# Interview: Masaya Maeda of Canon Japan



## xps (Mar 10, 2015)

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/5301008561/cp-2015-canon-interview-every-day-im-saying-speed-up

Interesting answers


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 10, 2015)

```
DPReview had a chance to interview Canon’s Managing Director and Chief Executive of Image Communication Products Operations, Masaya Maeda.</p>
<p>A couple of the answers below touch on constant conversations and criticisms of Canon. While they keep saying they’d use another manufacturers sensor if they deemed it better, they have yet to do so in any DSLR product. It’s good to see Canon acknowledge they move quite slowing, even for a giant multinational corporation. I think all of us would love to see some exciting innovations more often than every 3-4 years.</p>
<blockquote><p><strong>Hypothetically, if Sony made an APS-C or full-frame sensor that you considered to be the best possible sensor for a camera that you wanted to bring to market, would you use it?</strong></p>
<p>If another company made a sensor that we believed to be truly the best quality, we would not hesitate to use it.</p>
<p><strong>Quite often, one of the criticisms leveled at Canon is that the company is a little slow to produce innovation compared to competitors. There’s definitely a perception that Canon goes carefully, and slowly. Is this true? </strong></p>
<p>Personally, I think we’re slow as well. Every day I’m saying ‘speed up, make it faster!’. One of our themes now as a company is upon developing a new technology, to shorten the time between development and when that technology is introduced into a product. We need to shorten that time. That’s our goal.</p></blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.dpreview.com/articles/5301008561/cp-2015-canon-interview-every-day-im-saying-speed-up" target="_blank">Read the full interview at DPReview</a></p>
```


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 10, 2015)

Bigger companies definitely seem to get bogged down with many layers of very conservative managers, and are slow at adopting new technology. 

Top level managers do want things to happen quicker, but the devil is in the details. 

The flat out best manager I've worked for was Alan Mulally (Now Ford CEO). Alan approached the issue by assuming that everyone in the company knew best how their job could be improved from quality to inefficiencies. He saw his job as a facilitator to help them develop a plan to get it done as quickly as possible. It was a refreshing approach, and since most managers emulate their boss, the philosophy spreads quickly. Those few who did not buy into the philosophy got to retire with zero notice.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 10, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Bigger companies definitely seem to get bogged down with many layers of very conservative managers, and are slow at adopting new technology.
> 
> Top level managers do want things to happen quicker, but the devil is in the details.
> 
> The flat out best manager I've worked for was Alan Mulally (Now Ford CEO). Alan approached the issue by assuming that everyone in the company knew best how their job could be improved from quality to inefficiencies. He saw his job as a facilitator to help them develop a plan to get it done as quickly as possible. It was a refreshing approach, and since most managers emulate their boss, the philosophy spreads quickly. Those few who did not buy into the philosophy got to retire with zero notice.



I am one of the ultimate Ford fanboys and I love hearing about Mulally's management style. He did such brilliant work turning the Blue Oval around and giving it a new direction under One Ford. You can tell he streamlined every aspect of the company.

Thanks for sharing, and yes... Canon needs some of that.


----------



## Marauder (Mar 10, 2015)

Personally, I'm GLAD that Canon is sticking to making their own sensors. I hope they don't suddenly start worshipping at the altar of DXO Mark the way everyone else is. The supposed DR "issues" are very tiresome and I've yet to see an example that wasn't pushed to ridiculous levels to make the "point." Sure more low ISO DR might be nice--but it's never been the big "deal breaker" issue that Sony/Nikon fanboys want to make of it. _*Regardless*_ of whether the next Canon sensor is loved or loathed by DXO Mark, I won't ever see them as being the nonpareil arbiters of sensor quality.

Oh, and before someone slags me for saying this is in reference to a DPReview interview, rather than a DXO Mark one, thank you, of that I am *very* aware. Nonetheless, the notion that Canon is "so far behind Sony" springs from DXO Mark scores and is thereafter "used" by a variety of other review sites.


----------



## fish_shooter (Mar 10, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> While they keep saying they’d use another manufacturers sensor if they deemed it better, they have yet to do so in any DSLR product.



I seem to recall reading that the sensor in the original 1D was not made by Canon.


