# Poll Added: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Should



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 14, 2018)

```
Fstoppers has posted an article on why <a href="https://fstoppers.com/originals/heres-why-canon-does-not-need-innovate-201130">Canon does not need to innovate</a> that will strike a cord in some people.</p>
<p>I used to be a bit of an apologist when it came to Canon camera innovation, believing that Canon cameras were a sum of all their parts, and not just about a fancy specification list. I have started to change my view on this, especially after the release of the capable, but not overly improved Canon EOS 6D Mark II. I think it’s obvious that it wasn’t a revolutionary release, and a lot of people don’t even think it’s an evolutionary improvement, merely taking parts from other cameras already in the lineup.</p>
<p><!--more--></p>
<p>I think most people feel Canon really stopped being the leader of the pack in a lot of areas after the revolutionary EOS 5D Mark II, who’s innovation was basically an accident. Canon did do the right thing with improved firmware features to make the video performance an industry game changer.</p>
<p>Since then?</p>
<p>They’ve made some very good and even great cameras, I wouldn’t trade the EOS-1D X Mark II for anything. The EOS 5D Mark III has been a workhorse for a long time. The EOS 5D Mark IV with its perceived gimped 4K and general feeling that the camera wasn’t a big improvement over the EOS 5D Mark III has caused people some pause.</p>
<p>A lot of R&D dollars seems to have gone into the very well regarded Cinema EOS line, even though they’ve had some missteps as they build their place in that market.</p>
<p>I don’t believe this with Canon lenses, I think most would agree they have the best lens lineup from top to bottom in performance, technology, innovation and breadth and depth.</p>
<p>Back to the cameras. What innovations have there been over the last half decade or so?</p>
<p>Dual Pixel AF comes to mind, which is a great feature in Canon cameras. The other being dual pixel RAW, but that is in its infancy and doesn’t provide much for most photographers. Canon sensor color science is still the best in the business, but that doesn’t seem like a lot of advancement in the last decade.</p>
<p>Canon remains the sales leader in  DSLRs, and that will likely frustrate a lot of people. Why spend more on R&D and taking more risks if your bottom line isn’t being affected?</p>
<p>Brand power can only carry you for so long, at some point, something will give.</p>
<p><iframe width="100%" height="880px" scrolling="no" style="border: none;" src="https://www.opinionstage.com/polls/2487498/poll" frameBorder="0" name="os_frame" webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen allowfullscreen></iframe></p>
<p> </p>
<p><strong><a href="https://fstoppers.com/originals/heres-why-canon-does-not-need-innovate-201130">FStoppers concludes</a>:</strong></p>
<blockquote><p>Canon makes cameras that have the most important and fundamental features right. Bells and whistles are fine and are things to get excited about, but if the core features of how a camera is supposed to operate are compromised then it’s no longer practical. These are some of the reasons why Canon continues to dominate. The thing to consider here is that Canon has already innovated because they’re still ahead when it comes to how their cameras perform for the majority of professionals. Their competitors just don’t have the lenses, the autofocus features, or the color science they offer.</p></blockquote>
<p>Canon’s support network and reliability is industry leading, but I think a lot of people take that for granted.</p>
<p>I do believe it’s time Canon stops playing it safe with camera bodies and starts putting some “wow” into future products.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-inc-boss-wants-to-see-more-innovation/">Canon has admitted they need to innovate more</a>, but were they speaking of the digital imaging sector, or other money making areas within the company. Canon has had a lot of focus on the last few years on acquisitions, and I think there may have been a reduced focus on the industry with its most passionate customers.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## transpo1 (Feb 14, 2018)

*Re: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*

Yup- this is what many have been saying for a long time. Camera business longevity will be determined by future R&D investment and innovation. Sales are good now but they need to spend their "political capital" on future innovation and recapture an excitement and buzz surrounding their product line.


----------



## colorblinded (Feb 14, 2018)

*Re: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*

Not a fan of fstopper's logic. Canon can continue to focus on building solid workhorses while improving certain basic performance parameters.

They're still behind in dynamic range and shadow recovery. Not everyone needs it, but it has its use. 

Nikon is adding nice features like backlit buttons to their 5D competitor, Canon could consider doing similar things.

For the same money, I'll never balk about having a more well rounded, more capable tool. I don't have any plans to ditch Canon, but there are things I'd like to see them do and they have been fairly apathetic about making those kinds of often incremental enhancements for stills photographers.

The strength of the brand could wear off, and if Canon doesn't keep pushing their products forward, it could come back to bite them.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 14, 2018)

*Re: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*

I think the 6D Mark II bugged me. I have one, I use it, it's fine.

It should be better than "fine".


----------



## keithcooper (Feb 14, 2018)

*Re: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*

Some innovation yes, but in general I broadly agree with the FS article.

Unfortunately, I'm minded to consider that many of the noise making whingers should probably pay far more attention to their basic photography skills ;-)

The whole 'lack of innovation' thing is largely driven by people who prefer to look to a tech fix, or simply 'buy their way' to better photos.

Much as with modern printers and people's 'print quality', the most significant areas for personal improvement in photography are usually not technically limited.

That's not to say we shouldn't welcome advances, just not use any perceived lack as cover for our own ineptitude ;-)


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 14, 2018)

*Re: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*



keithcooper said:


> Some innovation yes, but in general I broadly agree with the FS article.
> 
> Unfortunately, I'm minded to consider that many of the noise making whingers should probably pay far more attention to their basic photography skills ;-)
> 
> ...



DSLRs and other cameras aren't just about "photography" anymore, for better or worse.


----------



## Aaron D (Feb 14, 2018)

*Re: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*

I rely on my cameras for my livelihood. Full-time, sole source of income. Canon makes the best most reliable cameras and lenses and they have the best professional services (though this is mostly conjecture, I admit) They make the best T+S lenses which account for 90% of what I do. Their 24 mm TSE is razor sharp and practically distortion free, NOBODY else does that. 

Last thing I want to see is Canon cave to the pressure for "bragging rights" at the next ophthalmologists convention. Or lawyers' happy hours. If you want the coolest, buy Sony. If you want the snootiest, buy Lieca.

Having said that: Canon! Put a damned tripod foot on your TSE lenses! Yeah I know I'm sounding like a broken record.

And then Hasselblad: if you would make a 24 TSE equivalent for the X1D. Big talk--like I could ever afford one if it existed...


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 14, 2018)

*Re: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*



Canon Rumors said:


> I used to be a bit of an apologist when it came to Canon camera innovation, believing that Canon cameras were a sum of all their parts, and not just about a fancy specification list. I have started to change my view on this, especially after the release of the capable, but not overly improved Canon EOS 6D Mark II. I think it’s obvious that it wasn’t a revolutionary release, and a lot of people don’t even think it’s an evolutionary improvement, merely taking parts from other cameras already in the lineup



Canon has something like 12 or more lines of ILC's out there and probably more coming.

it's hard to do "innovation" on every single camera release, it' really can't happen for even logistical reasons.

I look at the 6D mark II has it is.. a capable camera, that is underneath the 5D series in performance.

People just expected it to be a 5D Mark IV in a cheaper camera body. Canon's never really worked like that.

That all being said, it would be interesting if Chuck or someone could comment on the design decisions on the 6D Mark II.

Personally I think there's nothing apologetic about being realistic.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 14, 2018)

*Re: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*



Aaron D said:


> I rely on my cameras for my livelihood. Full-time, sole source of income. Canon makes the best most reliable cameras and lenses and they have the best professional services (though this is mostly conjecture, I admit) They make the best T+S lenses which account for 90% of what I do. Their 24 mm TSE is razor sharp and practically distortion free, NOBODY else does that.
> 
> Last thing I want to see is Canon cave to the pressure for "bragging rights" at the next ophthalmologists convention. Or lawyers' happy hours. If you want the coolest, buy Sony. If you want the snootiest, buy Lieca.
> 
> ...



