compatible lenses. If I could have used them on a D810, I would have had one a long time ago. Quite a few has added a Sony to get access to that sensor. I have not, because I hated pretty much everything about that body, except the sensor. So to explain the wisdom of Canon´s strategy by referring to sales figures, does not work with me. *There is either an arrogance to how they behave* or it is a lack of capability. Both are bad. The 5DS is in my view a camera that should never have been in Canon´s roadmap (unless it proves to be a lot more potent than the initial information indicates). But I suspect that was what they were capable of.



(Obviously the above quote has been trimmed by me and the highlighting is mine. I don't think it alters context)


Do you not feel uncomfortable calling Canon arrogant having only just told _everyone _ what they should be thinking?

We do agree, yes I'd like more DR please. But I say THANKYOU Canon for producing things that I want much more than that first. I'm sorry to deviate from what you're telling me to think, but they are giving me what I want.

Different priorities for different people.


----------



## fragilesi (Mar 27, 2015)

sanj said:


> Me too. I will also stop giving my juvenile comments soon to this thread as:
> 1. I am busy trying to grow up.
> 2. Trying to digest that Canon as a company is not interested in improving photography tools but just in making money.
> 3. Trying to figure out how a person who keeps chanting 'Canon sells most' mantra suddenly says that he does not care about sales.
> ...



Well you stuck at it for almost twenty minutes


----------



## lintoni (Mar 27, 2015)

Just when I thought that this thread had reached its nadir...


----------



## Khufu (Mar 28, 2015)

lintoni said:


> Just when I thought that this thread had reached its nadir...



We should ALWAYS aim lower in life to avoid disappointment!


----------



## lintoni (Mar 28, 2015)

Khufu said:


> lintoni said:
> 
> 
> > Just when I thought that this thread had reached its nadir...
> ...


I laughed!

Thank you.


----------