----------



## takesome1 (Mar 10, 2015)

Quote; "There's nothing in particular that we learned from Nikon or Sony,"

You can read it in his tone in the interview, there is no way they would ever use a Nikon or Sony sensor in a Canon camera.


----------



## fish_shooter (Mar 10, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> Quote; "There's nothing in particular that we learned from Nikon or Sony,"
> 
> You can read it in his tone in the interview, there is no way they would ever use a Nikon or Sony sensor in a Canon camera.



As well I seem to recall reading that Canon has used Sony sensors in their P&S cameras.


----------



## Lee Jay (Mar 11, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Bigger companies definitely seem to get bogged down with many layers of very conservative managers, and are slow at adopting new technology.
> ...



Wow...that's kind of whacked!

Of the six major car manufacturers whose cars I've owned and/or driven, Ford is a pretty distant 6th. All the ones I've owned were maintenance nightmares (went through eight times the cost of the extended warranty in warranty repairs on one, and five differentials in 40,000 miles on another) and all the new ones I've rented drove like a school bus with broken shocks.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 11, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Bigger companies definitely seem to get bogged down with many layers of very conservative managers, and are slow at adopting new technology.
> ...



Alan used to pull off his white shirt and tie, and put on a sweater or ordinary shirt, and go into a tavern like the Whistle Stop Tavern in Renton after work. It would be filled with factory workers, and he would have a beer with them and listen to them tell what was wrong about their jobs. He was not in a position at the time to change anything major, but he did not forget that these guys knew how to do the job right and for a lot less cost. When he moved to a upper management position, he stepped into the middle of a labor dispute, and knocked a few HR heads together and settled the strike. IMHO, the HR managers were embarrassed by someone using common sense, and this led to his eventually being passed over for CEO. Its probably the best thing that ever happened to him, since he stepped in as CEO for a company (Ford) that badly wanted someone to help, and he not only helped them turn things around (They knew what needed to be done, they just needed someone to tell them to do it), he convinced employees to take lower wages in exchange for a plan that rewarded Ford employees according to profits. They have been getting nice bonuses every March, and the rest of the industry has followed the practice. Seems like common sense, work hard and smart, and when your company makes more money, you get a cut of it.

I've attended a lot of his meetings, and the theme was always the same. He reported on the results and status of the employees plan, urged them to implement their plan. It was never "Implement the Company Plan", it was always implement "Your" plan. It worked too.


----------



## RGF (Mar 11, 2015)

I found parts of the interview to be disingenuous. How they listen to photographers - previously they only listen to photojournalist and what they want. Perhaps Canon is willing to give up the landscape market to Nikon.

I think Canon is suffers from a serve case of NIH (Not Invented Here) and as they got a bad reputation following the stories of poor AF on the 1D2N I suspect that they circled the wagons.


----------



## RGF (Mar 11, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I've attended a lot of his meetings, and the theme was always the same. He reported on the results and status of the employees plan, urged them to implement their plan. It was never "Implement the Company Plan", it was always implement "Your" plan. It worked too.



It is amazing how a bit of common sense, willing to listen and seek a common solution (not my solution) works wonders


----------



## sanj (Mar 11, 2015)

"News Media" needs 4k?


----------



## RGF (Mar 11, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, I'm GLAD that Canon is sticking to making their own sensors. I hope they don't suddenly start worshipping at the altar of DXO Mark the way everyone else is.
> ...



+1. IQ is the bottom line and the D800/810 brings up shadow detail much better than the 5D M3


----------



## TAF (Mar 11, 2015)

In your opinion, what kind of mirrorless camera would sell best in the USA?

To be honest I don’t really know - I’m not that close to the US market so I can’t speak from first-hand experience. However I get the feeling that users in the US don’t really take a liking to small cameras. That’s just my sense. 
----------------------------------

Could it be that American's in general have larger hands, and thus would prefer a slightly larger body than the tiny ones being offered?

Might a Leica sized (excuse me, Canonet size) body be more appropriate? Say with an EF mount? And an EVF?


----------



## Lee Jay (Mar 11, 2015)

TAF said:


> Could it be that American's in general have larger hands, and thus would prefer a slightly larger body than the tiny ones being offered?



I have extremely tiny hands, and the 5D/7D series is a perfect fit for me.