Canon used to be first at most things, that's not the case anymore. They built their digital camera business on being first more often than not. Full frame, adoption of CMOS (I think) AF tech, usable DSLR video, price points, sensor tech, liveview, and really getting pros into digital.

That said, I do believe the lens lineup does keep a lot of people in the system.


----------



## BeenThere (Feb 14, 2018)

*Re: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*

Good enough, but not exciting any more. The lenses do keep me in the system, but I use a few third party lenses also.


----------



## Hesbehindyou (Feb 14, 2018)

*Re: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*

Here's the problem:

Canon responds to the needs of, and builds products differentiated for, two groups: professionals and consumers.

We are enthusiasts. Canon does not respond to our desires - we're too small a market.

The likes of Sony need inroads into the wider market. One way to do that is pack advanced features into their products that competitors aren't offering, or are only offering at a higher price point.

Canon-using professionals either already have these features in their pro-level bodies or these features aren't ready for pro-level use (e.g. 4k cameras that overheat, mirrorless EVF with 'slow' refresh rates or mirrorless with low battery life etc etc).

Consumers don't need/won't use these pro-level features enough that Canon calculates it's worth complicating consumer-level cameras with extra features, increasing the manufacturing cost or muddying the differences between its product 'tiers'.

Also, add in competitor-owned patents preventing Canon using some tech.

Canon has so much R&D spend that people saying they don't innovate are clearly talking nonsense.


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 14, 2018)

*Re: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*



Canon Rumors said:


> Canon used to be first at most things, that's not the case anymore. They built their digital camera business on being first more often than not. Full frame, adoption of CMOS (I think) AF tech, usable DSLR video, price points, sensor tech, liveview, and really getting pros into digital.
> 
> That said, I do believe the lens lineup does keep a lot of people in the system.



it's also harder to stay ahead versus catch up.

that being said there's a few areas where canon desperately needs to play catchup.


----------



## Isaacheus (Feb 14, 2018)

*Re: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*

Getting the popcorn out for this comment section

I think the article misses the point that while Canon has positive points, it also has negatives (which will be different from person to person). Just like every camera manufacturer. A lot of the complaints I see about Canon are really around how Canon doesn't seem to be addressing a number of those negatives, some of which are not so small in comparison to other options out there.


----------



## AdjustedInCamera (Feb 14, 2018)

*Re: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*



Hesbehindyou said:


> Here's the problem:
> 
> Canon responds to the needs of, and builds products differentiated for, two groups: professionals and consumers.
> 
> ...



+1 

I question if they actually know the enthusiast market. Again recently we saw 'Canon asks professionals what they want in a mirrorless camera'. Canon always seem to ask the professionals, who obvs. know their stuff, but I question if they are actually more likely to buy it versus the enthusiast.

Further, I'm not sure we know the size of the enthusiast market until companies start to seriously address it. Nikon seem to be doing well with the 850, something that might not have been predicted a year ago.

The general poor state of the ILC market seems to highlight an area of electronics that hasn't made it past 'professionals and smaller consumer models'. I don't believe the overall size of the market can be assessed until the enthusiast bit is addressed. The iPhone wasn't based around the needs of the professional phone user.


----------



## alienman (Feb 14, 2018)

*Re: Poll Added: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*

It seems like the “I switched from canon to _____” confessions are tallying up day by day.


----------



## tmroper (Feb 14, 2018)

*Re: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*

They basically just need to come out with a FF mirrorless for those who want the lighter weight and EVF. Their innovation on the DSLR side of things seems to be working just fine.


----------



## scyrene (Feb 14, 2018)

*Re: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*



AdjustedInCamera said:


> Canon always seem to ask the professionals, who obvs. know their stuff, but I question if they are actually more likely to buy it versus the enthusiast.



But this is where the sales argument comes in - Canon have maintained their lead position for a very long time, and indeed they're consolidating it in some areas. That suggests they know precisely who is buying their products, and what those people broadly want (and are prepared to pay, more importantly).



AdjustedInCamera said:


> The iPhone wasn't based around the needs of the professional phone user.



Because there's no such thing?


----------



## godefroyr (Feb 14, 2018)

*Re: Poll Added: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*

Canon is behind in terms of DR and this is no more acceptable, even if their DSLR camera are excellent compromises...


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 14, 2018)

*Re: Poll Added: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*



alienman said:


> It seems like the “I switched from canon to _____” confessions are tallying up day by day.



conversely followed by the "I switched back to canon from ____ " confessions.


----------



## amorse (Feb 14, 2018)

*Re: Poll Added: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*

Maybe I took a different perspective on the question, but I actually think they do innovate quite a lot. I took that position because Canon is getting patents from their R&D at what seems to be a weekly pace. Was Canon not just named in the top 5 for US patent holders last month? That sounds like a lot of innovation to me. Some of those technologies have made it into their camera bodies and some have not, but their drive to test and create new technologies is reflected by their rapid patenting activity. 

Do they provide consumers with the best technology they have available for each camera release? Obviously not - the 6D II is a good example of this - not bad, but they had better technology available which did not make it into the camera. I think they have tried to carve a different niche (between features which can be delivered at specific price points and profitability targets) for each camera body which comes with certain sacrifices that maybe don't align with the desires of some vocal users. Do they hinder one camera line to protect another? Possibly, but I wouldn't call that a lack of innovation - I'd call it a business decision which they think will make them more money.

Make no mistake, this isn't a defence of Canon's business decisions; but if we're asking "do they innovate" then I think the answer should be yes.


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 14, 2018)

*Re: Poll Added: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*



godefroyr said:


> Canon is behind in terms of DR and this is no more acceptable



less than 1EV difference between the D850 and the 5D Mark IV is no longer acceptable? it's really to the point of practicality a non-issue.

canon has other deficiencies it needs to solve more.


----------



## The Fat Fish (Feb 14, 2018)

*Re: Poll Added: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*

Spot on. I saved up in preparation for the 6DII and now there's no way I'd get one. I also don't think the 5DIV is worth the money costing as much as the D850 and A7RIII. Where does this leave me? Not buying Canon.

I am one consumer but I won't be alone in this.


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 14, 2018)

*Re: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*



AdjustedInCamera said:


> I question if they actually know the enthusiast market. Again recently we saw 'Canon asks professionals what they want in a mirrorless camera'. Canon always seem to ask the professionals, who obvs. know their stuff, but I question if they are actually more likely to buy it versus the enthusiast.



I think that the responses to each Canon release highlights this. Almost every model, the release of the specifications results in 'unexciting' or 'what, no xxxxxxx'. But when people buy it they almost always (bar the 6D2 which was more contentious) say 'not much technologically new but a much better tool and so much fun to use'.
Pros rarely chase the spec sheets - what they want is a camera that makes them want to use it and streamlines the way they work and each Canon model seems to do this and gets a solid following. And at the lower end of the market, the new camera buyer wants to buy a camera 'like the professional uses - the ones I see at the Olympics and Uncle Bill's wedding'. The average user does not read sites like this. 

I think things are changing, though. Trial-by-social-media is filled with self-opinionated nobodies who vary from out-and-out trolls to people who know squat about what is being discussed and they drown out the thoughtful considered comments from people worth listening to. And for that reason alone Canon need to start adding a few goodies to their next couple of releases.


----------



## RGF (Feb 14, 2018)

*Re: Poll Added: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*

Canon needs to stop dumbing down their proconsumer bodies. Nikon but their best AF in both the D5 and D500. Can crippled the 7D M2 (compared to the 1Dx / 1Dx M2).

Same for FPS.

Canon is afraid that the 7D M2 will eat their lunch (i.e., cannablize the 1Dx) but it seems that Nikon is doing that instead. I hear more about people switching from Canon to Nikon (granted there are more Canon photographers) today than I did in the best.

For a while Canon had a lead but after the problems with the 1D Mark III they became too conservative.


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 14, 2018)

*Re: Poll Added: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*



The Fat Fish said:


> Spot on. I saved up in preparation for the 6DII and now there's no way I'd get one. I also don't think the 5DIV is worth the money costing as much as the D850 and A7RIII. Where does this leave me? Not buying Canon.
> 
> I am one consumer but I won't be alone in this.



Fair enough. But out of interest, what feature of the D850 and A7r3 will enable you to take better pictures or make your photography easier.
I really like the look of the D850 as a general tool and would, if I were buying afresh, offer a strong alternative for my Canon gear. But for the things I take it will not really do much the 5D4 cannot - at the ISOs I often use for wildlife, the sensor gives no better image quality. The AF tracking is limited by me, not the camera. And the Canon has an excellent range of lenses. The only thing I might find useful is the in-built focus stacking.

I think it is easy to see a camera as 'better spec' and spend heaps on it only to find out it does not actually affect day-to-day activity that much at all, after spending hundreds (if not thousands) on making the switch.


----------



## slclick (Feb 14, 2018)

*Re: Poll Added: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*

Innovated Yes, most Innovated, No. Most dependable, by far.


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 14, 2018)

*Re: Poll Added: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*



RGF said:


> Canon is afraid that the 7D M2 will eat their lunch (i.e., cannablize the 1Dx)



this is a common theory, yet kind of unproven.

for the 7D Mark II or even the 5D Mark IV to have 1DX AF it would actually require 3 DIGIC chips in a much smaller body.

there could very well be good reasons for not placing 1 series AF on other cameras.

versus the hyperbolic theory that they do it to protect the 1 series. protect the 1 series against what?


----------



## aceflibble (Feb 14, 2018)

Innovation? Hell no.

But when it comes to lenses they're still often the best overall, and though the bodies are outclassed in many ways, they're still good enough to keep up with most industries and applications.

This is why I have multiple systems. My Fujis are for fun stuff. Phase for absolute top digital quality. Canon as the workhorse. If I were buying all-new today, I'd probably go to Nikon or Sony (probably Sony, because Nikon's grip shapes cramp my hands), but as it stands, switching everything over would cost too much to be worth it for what little I'd gain, especially as it'd mean giving up a few key lenses in addition to the sheer monetary cost.

I don't think anybody would dispute that Sony and Nikon are leagues ahead of Canon in terms of sheer technology, but there's more to working photography than just having the latest function or the broadest dynamic range. It'd sure be nice if Canon would come up with fresher ideas to match the others, but they don't _need_ to as long as they at least maintain a _practical_ system with very good pro support and service.

Fact is, right now _every_ system offers something the others don't, and _none_ of them are bad. It's basically impossible now to buy a dud body or an under-performing lens. Some systems give you more cutting-edge functions, but those same systems are also the ones with the more lacking fundamentals. Some systems may only give you the basics, but they do so at a very high quality and/or backed up with better service.


----------



## Jack Jian (Feb 14, 2018)

*Re: Poll Added: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*



godefroyr said:


> Canon is behind in terms of DR and this is no more acceptable, even if their DSLR camera are excellent compromises...



While it'll be appreciated to have better DR as other's do, it's a nonsense to say "is behind in terms of DR and this is no more acceptable". Everytime I see people say they need more DR, I took it as "I am a very very poor photographer who don't know what I am doing." The only time when I need a high dynamic range is only when I shoot a sun backlit portrait without a flash.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 14, 2018)

*Re: Poll Added: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*



alienman said:


> It seems like the “I switched from canon to _____” confessions are tallying up day by day.



[_stentorian referee voice_] In this corner, wearing the black-and-white colors of truth and weighing in at 130 million points, we have Facts and Data. And in this corner, wearing the iridescent color of inconsistency and weighing in at some undefined amount of fluff, we have Anecdotes and Opinion. Let the bout begin!

The thing is...Canon has _gained_ market share over the past few years. Don't let reality knock you on your ass with a hard uppercut.


----------



## Isaacheus (Feb 14, 2018)

*Re: Poll Added: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*



Mikehit said:


> The Fat Fish said:
> 
> 
> > Spot on. I saved up in preparation for the 6DII and now there's no way I'd get one. I also don't think the 5DIV is worth the money costing as much as the D850 and A7RIII. Where does this leave me? Not buying Canon.
> ...



Not who you were replying to but was in the same position :went with the sony a7r3 instead of a 6dmk2 and a new lens or the 5dmk4 on its own. 

There are a few things both the canon's meant I'd compromise on, where the sony had fewer and smaller ones. 

1080 120fps
FF 4k - I understand the 6dmk2 not having this in full frame but the 5dmk4 felt behind for it

Tilting screen for landscape - this may be the biggest one, the dynamic range of the 6dmk2 really threw me off it, having the dynamic range of the first 6d limit a few of my timelapses meant there was no point trying. The 5dmk4 would have worked if the screen was there. Some compositions are far harder to monitor without the screen for timelapse 

Peaking and zebras for landscapes, just makes things easier, not a major on its own but it's hard to go back now

USB charging 

Ibis is nice, being able to use primes for handheld video is very useful. Something I really can't do on the Canon 6d or 5dmk3. I assume the same for the newer ones too

There are a few others, but you get the idea. The canons are decent reliable cameras, but there are things they just cannot shoot compared to other options in class.


----------



## docsmith (Feb 14, 2018)

*Re: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*



Hesbehindyou said:


> Here's the problem:
> 
> Canon responds to the needs of, and builds products differentiated for, two groups: professionals and consumers.
> 
> We are enthusiasts. Canon does not respond to our desires - we're too small a market.



I almost completely agree with this and love the direction you are going. But I would further subdivide as Canon does make camera's for enthusiasts. The enthusiast market is great. I would argue that a lot of enthusiasts own 80D's, 7DII's, 6DII's, 5DIV's, and even 1DX's. 

The subset of people that are obsessed with what they do not have in their Canon camera vs what they do have is more about personality type than about markets. I deal with people that want more every day. It is really interesting, as they rarely consider the broader benefit and costs. They just want. They want and are convinced that any level of benefit is worth the cost (horrible business model, BTW). Once they have "X" they will want "Y." They are not technically wrong (usually) in that there is benefit to "X" and would be benefit from "Y", but these people are never pleased. It is a bit funny, because, at least those that I work with, they are not in positions of accountability. The rubber never really hits the road in their positions. Those that are, usually tend to be more strategic about what they want...but I digress.....

Overall, the two mindsets are both correct: 
[list type=decimal]
[*]Things are always changing and it is rare to survive if you do not evolve
[*]It is foolish to not slow down and enjoy the benefits of your past efforts
[/list]

These two mindsets are not mutually exclusive, matter of fact, IMO, the balance of the two is critical. Slow and steady does win the race. It may annoy some people, but it is true more often than not.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 14, 2018)

As a professional, one buys a tool because it works.

Everything else is secondary.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 14, 2018)

*Re: Poll Added: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*



Isaacheus said:


> The canons are decent reliable cameras, but there are things they just cannot shoot compared to other options in class.



There is a very important distinction between 'things they just cannot shoot' and 'things *I* just cannot shoot with them'. 

I'm not saying the former is never true, but for the most part when people state the former, what they really mean is the latter. This was Keith's point earlier in the thread.


----------



## CafferyPhoto (Feb 14, 2018)

I've been with Canon EOS since the 20D (T90 before that). I've been more than happy because of the automatic sensor cleaning, great low light AF and the great lenses. The big beef I have with them are things like only supplying the 500mb/s 4K on the 5DIV. I would own two of these beasts if they produced usable (smaller) 4K footage, but for now I have to wait until they finally decide to give the humans fire from Mount Olympus. I don't have room or need for more than two bodies - but what I need is two cameras with dual memory card slots, usable 4K video, and not huge bodies. 