The tiny mirrorless cameras can't properly fit the hands of anyone older than 10 years old.


----------



## David Hull (Mar 11, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Marauder said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, I'm GLAD that Canon is sticking to making their own sensors. I hope they don't suddenly start worshipping at the altar of DXO Mark the way everyone else is.
> ...



DxO puts a lot of emphasis on an extremely narrow set of use cases. If you are not interested in those specific use cases, you can easily ignore DxO without any issues. If the DxO measured DR perspective is what you are alluding to, then for every step above ISO=100 the DxO perspective becomes less relevant. Not everyone (by a long shot) shoots everything at ISO=100, tries to lift shadows 4 stops, etc.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 11, 2015)

I normally don't read these, but I found it interesting:


It's very easy for a leader to look like he's not the problem with speed-to-market on the back end of what one could call an epic 12 months for Canon -- many many big-ticket items recently got released or announced: 7D2, 5Ds (x2), 11-24L, 16-35 F/4L IS, 100-400L II, 400 DO, etc. Regardless of which company's sensors you think are better, Canon has unloaded a ton of higher end gear on us this year and no one recently responded with a similarly high MP FF body -- so Canon still has the spotlight to some degree. So the chief seems to be taking a victory lap on the product development front, and the 'let's go faster' might read more on his desire to keep up momentum on all the product releases.


I agree with those that believe that the chief would never use another company's sensor. Canon may have done so in the past, and may again on lesser products (superzooms, P&S, etc.), but I think it would never happen again on a pro/higher-end product. Take all the vociferous fighting in forums over sensors -- where both sides have their strengths -- and _then_ dump the pride that comes at running one of those companies into it. You'll never convince that person until sales dry up, which has not happened.


Surprised to hear the lower ISO limit explanation for the 5Ds rigs vs. the 7D2. He did not correct the interviewer on his assumption, so he's all but conceded the 5Ds sensors _will_ get the same pixel-level performance as the 7D2. That should be a field day for the competition, right?


As much as we lament for a great mirrorless offering, it's fascinating that he backs the EOS-M3 in North America, yet (1) doesn't know why it isn't being offered there and (2) he knows little about our market. Does Canon USA develop its own products or something? Should he not know the wants and needs of the North American market?


Flip-flopping on product positions with 4-5 year lifecycles is a loooooot easier than flip-flopping in politics. #megapixels


In general, he was an executive like any other: polished speaking points, a promise of things to come, and not even the slightest air of fallibility. I wasn't out for blood, mind you. I don't believe that Canon's ship is sinking or that horrific errors were made in past products -- I'm a happy customer. But I find interviews where an executive brings his company's his own shortcomings forward with honesty and commitment to improve much more 'human' than some suit who stays on message.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 11, 2015)

TAF said:


> In your opinion, what kind of mirrorless camera would sell best in the USA?
> 
> To be honest I don’t really know - I’m not that close to the US market so I can’t speak from first-hand experience. However I get the feeling that users in the US don’t really take a liking to small cameras. That’s just my sense.
> 
> ...



That entire passage pissed me off. Please correct me if I have this wrong, but his organization _designs *all* the products we use_, correct? Canon USA doesn't design and build their own products, right? So would he not have to interface with his Canon USA counterparts to peg what their needs might be?

So I think he can only offer three believable answers to the USA mirrorless question:

1) Canon USA would rather sell SLRs in USA right now because they better serve their customer's needs (speed, responsiveness, selection of lenses, etc.) at the present.

2) We still need to grow our mirrorless ecosystem (cough: small lenses, integral EVF, DPAF cough cough) before it will look attractive enough to the USA market to consider mirrorless over SLR, which is an already comprehensively supported ecosystem.

3) We make a ton more money on SLRs than we do on mirrorless products.

But the Managing Director and Chief Executive of Image Communication Products Operations should not say "Maybe it's because of your huge hands!" or "Ask Canon USA -- that wasn't my call" implies uncertainty and blame avoidance. Again, I'm not looking for blood (consider: EOS-M sells well where it is sold) so much as an explanation.