I need a main body and a backup body, both serving as 4K cameras for video work. I need simplicity.

If the 6D had two SD slots I would be all over that thing! C'mon Canon, I'm not getting any younger; at least release a firmware update for the 5DIV so we can have smaller 4K files.


----------



## IglooEater (Feb 14, 2018)

*Re: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*



Isaacheus said:


> Getting the popcorn out for this comment section



Me too. 
I read the post and I’m like, “seriously? We need a thread for this?”

On a side note, if the 5D IV is not majorly more advanced than the 5D II, Nikon’s improvements in the D850 over the D800 are even more dismal during a similar timeslot. I don’t think this is a Canon problem so msuch as an industry wide problem. 
Oh, and for Sony mirrorless, they’re only starting to be products even worthy of being released, so what might be seen as innovation towards great products to some looked to others more like trying to fix under-engineered beta products.


----------



## docsmith (Feb 14, 2018)

*Re: Poll Added: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*



Mikehit said:


> The Fat Fish said:
> 
> 
> > Spot on. I saved up in preparation for the 6DII and now there's no way I'd get one. I also don't think the 5DIV is worth the money costing as much as the D850 and A7RIII. Where does this leave me? Not buying Canon.
> ...



Yeah, so Dustin's review, one's better in some areas, one's better in others:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_WPjtjuMGk

The comparisons I've seen are all calling them ballparkish equal. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=PgdNEAZ29Vg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlRRt7hbryY

So...Canon MUST EVOLVE.....yet are basically equal to the others..... :


----------



## FramerMCB (Feb 14, 2018)

*Re: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*



keithcooper said:


> Some innovation yes, but in general I broadly agree with the FS article.
> 
> Unfortunately, I'm minded to consider that many of the noise making whingers should probably pay far more attention to their basic photography skills ;-)
> 
> ...



Amen!

A+.


----------



## jc7222 (Feb 15, 2018)

Perception is reality! This is a lesson that Canon will begin to learn the hard way without innovation. I see many more videos and write-ups about Canon not being able to measure up to other manufacturers' innovation and this will begin to stick and impact their bottom line.


----------



## Surfboard (Feb 15, 2018)

Canon is behind, way behind. Any gig that I do that involves video simply cannot be done with a Canon camera. Period. Full stop. Their $5500 "flagship` camera tops out at 120fps in hd. How 2010 of them.... Sony here I come....


----------



## Isaacheus (Feb 15, 2018)

*Re: Poll Added: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*



neuroanatomist said:


> Isaacheus said:
> 
> 
> > The canons are decent reliable cameras, but there are things they just cannot shoot compared to other options in class.
> ...



Oh yes, and I don't want to imply that it is always the camera that is the limiting factor. For a number of shots I take, the camera doesn't make the difference, can't blame the camera for those bad shots. 

For my uses, it's more the video features that the Canon just doesn't have the option for, namely the full frame 4k and 120 fps video.

For most of my stills, the differences in dynamic range between Sony and the 5dmk4 are not the deciding factor, just not enough in it. It's the functional features that get it there. Didn't think I'd be saying the Canon offering isn't as functional as the Sony really


----------



## Jack Jian (Feb 15, 2018)

jc7222 said:


> Perception is reality! This is a lesson that Canon will begin to learn the hard way without innovation. I see many more videos and write-ups about Canon not being able to measure up to other manufacturers' innovation and this will begin to stick and impact their bottom line.



I wish Canon would read your comment and start innovating rather than consulting the pro's on their needs.
Innovations I know are as below (not in order):

1. USM AF
2. 50mm F1.0
3. First affordable FF
4. IS (I think) & Hybrid IS
5. STM AF
6. DPAF
7. Eye Controlled AF
8. Practical Widest lens with L standard IQ & built
10. Now, they "Accidently" found tweaking the DPRAW to squeeze out extra stop of DR (and will eventually ISO noise performance as well), and in a matter of time when it's perfected, all Canon APSC and FF will be leading the pack with higher DR and ISO performance..LOL
11. The legendary Canon color science..(Don't tell me you can tweak any RAW to get the canon color, I'll , and every Canon shooters will roll their eyes!)
12. DO lens 
13. 50MP DSLR
14. Dual Cross AF + 5 Dual Cross AF points on modern 5D lineup and 1Dx line up.
15. Air Sphere coating
16. Blue Spectrum reduction coating and a lot similar more
17. and a lot more, just browse through the patent news on CR and compared it to NR and SR (they have no news at all).


----------



## alienman (Feb 15, 2018)

Surfboard said:


> Canon is behind, way behind. Any gig that I do that involves video simply cannot be done with a Canon camera. Period. Full stop. Their $5500 "flagship` camera tops out at 120fps in hd. How 2010 of them.... Sony here I come....



I agree, I went the Panasonic route and got the gh5 and gh5s with a couple of metabones speedsters for my legacy canon glass. Focus peaking, zebras, DCI 4k, 4k 60p, just seemed to be a more logical decision than getting 1dxii to go along with my cinema camera. Hopefully canon knocks it out of the park with their full frame mirrorless. Im praying

And for you video guys out there I believe Panasonic just announced an 8k sensor for their mirrorless.


----------



## slclick (Feb 15, 2018)

All this chatter takes me back to the OG debate how if film shooters of yesteryear could do what they do, it's not the camera if you can't do it with todays gear. Well, looking at the responses it does seem stills are satisfied and video folks are not. Glad I'm in the happy camp.


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 15, 2018)

*Re: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*



Canon Rumors said:


> I think the 6D Mark II bugged me. I have one, I use it, it's fine.
> 
> It should be better than "fine".



Actually I think the 6DII is just fine being "just fine".
I'm waiting for the price to drop, Full Frame bodies should be moving closer to entry level prices, the 6DII is doing what the 6DII should do, it's just overpriced right now. Anyone would LOVE to have a 6DII instead of an 80D.

Overall, Canon is pacing themselves just fine.
As FStoppers pointed out (amazingly for a popular blog), the only reason people perceive Sony as making rapid progress is because their products were borderline unusable before now, if Sony had been competitive with Canon this whole time the A7RIII would be nothing special.
It's inevitable that Canon will catch up to whatever sensor tech their competition comes up with, Sony has a limited time to actually leverage any advantage in that area (if they've ever actually had any real advantage, Canon's sensors have always been competitive in the ISO range where their cameras are used most).

Lenses, lenses, lenses.
"Glass is forever"
Canon is the best photographic equipment maker in the world and there is no sign of that changing any time soon.
Nikon is still #2 in this area but they won't be for long at the current pace.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, however much the move away from Canon is a surprising industry trend, it's downright shocking to see how quickly Nikon is failing. At the rate their business is shrinking there has to be two people leaving Nikon for every one person selling off their Canon gear.
Or more accurately, there's probably two Nikon shooters adopting Sony and neglecting Nikon for every one Canon shooter "jumping ship".
It's important to note that Sony's growth isn't industry growth, it's cannibalization within the industry and Canon is actually moving forward largely unscathed. The mirrorless market is still too confused to be attractive to the majority of customers, and as we've seen from the growth of EOS-M over the years, Canon's own offerings in that space are quite satisfactory to the average consumer.
The problem for Sony is their rapid growth cannot be maintained, as soon as enough tech enthusiasts have played with the latest fancy trinkets they'll move on to the next thing.

The Canon ecosystem still has too many capabilities that no-one else has, it's like comparing the U.S. Military to any other army in the world. Sure, some countries are developing some neat new stuff, but in terms of operational capabilities no-one questions who the world leader is.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 15, 2018)

I like opinion pieces when the people giving the opinion are intelligent and their points are well constructed and well communicated.