- A


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 11, 2015)

I could be wrong, but I have a feeling it would be really nice if whoever it is who is heading up Canon's lens development program just took over the entire camera division and they dumped off the body/sensor development/chief head/MBA market planning executives. Promoted some techie engineer types to management and brought in some serious photographers/videographers into management as well so it's not just all 100% disconnected MBA types, just mix in a few of the other sort.

It feels like it's just run by MBA types with out much connection to/passion for actually doing photography/video or deep technical connection.


----------



## Marauder (Mar 12, 2015)

David Hull said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Marauder said:
> ...



+1!!!


----------



## zlatko (Mar 12, 2015)

RGF said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Marauder said:
> ...



Lifting shadow detail is a very small part of IQ. People who equate IQ with bringing up shadow detail, or see that as the "bottom line" for IQ, will find Canon is lacking. But Canon's IQ is excellent overall. I'm reminded of that every time I open a Canon raw file.


----------



## Lee Jay (Mar 12, 2015)

zlatko said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Exactly.

17% of my shots are taken at base ISO, and of the roughly 150,000 Canon dSLR shots I've taken, exactly one was in conditions where Canon's base ISO DR was too small to capture the shot. Unfortunately, calculations indicate that scene had about 30 stops of scene DR so a stop or two extra from a Nikon or Sony would have made no difference.


----------



## msm (Mar 12, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > RGF said:
> ...



And that is precisely what to expect from a Canon shooter who don't understand the benefit of Sony/Nikon sensors. It was true for me as well when I shot Canon, very few shots were at base ISO because there was simply no benefit to it. Iso 640/800 gives about the same IQ but faster shutter speeds with less camera shake. However after getting my a7r probably 80-90% of my the shots taken with that camera are at base ISO.


----------



## Lee Jay (Mar 12, 2015)

msm said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > zlatko said:
> ...



Huh?

I don't shoot at base ISO when there's not enough light to shoot at base ISO. That turns out to be more than 80% of the time for me.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 12, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> Huh?
> 
> I don't shoot at base ISO when there's not enough light to shoot at base ISO. That turns out to be more than 80% of the time for me.



+1

To back Lee Jay's point, consider: I am a handheld available light shooter who lives in a ISO 800-6400 world, I have a ton of Canon glass, and I need a working autofocus (so adapting my glass to a Sony is flat out of the question). So the 5D3 is not only the camera I use, _it's the best one out there for me right now_.

It's pretty simple to me. If you are a tripod based ISO 100/200 shooter and your livelihood depends on the quality of your images, go rent a SoNikon and see if it takes better shots for you. Many landscapers have tried this without selling their glass by using an adapter + liveview on a Sony rig. I think you'll find it takes lovely shots, but leaving the Canon ecosystem to chase the IQ beast (even for a test run) will have you wincing at non-sensor related pain points, like ergonomics, AF performance, new accessories you need, etc.

- A


----------



## zlatko (Mar 16, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Huh?
> ...



Exactly. Changing to a Sony/Nikon isn't going to change light conditions for me. It isn't going to make my subjects slow down so I can freeze them with a slower shutter speed. It isn't going to make the lights brighter. I'll still be shooting above base ISO for nearly everything, often far above base ISO. The problem isn't that I "don't understand the benefit of Sony/Nikon sensors." I understand fully how *minimal* the benefit is for what I shoot. And it comes with all of those non-sensor related annoyances (ergonomics, etc.).


----------



## msm (Mar 16, 2015)

It has little to do with light conditions, it has to do with how much light the sensor needs to give the desired or optimal quality and that will differ from sensor to sensor.

Read up on isoless shooting if you don't see why. Generally with exmor you can shoot with lower ISO and you will shoot more at low ISO because there is a benefit in doing so. The argument "I never shoot base ISO so I wouldn't benefit from an exmor sensor" is probably false for the vast majority of shooters.


----------



## Lee Jay (Mar 16, 2015)

msm said:


> I never shoot base ISO so I wouldn't benefit from an exmor sensor" is probably false for the vast majority of shooters.



Really?

I shoot mostly indoors and those shots are typically ISO 800-6400. What I shoot outdoors is generally both DOF and shutter speed limited, and I need ISO 200-400 to get those shots. Shooting those at ISO 100 and underexposing 1-2 stops would work in raw, but be a huge pain in JPEG, and those are nearly 100% JPEGs for reasons of space and buffer depth.