Sonder Creative are not that, Usman seems to spend most of his time pontificating in a sudo authoritative tone that is so obviously built on sand it is comical that anybody could find anything he says incisive or authoritative, the guy, his opinions, and the way he conveys them are a joke. Well he makes me laugh, just look back at any of his obviously flawed click bate videos.

So he is an architectural photographer, what have Canon done for him? Well they came out with the ground breaking and unmatched TS-E17, 8 years before Nikon even tried to counter it with a single rotation PC-E19. What else? Well the TS-E 50, 90 and 135 are all supremely high quality lenses. Don't want to talk about lenses? Well for architectural imaging Canon have the best and longest lived implementation of Live View, anybody here tried to use Nikon Live View? The differences in DR when exposure is optimized is minimal now. Canon still have the highest MP 135 format sensor. The 1DX MkII is unmatched in video capabilities from any manufacturer with that sensor size at twice the price. The flawed negativity just goes on and on, but 'I want illuminated buttons', 'I want two slots in my entry level camera', 'I want' 'I want'... 

Now give me the choice of all that class leading lens and functionality *and* illuminated buttons and I'll take it, but give me the functionality with that lens choice without the buttons and I am still looking at Canon as a totally unmatched system for any architectural photographer not shooting larger format.


----------



## Aaron D (Feb 15, 2018)

Yes Jack Jian! And a zoom fish-eye! And a 17 mm TSE years before Nikon's 19!

What do people want? glowing buttons?


----------



## Isaacheus (Feb 15, 2018)

*Re: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*



9VIII said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > I think the 6D Mark II bugged me. I have one, I use it, it's fine.
> ...



I think Canon gutted the 6dmk2 too thin for the price to be loved by all over the 80d. Not so much for what they didn't add (dual card slots, 4k etc - I can understand the reasons here even if I would have liked to have seen them added) but not having the new sensor tech that is present in the 80d, or even smaller items like all-1 codec, headphone jack, those are the parts that don't make sense to me considering they're present in the crop.

The camera is probably fine, when found for cheap, but it had the potential to really shine


----------



## mistaspeedy (Feb 15, 2018)

I don't know how much it costs to open up a whole new sensor production line.
Wouldn't it have been a lot cheaper to just use the 1DX Mark II sensor in the 6D Mark II ?
Everything else could have remained the same as the current 6D mark II besides the video codec (which should at least match the 6D mark I).


----------



## woodman411 (Feb 15, 2018)

*Re: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*



Isaacheus said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Rumors said:
> ...



If the 6d2 was to shine to everyone's expectations, the price would have been much higher. With the way it is, it allowed Canon to sell it at US $1350 less than 6 months after it was released.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 15, 2018)

*Re: Poll Added: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*



neuroanatomist said:


> [_stentorian referee voice_] In this corner, wearing the black-and-white colors of truth and weighing in at 130 million points, we have Facts and Data. And in this corner, wearing the iridescent color of inconsistency and weighing in at some undefined amount of fluff, we have Anecdotes and Opinion. Let the bout begin!
> 
> The thing is...Canon has _gained_ market share over the past few years. Don't let reality knock you on your ass with a hard uppercut.



Ah yes, there you go again Neuro, injecting reality into a nice whiny thread.

I'm perplexed by all these people who complain about innovation. It's a camera. It's supposed to take pictures. The cheapest camera available today takes better pictures than were possible in the film era.

What is it that people think other cameras have that Canon doesn't?

Are Canon's perfect? No. But, for me they deliver day in and day out under a huge range of conditions. Any flaws are minor annoyances, not something to wring my hands over and fret about having my ego bruised because a Sony or a Nikon might have some singular feature that Canon doesn't. 

People keep repeating this mantra that Canon is "behind" the competition, but that is only true if you equate minuscule differences between brands as making one "ahead" and one "behind," instead of just being marginally different.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 15, 2018)

*Re: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*



9VIII said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > I think the 6D Mark II bugged me. I have one, I use it, it's fine.
> ...


The 6D2 IS a fine camera, and at high ISO is as good as just about any camera out there. Yes, it could have been made better, but at what cost? We don't know....

There is one thing that really puzzles me about the camera though.... it has Bluetooth, so why not support Bluetooth headphones? They don't have to go crazy and hit every feature of every headset, just a generic left and right channel....


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 15, 2018)

*Re: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*



Isaacheus said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Rumors said:
> ...



Sometimes I wish Canon would get crushed by Sony or some other company, but it's just not happening.
However competitive the industry is it's still not nearly competitive enough.
It's hilarious that Nikon _REMOVED_ dual card slots from the D7500, all the arguments about the D7200 being "professional" now die with it.
Everyone knows the Sony A6000 is a great little camera, I was actually looking forward to seeing what Sony would come up with to replace it, something with a better sensor and an updated (usable) interface that would compete in the same price range... and I'm still waiting, the A6300 and A6500 just got more and more expensive, the A6500 is almost the same price as the 7D2.

I'll just leave Sony alone and let them keep riding the Nikon fanboys who all seem too willing to shell out money just to spite Canon's long term domination.


----------



## Quackator (Feb 15, 2018)

Imagine Canon would give us a mirrorless 5D MkIV.
Same body, same AF-performance, everything the same,
just an EVF instead of an optical finder, plus....

- Global shutter good for flash at any shutter speed.
- EVF that can load user defined overlays from memory cards in the field.
Layout templates, composition guides, multi image composing help lines.
From PNG files with transparency channel.

Would be enough wow for me to buy multiple units.

The stance about Canon not being good enough is mostly
heard from those who didn't buy. Those who would likely 
not have bought anyway, no matter what the camera looks 
like. A case of sour grapes.

In contrast to that, their owners agree that the 5D MkIV is
the best allround camera Canon has ever built so far.

Aside of my own photography and video business, I run two 
large professional rental studios, with flash power in excess
of 100000 Ws. No hobbyists, only professional clients.

The 5D MkIV and the 5Ds/R are responsible for 80% of all 
photography in our studios. Add a few Phase One, and the
occasional D810, one single Panasonic GH5 and one single 
Fuji Gfx50. None of our clients has ever used a Sony for 
studio still photography.

The picture is different in video. Canon is only responsible for
little over 50% of that in our studios. 20% is Sony, and
you can bet that within 20 minutes after starting to set up,
you can overhear one team member saying to the other how 
bad Sony interface designs are. The rest of the video jobs
is RED, Panasonic, Blackmagic with no clear preference.

So, if at all, there's more room in the video field for development.
The 50% share of Canon is booked days and cameras on set. When 
it comes to footage volume, our most productive clients are all 
Canon 5D series. The bulk of footage being produced in our studios 
is done on 5D MkIII, slowly shifting over to 5D MkIV.

Mind you, these are professionals. Zebra, waveform display?
That's what external monitors are good for. Follow focus on the
thumbwheel of a Zhiyun Crane 2 (for example) without the need 
for an external FF with onboard tools? Only from Canon, nobody 
else. 4k, cine-log? RED cameras. Most videos play out over the 
web or tv sets with 1080p anyway. Why bother with the data ballast 
of 4k video, then? Zooming in post? Frame better in the beginning.
De-shake? No, stabilize your camera.

The most common woes:
-Flimsy standard cable plugs. Give us a dock with XLR, SDI et al.
And mil-grade cable locks.
-External monitoring. Give us wireless zero lag external monitoring 
simultaneaously to multiple devices.

Being able to load composition template overlays with alpha channel 
transparency from PNG files in the field would add very welcome
green screen and program design capabilities.

Summing it all up, Canon looks much better from the perspective of 
it's users than it does from the perspective of people living in the internet.


----------



## Quackator (Feb 15, 2018)

And while we are at it: Looking over the "I have switched to...." threads,
the majority seems to switch from a lower tier (or maximum middle class) 
Canon body with an assortment of consumer grade zooms to yet another
body of the same class from Sony, Fuji, Nikon for performance, or to
Olympus/Panasonic for weight and size reasons.

And then they complain that their new camera isn't performing like
a Canon 5 or 1 series camera. Buying better glass and/or upgrading
their camera would have served them much better.

Disco kids wake up to the fact that nobody else has such a sophisticated
native radio flash system. They have to buy 3rd party Godox.
Their AF isn't as good also, if they didn't switch to Leica SL or Sony A9.
Skin tones, yada, yada.....

Yes, it is more than the sum of it's parts.


----------



## Talys (Feb 15, 2018)

*Re: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*



Don Haines said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Rumors said:
> ...



I have both a 6D2, and an 80D. I think they're both great cameras! 

For a variety of reasons, I would rather own both a 6D2 and an 80D, than just one 40-50 megapixel full frame camera (or a 5D4). Having a second body the ability to have a crop OVF is just a huge benefit to me, and the 80D is fantastic for macro product photography.

As my cameras do pretty much everything I need them to do, I'm happy with Canon. The last thing I really, really wanted out of a camera was fully articulating screen on a full frame camera, which 6D2 provided.


----------



## ethanz (Feb 15, 2018)

May I ask what the need is for full frame 4K? I don't find the crop in the 1d to be a terrible thing.


----------



## mb66energy (Feb 15, 2018)

After waiting for the "right" full frame DSL(R) and after checking out with 5D classic if full frame is important to me I found out that full frame is not too important for me. While the 5D classic outperforms all APS-C bodies up to 18MPix sensor line the SL2 / 200D has very similar overall IQ compared to the 5D classic at least if downsampled to the same MPix count.
But SL2 has increased DR (~ 2 stops) which helps a lot in many contralight situations, the great freely positionable screen, a very reliable and fast DPAF which helps me in a lot of situations where the sun in the frame is too bright or the camera has to be positioned above / below the head.

This tiny, light, flexible and relatively cheap camera with great IQ is innovative enough for me and ... a medium sized set of prime lenses with two zooms kept me from thinking about switching to another system.

Truly innovative would be a mirrorless camera where you can change the sensor-cpu-subgroup yourself. Ergonomics stay, sensors go. And if a high res, low-res-high-iso, monochrome sensor were available and upgraded while the "body frame" and the lenses stay the same - this would be photographers heaven for me (from the tech perspective).


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 15, 2018)

ethanz said:


> May I ask what the need is for full frame 4K? I don't find the crop in the 1d to be a terrible thing.



Some people have old lenses for 35mm wide film, and it lets you keep a consistent look between 35mm film and the digital cameras.
It's a known quantity for movie producers, thus so many people loved the 5DMkII for its full frame 1080p recording when it came out.


----------



## Jack Jian (Feb 15, 2018)

ethanz said:


> May I ask what the need is for full frame 4K? I don't find the crop in the 1d to be a terrible thing.



It's required only by Internet forum "video makers", all [or majority] serious project outside the Internet forum uses S35 format which is very close to APS-C crop, because of which Canon apply a similar crop to 5D IV and 1Dx II (targeting real video makers). Pros knows and appreciate it with no complains, but Internet forum pros rattles like a half empty vessel with a marble in it.


----------



## Isaacheus (Feb 15, 2018)

*Re: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*



woodman411 said:


> Isaacheus said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



I didn't mean to infer that canon should have satisfied every wished for feature in the 6d, just that at it's release price, it had a few things omitted from it that may have been expected considering what the 80d got. If it had 4k and dual cards, then a price increase from the initial 2000 would be reasonable yes.

I'm not sure I'd see canon discounting it by nearly half (I think that was the bundle deal, with a few hundred of extras thrown in?) as a good sign.


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 15, 2018)

*Re: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*



Isaacheus said:


> I didn't mean to infer that canon should have satisfied every wished for feature in the 6d, just that at it's release price, it had a few things omitted from it that may have been expected considering what the 80d got. If it had 4k and dual cards, then a price increase from the initial 2000 would be reasonable yes.



But if Canon are not going to give every wished-for feature they will by definition leave some out and you would still have people complaining. 
What I don't really understand is that it was supposed to get things like 4K (and not even Sony make a 4k FF camera at this launch price) and conveniently for et that at this price they are getting FF compared to 80D. The 6D line was created to offer FF images albeit slimmed down on functionality. And the question then comes at what point do you add features, increase price and take it so close to the next model up that one or both lines suffer. Some call that 'protection of the higher model', I call it good product management and anyone who has been involved in sales or product development will understand that.


----------



## Sabaki (Feb 15, 2018)

I have made, with intention, a decision not to be smart about Canon as a business.

Instead, I am a client/customer who buys their wares. If I spend $x.xx on a product that is outperformed by their competitors, I am not happy

If something is omitted on a product (AF assist), then I am not happy

I can only be unhappy for so long before I am tempted elsewhere.

I am unhappy about their bodies. The industry at large and my own minimal experience with other brands shows me that Canon is lagging.

I am extremely happy with their lenses, I feel pound for pound that Canon are the heavyweight champions here.

Peripherals: RT flash system is super but I am being guided to buy third party wares for other items like battery packs, flash brackets and timer remotes

Overall, I remain with both feet in the Canon camp but it needs to pull its finger out of its arse with their bodies


----------



## Isaacheus (Feb 15, 2018)

*Re: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*



Mikehit said:


> Isaacheus said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't mean to infer that canon should have satisfied every wished for feature in the 6d, just that at it's release price, it had a few things omitted from it that may have been expected considering what the 80d got. If it had 4k and dual cards, then a price increase from the initial 2000 would be reasonable yes.
> ...



And I think (most) people understand that working out where to place a product is part of produce management, just in this case, I feel canon got it wrong. Whether canon and anyone else feels the same way is still to be fully seen, but I get the feeling there is a not insignificant number that share the same feeling. 

Personally, at the price it was announced, I was thinking it would be a ff 80d, giving up nothing to the 80d, but far enough back from the 5dmk4 to create space (af, 4k, dual cards etc being the major differences). At the end of the day, it meant I looked elsewhere, which happened to be away from canon bodies entirely. The nail in that coffin was that canon weren't putting out a sensor that gave better iq in all cases over their own crop sensor, no matter the competition in it's own class. To me, the whole point of ff is the better iq. But I think I've gone off thread a bit


----------



## Hector1970 (Feb 15, 2018)

Canon have done well out of me over the years.
I currently have the 5D IV, 5DSR and 7DII.
I've an extensive lens collection from 11mm out to 600mm.
The lens I never complain about. 
They all perform really well and exceed my talents as a photographer.
The cameras I do feel Canon have been conservative.
I loved my 5DIII until it went for an unplanned swim.
The 5D IV is a very capable replacement and a very solid camera but in the end not noticeably very better than the version III.
The 5DSR and 7DII (which I believe have a similar sensor) I felt were always not as good as they should be.
I think Canon tried to cram too many pixels on the sensor too early to be the first to get to 50MP.
For someone like me I've reached the end of the road with Canon cameras.
The last camera left that I might purchase is the 1DXII but I find that size camera just too big (fine for wildlife/sport but not for general use.
I think Canon have left it late entering the full frame mirrorless market. It's now what I am waiting for. Canon have had the technology and know-how for a number of years (as they can do APS-C mirrorless).
It now has to be a really good first model.
The frame rate of the Sony's is impressive and can't be matches by mirrored camera.
Sony are starting to bring out better and better lens.
Canon trade alot off the visibility they have at sporting events like Olympics and World Cups.
If the professionals are using them then ordinary punters believe they are the best.
You can see here alot of high end users are starting to grumble a little at Canons new models.
The 6DII for me was a poor move by Canon as it reinforces the idea they are not interested in innovating in cameras but just having incremental improvements.
While its not exactly similar companies like Nokia also seemed to be doing very well while not innovating and it took a while but they became obsolete - even though they had very solid phones with a good battery life. Canon lens keep Canon in the game even if they didn't innovate at all but only for so long.