In the last 11 years, 17% of my shots have been taken at ISO 100. You know how many of those are DR-limited (i.e. shadow noise limited)? One. And that one shot needed much more DR than an EXMOR could provide (around 30 stops).

As a test, I shot a crazy high DR scene yesterday. I had to fabricate one since they mostly don't exist, but ended up shooting a shot with 18 stops of DR using my 7D Mark II. It's a two-shot burst at 10fps, so the two shots are 1/10th of a second apart. Worked great! So, for those crazy situations where I really do need a lot of base ISO DR, I'll do that. It's simple enough.


----------



## msm (Mar 16, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > I never shoot base ISO so I wouldn't benefit from an exmor sensor" is probably false for the vast majority of shooters.
> ...



Nice of you to speak for the vast majority.

If all you do is shoot indoor with really high ISO then shure, but when you are down to 800 you could just as well shoot 100-400 with an exmor and gain room in the highlights if that is better overall. It is a choice you don't have with Canon.



> In the last 11 years, 17% of my shots have been taken at ISO 100. You know how many of those are DR-limited (i.e. shadow noise limited)? One. And that one shot needed much more DR than an EXMOR could provide (around 30 stops).



So what do you shoot at base ISO then? Because in just normal outdoor shots I can see noise in deep shadows on my monitor from my Canon cameras without even pushing shadows. Either you shoot some rather narrow conditions or you got a high tolerance for noise.



> As a test, I shot a crazy high DR scene yesterday. I had to fabricate one since they mostly don't exist, but ended up shooting a shot with 18 stops of DR using my 7D Mark II. It's a two-shot burst at 10fps, so the two shots are 1/10th of a second apart. Worked great! So, for those crazy situations where I really do need a lot of base ISO DR, I'll do that. It's simple enough.



Sure enjoy spending your time in postprocessing when you could have avoided it. 

Don't know why you need to mention the 10FPS, when I merge exposures I would like to avoid vibration blur and movement between the frames, and my 1DX even has a electronic first curtain in live view to avoid vibrations. Then when I ask it to bracket shots on a delayed timer it waits for the delay then machine guns all shots in the bracket at 12FPS. Not nice.


----------



## Lee Jay (Mar 16, 2015)

msm said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > > In the last 11 years, 17% of my shots have been taken at ISO 100. You know how many of those are DR-limited (i.e. shadow noise limited)? One. And that one shot needed much more DR than an EXMOR could provide (around 30 stops).
> ...



One, single, keystroke.



> Don't know why you need to mention the 10FPS, when I merge exposures I would like to avoid vibration blur and movement between the frames, and my 1DX even has a electronic first curtain in live view to avoid vibrations. Then when I ask it to bracket shots on a delayed timer it waits for the delay then machine guns all shots in the bracket at 12FPS. Not nice.



It is nice. It minimizes motion between shots. Software aligns the remainder and, whamo - you've got a file with crazy huge DR.


----------



## msm (Mar 16, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> My kids playing at the park.



So we talking about rather narrow conditions then.



> I have little tolerance for noise, but know how to use noise reduction in post.



I prefer to avoid needing noise reduction. Waste of time and reduces image quality.



> One, single, keystroke.



Oh so you got a on button solution that does all for you with no manual intervention? Lucky you, I have found no such thing which produces something I would be happy with.



> It is nice. It minimizes motion between shots. Software aligns the remainder and, whamo - you've got a file with crazy huge DR.



Aligning is a source of potential problems and and noisy shutter slamming at 12fps is a source of vibrations.


----------



## Lee Jay (Mar 16, 2015)

msm said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > I have little tolerance for noise, but know how to use noise reduction in post.
> ...



It takes no time whatsoever (I have defaults set up that are automatically applied) and it increases image quality or I wouldn't use it.



> One, single, keystroke.



Oh so you got a on button solution that does all for you with no manual intervention?[/quote]

Yep.



> It is nice. It minimizes motion between shots. Software aligns the remainder and, whamo - you've got a file with crazy huge DR.



Aligning is a source of potential problems and and noisy shutter slamming at 12fps is a source of vibrations.
[/quote]

Minimizing movement between shots decreases potential problems with alignments, and if 12fps was such a vibrational problem, sports shooters wouldn't use it. But they do.

In my experience, vibration from mirrorslap is only a real problem in a very narrow range of situations that most people will never encounter, such as extremely long focal lengths with a system on a flimsy tripod and no IS. The only time I've encountered it to any reasonable degree was at 3,000mm on a weak support.


----------



## jrista (Mar 16, 2015)

So, the DR war rages on. For those who want more DR, there is a very simple solution: Ditch Canon.  There are a number of very good alternatives now, and they are only getting better with time. Especially with mirrorless, you can adapt so many lenses, you don't have to drop Canon entirely or cold turkey...you can simply augment your kit to handle the situations where you want more dynamic range. 


No point in debating it. There are some who will defend Canon to the bitter end, and it will very likely come down to the bitter end with Canon, given they seem incapable of truly acknowledging they have any kind of issue when it comes to sensor IQ and breadth of sensor capabilities. The gap just keeps widening, and Canon just keeps ignoring it. So stop waiting for Canon to do something about it...find a product that solves your problems and use it. A friend just purchased the Sony a6000 yesterday on my recommendation. WOW, that is one HELL of a little camera, for a mere $700. Nothing from Canon even remotely compares. There are options out there...if you need something Canon doesn't offer, I highly recommend going and looking at them. You could waste your time for YEARS waiting for Canon to respond to your specific needs, and they very well may NEVER respond...other companies, on the other hand, are pushing the envelope on every front, delivering new features and capabilities that Canon doesn't seem interested in.


----------



## msm (Mar 16, 2015)

Lee Jay said:


> Minimizing movement between shots decreases potential problems with alignments, and if 12fps was such a vibrational problem, sports shooters wouldn't use it. But they do.
> 
> In my experience, vibration from mirrorslap is only a real problem in a very narrow range of situations that most people will never encounter, such as extremely long focal lengths with a system on a flimsy tripod and no IS. The only time I've encountered it to any reasonable degree was at 3,000mm on a weak support.



Sports shooters usually shoot at faster shutter speeds to capture the motion, vibration is less of a concern then. By the way, how often do you see sport shooters bracket their shot? I think you just changed the subject, I haven't even talked about mirrorslap. From what you write I also suspect your image quality standards are well below mine.


----------



## zlatko (Mar 16, 2015)

msm said:


> It has little to do with light conditions, it has to do with how much light the sensor needs to give the desired or optimal quality and that will differ from sensor to sensor.
> 
> Read up on isoless shooting if you don't see why. Generally with exmor you can shoot with lower ISO and you will shoot more at low ISO because there is a benefit in doing so. The argument "I never shoot base ISO so I wouldn't benefit from an exmor sensor" is probably false for the vast majority of shooters.



Would you please not presume to know how and what other people shoot? I shoot a lot at ISO 3200, and even more in the ISO 1600 - 6400 range. I will NOT "shoot more at low ISO because there is a benefit in doing so". I know my light conditions and the shutter speeds I need. You are not standing in my shoes, so please stop telling me how to shoot. Just stop. Why this need to push Nikon/Sony sensor "benefits" on a Canon rumors forum? Why?


----------



## msm (Mar 16, 2015)

zlatko said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > It has little to do with light conditions, it has to do with how much light the sensor needs to give the desired or optimal quality and that will differ from sensor to sensor.
> ...



If you actually read my post carefully you will see that I never told you how to shoot.

Anyways jrista is correct, it is pointless to argue this here.


----------



## zlatko (Mar 16, 2015)

jrista said:


> So, the DR war rages on. For those who want more DR, there is a very simple solution: Ditch Canon.  There are a number of very good alternatives now, and they are only getting better with time. Especially with mirrorless, you can adapt so many lenses, you don't have to drop Canon entirely or cold turkey...you can simply augment your kit to handle the situations where you want more dynamic range.
> 
> 
> No point in debating it. There are some who will defend Canon to the bitter end, and it will very likely come down to the bitter end with Canon, given they seem incapable of truly acknowledging they have any kind of issue when it comes to sensor IQ and breadth of sensor capabilities. The gap just keeps widening, and Canon just keeps ignoring it. So stop waiting for Canon to do something about it...find a product that solves your problems and use it. A friend just purchased the Sony a6000 yesterday on my recommendation. WOW, that is one HELL of a little camera, for a mere $700. Nothing from Canon even remotely compares. There are options out there...if you need something Canon doesn't offer, I highly recommend going and looking at them. You could waste your time for YEARS waiting for Canon to respond to your specific needs, and they very well may NEVER respond...other companies, on the other hand, are pushing the envelope on every front, delivering new features and capabilities that Canon doesn't seem interested in.