For the brand perception amongst new buyers Canon needs to get good reviews in magazines and on the web for their new cameras. Once people perceive Nikon or Sony to be better it would be difficult to change minds again. 
Anyway for me Canon bring out a great mirrorless full frame camera that bests everything else out there.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 15, 2018)

*Re: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*



Talys said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



I have the 6D2 and the 7D2. One tends to get used indoors or at night, and the other outdoors or in daylight. Both are great cameras. The combination of robustness/AF of the 7D2 and the low cost/high ISO performance of the 6D2 makes a great pair.


----------



## Neutron_K (Feb 15, 2018)

IMO, many people have problems defining innovation properly these days.


----------



## BeenThere (Feb 15, 2018)

s66 said:


> > The EOS 5D Mark III has been a workhorse for a long time. The EOS 5D Mark IV with its perceived gimped 4K and general feeling that the camera wasn’t a big improvement over the EOS 5D Mark III has caused people some pause.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think your 5D iii needed repair. I don’t see any exposure issues with my copy. I also own the Mk II and don’t see much difference in exposure behavior.


----------



## snoke (Feb 15, 2018)

*Re: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*



scyrene said:


> AdjustedInCamera said:
> 
> 
> > The iPhone wasn't based around the needs of the professional phone user.
> ...



Wrong. Before iPhone, professional phone user own Blackberry.


----------



## snoke (Feb 15, 2018)

Hector1970 said:


> Once people perceive Nikon or Sony to be better it would be difficult to change minds again.



Nikon D850 announce August 2017.
Now February 2018. Still no USA stock.
Nikon need Canon factory 

In Japan, https://www.mapcamera.com/ say Nikon D850 sell best in all 2017, next Sony A7R III.
Only 1 store.

Amazon:
https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Camera-Photo-DSLR-Cameras/zgbs/photo/3017941
Nikon: 1 (D3300) ,3 (D3400), 4(D3400), 5(D3400),7(D850 - stock?), 10 (D750)
Canon: 2 (T6), 6 (T6), 8 (T6), 9 (5DIV)

UK Amazon:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Best-Sellers-Electronics-Digital-SLR-Cameras/zgbs/electronics/14335821
Canon: 1 (1300D), 3 (750D), 6 (200D), 7 (1300D)
Nikon: 2 (D3400), 4 (D5300), 5 (D7500), 8 (D5600), 10 (D3300)


----------



## The Fat Fish (Feb 15, 2018)

*Re: Poll Added: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*



Mikehit said:


> The Fat Fish said:
> 
> 
> > Spot on. I saved up in preparation for the 6DII and now there's no way I'd get one. I also don't think the 5DIV is worth the money costing as much as the D850 and A7RIII. Where does this leave me? Not buying Canon.
> ...



95% of my photos are shot at ISO100 so base ISO is hugely important for me. I also do a lot of video work and couldn't get on with the 5DIV implementation. The crop forced me to change lenses too frequently and the MJPEG codec is pre-historic. I wouldn't mind a 500mbs codec if the quality difference was noticeable but the 100mbps A6300 footage looks far better and has less of a crop.

For me the benchmark for a £3200 camera is the A7RIII and D850. That's two brands offering very similar spec sheets (and great cameras) for that price. The 5DIV is also that price and in comparison is more of a £2200 camera.

The 5DIV is good but I don't want to play Canon's premium pricing game for non-premium spec lists.


----------



## RGF (Feb 15, 2018)

*Re: Poll Added: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*



neuroanatomist said:


> alienman said:
> 
> 
> > It seems like the “I switched from canon to _____” confessions are tallying up day by day.
> ...



Ford and Chevy have more market share than BMW, Mercedes or Porsche. Does not mean that they are better, just more mainstream.


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 15, 2018)

*Re: Poll Added: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*



RGF said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > alienman said:
> ...



Canon sells to all markets.

it doesn't mean they aren't better either. selling to all markets causes some of the angst few have and repeatedly mention.

the fact is, the same amount of people every year, in a declining market - for the last three years are buying Canon equipment - and their mount marketshare is growing faster than all of mirrorless combined.

that's a successful combination no matter which way you want to try to minimize it.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Feb 15, 2018)

There are way too many pure photographers and hobbyists here for them understand whats wrong with Canon. It's nice and all that their cameras dont break but there are more things wrong that DR and shadow recover compared to other companies. We need more features that makes our jobs easier if you are a professional or videographer.


----------



## 3dit0r (Feb 15, 2018)

Jack Jian said:


> ethanz said:
> 
> 
> > May I ask what the need is for full frame 4K? I don't find the crop in the 1d to be a terrible thing.
> ...



Hm, I do know what you’re saying and sort of partly agree, but with the caveat that while the 1Dxii 1.3 crop is pretty much fine, the 5Div crop of 1.7 is getting a bit unworkable once you consider you can’t use Canon EF-S lenses on it, so no much in the way of wide angles are easily achievable.

Also, not all serious projects are confined to S35, even in the film days 70mm was used for certain productions. I will be making a narrative short soon and it would have been nice and more practical if my full-frame primes were effectively the same (or similar) fov in video mode as they are in stills, especially since the Sigma 1.8 zooms don’t play nice with DPAF.


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 15, 2018)

3dit0r said:


> Jack Jian said:
> 
> 
> > ethanz said:
> ...



sigma says hi. samyang says helllo.

considering EF-S doesn't have cini lenses, and they have APS-C cini lenses... 

1.3 crop is in the middle and you can't get UWA with 1.3 crop and you can't use APS-C lenses on it.


----------



## Talys (Feb 15, 2018)

RGF said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > alienman said:
> ...



But Ford and Chevy do have better pickup trucks, and they have better cars under $10,000. ;D

It's funny: I actually have owned a Ford (Thunderbird SC), a Chevy (two Corvettes), and a Mercedes (an AMG).

The AMG is the only 6-figure car I have ever purchased, _and what a piece of garbage it was_. I've never had so many problems with a car in my life, including my first vehicle, which was a second-hand Chrysler LeBaron. Other than the amazing look the AMG had, a gorgeous interior, and the ability to suck gas like nobody's business the AMG was best at nothing other than time in the dealership for warranty repairs (over 3 months in 3 years).




RayValdez360 said:


> There are way too many pure photographers and hobbyists here for them understand whats wrong with Canon. It's nice and all that their cameras dont break but there are more things wrong that DR and shadow recover compared to other companies. We need more features that makes our jobs easier if you are a professional or videographer.



Well, as a hobbyist "pure photographer", I will certainly give you that Canon's DSLRs leave a lot to be desired for videographers. But really, doesn't every DSLR? And, if a lot of pure photographers and photography hobbyists can't "understand what's wrong with Canon", and that's their customer/fan base, perhaps... there's nothing wrong with Canon ;D

I think there are some professional photographers that would disagree that DSLRs, and Canon DSLRs, are the tool of choice, though. I mean, just look at NBC


----------



## 3dit0r (Feb 15, 2018)

For what it’s worth, my 2p is that I think Canon is getting it mostly right, but could also use some solid innovation in a few areas.

Really, in terms of DSLR, I think they’re pretty damn good. There are little things like the above-mentioned 4K crop in the 5Dmkiv, not to mention lack of focus peaking, zebras, etc., which, frankly, were a balls-up and probably lost them countless customers to other brands. That’s not even a question of innovation, they have the tech, that’s just some bizarre perceived need to ‘protect’ their video-centric cinema eos line. Sony also have a video-centric line, they sell tons of both types of camera, Canon could learn from that marketing strategy. Different markets which don’t need protecting from each other.