"No point in debating it" — so you're debating it at full speed, bashing Canon's sensors, product range, abilities, etc., and telling people to "Ditch Canon". Yeh, that's what one does when there's "no point" in debating something.

Wow, you guys sure have fun promoting your shadow lifting. And more shadow lifting. And still more shadow lifting. Yep, there's nothing more important to photography than shadow lifting. Keep it up enough and we'll all be convinced to shoot at base ISO and lift shadows. Not.


----------



## zlatko (Mar 16, 2015)

msm said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > msm said:
> ...



So you _weren't_ telling me that how I shoot has "little to do with light conditions"? And you weren't telling me to "read up on isoless shooting if you don't see why"? And you weren't telling me that "with exmor you can shoot with lower ISO and you will shoot more at low ISO because there is a benefit in doing so"? Interesting how you took all of that back.


----------



## jrista (Mar 16, 2015)

There is nothing more important in photography than having the equipment that fulfills your own personal needs. You can either bitch and moan about Canon's inferiorities, or lack therof, on an internet forum...or you can buy the equipment that fulfills your needs. I decided to stop debating. I have found better products from different brands that fulfill my own personal needs, and I have NO problem telling other people that there are options out there, other than Canon, that could fill their personal needs. It's as simple as that. 


Your either a raging fanboy who will defend a BRAND to the last, or your a photographer. I used to be a raging fanboy, on your side, defending Canon to the bitter end. Today? I'm a photographer. I could care less about brands anymore. The thing that matters is whether the camera in your hands is delivering the image quality and functionality you want...or not. Simple fact of the matter is, Canon cameras deliver what I need for birds and wildlife at longer focal lengths and higher ISO, and other brands deliver what I need for low ISO work, everyday photography, macro, etc. If the 5D IV pans out to really be a 9fps high frame rate, high resolution, high ISO beast, I'll pick one up in a heartbeat, because that's what I need, and I have more than enough compute hardware to handle gobs of large images. I've given up on Canon for delivering what I need on the low ISO front. They can offer as many megapixels as they want...every pixel in a Sony, Nikon or Samsung camera is more capable of delivering what I want...so they get my money for my low ISO needs.


It's not a complicated equation. It's not something that we need to have wars over. If for, say, MSM, Canon is not delivering what he needs...there are some AWESOME cameras out there that absolutely will, and for some damn good prices.


----------



## zlatko (Mar 16, 2015)

jrista said:


> There is nothing more important in photography than having the equipment that fulfills your own personal needs. You can either bitch and moan about Canon's inferiorities, or lack therof, on an internet forum...or you can buy the equipment that fulfills your needs. I decided to stop debating. I have found better products from different brands that fulfill my own personal needs, and I have NO problem telling other people that there are options out there, other than Canon, that could fill their personal needs. It's as simple as that.
> 
> Your either a raging fanboy who will defend a BRAND to the last, or your a photographer. I used to be a raging fanboy, on your side, defending Canon to the bitter end. Today? I'm a photographer. I could care less about brands anymore. The thing that matters is whether the camera in your hands is delivering the image quality and functionality you want...or not. Simple fact of the matter is, Canon cameras deliver what I need for birds and wildlife at longer focal lengths and higher ISO, and other brands deliver what I need for low ISO work, everyday photography, macro, etc. If the 5D IV pans out to really be a 9fps high frame rate, high resolution, high ISO beast, I'll pick one up in a heartbeat, because that's what I need, and I have more than enough compute hardware to handle gobs of large images. I've given up on Canon for delivering what I need on the low ISO front. They can offer as many megapixels as they want...every pixel in a Sony, Nikon or Samsung camera is more capable of delivering what I want...so they get my money for my low ISO needs.
> 
> It's not a complicated equation. It's not something that we need to have wars over. If for, say, MSM, Canon is not delivering what he needs...there are some AWESOME cameras out there that absolutely will, and for some damn good prices.



You "decided to stop debating". Really!? Disingenuous much? Let me read that back again: "I decided to stop debating." Wow.

And you have "NO problem telling other people there are other options out there, other than Canon ..." Let me suggest that you not only have "no problem" telling other people that, but that you have made it a PERSONAL MISSION to tell other people that. I wouldn't be surprised if it's on your Daily To Do list. Like, "Oh it's Monday ... another day of of telling people on a Canon forum about the the wondrous benefits of shooting with Sony/Nikon sensors." 

It would be as if I checked into Nikon and Sony forums every day and told them —_ every day_ — about the superiority of certain Canon lenses that don't exist in their systems, or about how they need not "bitch and moan" about the inferiorities of their system's ergonomics or flash systems if they only "ditched" those systems and switched to Canon. What a waste of time that would be.


----------



## Lee Jay (Mar 16, 2015)

msm said:


> I haven't even talked about mirrorslap.



Really?

Who said, "...noisy shutter slamming at 12fps is a source of vibrations"?


----------



## jrista (Mar 17, 2015)

zlatko said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > There is nothing more important in photography than having the equipment that fulfills your own personal needs. You can either bitch and moan about Canon's inferiorities, or lack therof, on an internet forum...or you can buy the equipment that fulfills your needs. I decided to stop debating. I have found better products from different brands that fulfill my own personal needs, and I have NO problem telling other people that there are options out there, other than Canon, that could fill their personal needs. It's as simple as that.
> ...




Wow, touchy. Zlatko...I have one recommendation for you: Put CanonRumors away, take out your camera, get in the car and drive somewhere REAL, and start photographing. 


The only waste of time here is you getting irate over what someone said about a brand of camera on the internet. What value does that hold? If you like and prefer your Canon gear, GREAT! Get out there an use it! What enjoyment do you get out of freaking out on an internet form about brand wars? In contrast, how much enjoyment do you get out of your photograpghy? 


Similarly, and the reason I responded...if your Canon gear gets you down for any reason, because it lacks A or B? Go find another camera that DOESN'T lack A or B.


I used to be on these forums every single day. I used to fight with all the anti-Canon guys saying how much better other cameras were. Then I had some first hand experience with the differences, and started fighting with all the die-hard Canon fans. Not one single minute of those debates was worth a damn thing. The only thing that is worth anything is getting out there and making some photographs. The only thing I can say on these forums that is worth anything is: Get off CR, go grab your gear (whatever brand it is), go photograph something. Brand doesn't matter. It's all personal choice. Debating whether A or B is better does nothing for anyone. If you are frustrated with brand A, look at brand B, C, D, and E and see if they have what you need. As I said...simple equations. 


And with that...hoping you actually do get out and do some photography (even astrophotography, if it's night wherever you live) and unwind from the hateful pit that is CanonRumors forums...good night, Zlatko.


----------



## zlatko (Mar 17, 2015)

jrista said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



So after you've harped on and on about the benefits of Sony/Nikon sensors on a Canon forum, your advice — repeated in FOUR variations in that one reply — is to "actually do get out and do some photography". Perhaps that advice is indirectly intended for yourself? I do plenty of photography, thank you. It's what I do for a living, and it gives me great enjoyment. I photograph nearly every day, and when I'm not photographing I'm working on the photographs I've taken or talking with clients about their photography needs. I do enough photography to know how absurd it is to harp about one brand's sensors on a forum dedicated to _another_ brand. That's just absurd.


----------



## jrista (Mar 17, 2015)

The only truly *absurd* thing is to get irate and bent out of shape over what people say online. You seem to do that on a daily basis as well. Sad. Well, later Zlatko...enjoy your time on CR.


----------



## zlatko (Mar 17, 2015)

jrista said:


> The only truly *absurd* thing is to get irate and bent out of shape over what people say online. You seem to do that on a daily basis as well. Sad. Well, later Zlatko...enjoy your time on CR.



No, that's not the "only" absurd thing. Your pretense of having "stopped debating" takes the prize on absurdity.


----------