The biggest area for innovation is obvious: mirrorless. I’ve used a lot of mirrorless cameras, I’m surprised Canon are so late to the serious game. They still have time, but it needs to happen and soon and be great. Actually I think EF mount would be great, but then they could do with a line of EF lenses suited to mirrorless (e.g., an ‘L Junior’ series; a bit like Nikon’s 1.8 primes - fast enough, half the size and weight of the 1.4/1.2Ls, weather sealed, quiet, fast AF suited to stills and video, no focus by wire). They’d have time to develop these properly if the mirrorless were EF mount as everyone could use the wide range of EF lenses in the meantime. Stop holding back and put in the features competitors have but make it Canon colour science and build quality, but lighter weight.


----------



## rikstir (Feb 15, 2018)

I bought a 5DMKIV this year and I'm happy with it but I'm heavily invested in Canon lenses. I also don't shoot for a living any longer so I'm not as concerned with staying on the cutting edge of camera tech. If I was starting from scratch the Nikon D850 would be very tempting. A former colleague of mine who has shot Canon for over 20 years just switched entirely to Sony. I think Canon and Nikon both should be concerned. Canon is going to need a FF mirrorless that can jump ahead of Sony if they don't want to lose more marketshare.


----------



## 3dit0r (Feb 15, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> 3dit0r said:
> 
> 
> > Jack Jian said:
> ...



Neither Sigma nor Samsung say hello if you want reliable DPAF, which is one of the best things about Canon’s video right now.


----------



## 3dit0r (Feb 15, 2018)

3dit0r said:


> For what it’s worth, my 2p is that I think Canon is getting it mostly right, but could also use some solid innovation in a few areas.
> 
> Really, in terms of DSLR, I think they’re pretty damn good. There are little things like the above-mentioned 4K crop in the 5Dmkiv, not to mention lack of focus peaking, zebras, etc., which, frankly, were a balls-up and probably lost them countless customers to other brands. That’s not even a question of innovation, they have the tech, that’s just some bizarre perceived need to ‘protect’ their video-centric cinema eos line. Sony also have a video-centric line, they sell tons of both types of camera, Canon could learn from that marketing strategy. Different markets which don’t need protecting from each other.
> 
> The biggest area for innovation is obvious: mirrorless. I’ve used a lot of mirrorless cameras, I’m surprised Canon are so late to the serious game. They still have time, but it needs to happen and soon and be great. Actually I think EF mount would be great, but then they could do with a line of EF lenses suited to mirrorless (e.g., an ‘L Junior’ series; a bit like Nikon’s 1.8 primes - fast enough, half the size and weight of the 1.4/1.2Ls, weather sealed, quiet, fast AF suited to stills and video, no focus by wire). They’d have time to develop these properly if the mirrorless were EF mount as everyone could use the wide range of EF lenses in the meantime. Stop holding back and put in the features competitors have but make it Canon colour science and build quality, but lighter weight.



Oh and IBIS, how could I forget? Having used that in a high-res Sony, it is very far from a gimmick, great stuff.


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 15, 2018)

3dit0r said:


> That’s not even a question of innovation, they have the tech, that’s just some bizarre perceived need to ‘protect’ their video-centric cinema eos line.



do they?

they have the cini eos cameras stacked with dual DIGIC DV's for video that need to be air cooled and vented to the outside.

it's such a comment statement, that has taken on mythical proportions. I really doubt a DSLR with stills as it's primary focus, and poor video ergonomics and connections is going to replace or even substitute for a CINI camera.


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 15, 2018)

3dit0r said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > 3dit0r said:
> ...



the point is, there's ways around that and 1.3 crop is certainly not any better than 1.7.

there's a reason why canon dropped the APS-H format alltogether.


----------



## justawriter (Feb 15, 2018)

I think a lot of Canon's innovations get overlooked. My own give-up-a-minor-body-part feature is cleaner high ISO and that's an area that Canon is strong in, but it isn't useful for the shoot the lens cap crowd. I take a lot of sports photos in dingy high school gyms and going from the 7D to the 7DII was a really big improvement. Going from seven to ten fps might not make headlines, but I get a lot more keepers. Being able to shoot at ISO 3200 instead of 800 means I can get my shutter speed up to where I like it. If the 7DIII gives me 12 fps and decent noise levels at ISO 12800 I will grab it as soon as possible. In my ideal world I want to be able to shoot 1/1000 at f8 by candlelight.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 15, 2018)

*Re: Poll Added: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*



RGF said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > alienman said:
> ...



Sure. Now, please point out where I said Canon was 'better'. I have repeatedly stated that what their greater market share means is that Canon 'better meets the needs of more people'.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 15, 2018)

justawriter said:


> I think a lot of Canon's innovations get overlooked.



Fuji just announced their new flagship APS-C mirrorless. Among other imporvements, they highlight that it has flicker detection to balance out exposure under fluorescent lighting. 

That was a Canon innovation from 2014. But Canon doesn't innovate. :


----------



## SereneSpeed (Feb 15, 2018)

I often feel like I'm the only one who thinks the 5DIV is lightyears ahead of the 5DIII. The 5DIII was incredible. I had two and loved them. It was so nice to have two and switch cameras at events and not (often) switch lenses. But now, with having one 5DIV and one 5DIII, I never use the 5DIII - it's just backup. The 5DIV images are so far ahead of the 5DIII it's silly.

I'm going to stop here and mention that when I got the 5DIV, I noticed the bump in resolution immediately, but it took me a long time (3 months daily professional use) to understand just how much better the sensor was in the 5DIV. Why? Because the files looked and worked the same between the two cameras. It was hard to tell the difference, because the transition was so easy. That's what makes Canon so amazing. I picked up the 5DIV and it felt and worked exactly like my 5DIII. Exactly. Within 48 hours, I was using the new camera as my primary camera for paid work.

But, I think this is also why Canon gets lacklustre reviews... There is no eye-poping differences that are immediately apparent. The cameras all feel the same. I assist a photographer who uses the 1DXII and I can pickup his camera and shoot with it without hesitation. It feels and works the same. This is a huge positive for working professionals. But, in the age of viral internet reviews. Consistency, reliability, and smart thinking just aren't 'sexy'.

Let me reiterate that in a different way. Canon changed their sensor design and yet they kept the same colour science. They increased their dynamic range and file workability and yet, those who work with Canon RAW files can keep their workflow. To me, that's a fantastic implementation of a new feature.

Back to my 5DIV... when I used my 5DIII alongside my 5DIV, as I process the images, I now immediately know which files were shot on which body. The 5DIV has blacks and an amazing range of details in the highlights. Not to mention, once the files are being worked on, there is a massive difference in the processing latitude of the files. The 5DIV files feel like rubber bands.

I am curious about other brands, don't get me wrong. Sony's eye-AF, looks incredible. But, I can't get over the rest. Everyone I know who upgrades to a 42-50mp camera (A7Rii, A7Riii, D850, 5DS) ends up needing to upgrade their computer to maintain processing efficiency. That's a massive expense for most working photographers. Not to be scoffed at, if you aren't already needing an upgrade. And yet, going from the 5DIII to the 5DIV, I've not felt any significant speed/efficiency decline in my workflow. And 30mp is a lot for what I deliver to clients. A lot. More than 98% of my jobs require.

Not to mention, everyone I know who uses Sony A7*'s professionally has had corrupted cards. Everyone, and not just once. That would give me a heart attack during a paid shoot. I could not handle the stress. Yeah, most of the time, the files can be recovered, but not all of the time. That's not a little bug.

I could keep going... but I won't. I'm just surprised that Canon, who makes cameras that work (no corners cut) gets slagged on so often. The other's make great and exciting cameras that have a small (yet tangible) list of sub-standard issues. But, those issues seems to be overlooked, or at least shrugged off, because of a few 'innovative' marketing tool features taht Canon doesn't have, because 'they don't innovate'.

And, as a side topic, perhaps someone can explain to me why the 6DII feature list was such a shock? The 6D cut into 5DIII sales. No doubt. I know enough people (myself included) who compared those cameras against each other when the time came to purchase a body, to understand that the difference was not enough to segregate their market placement. So, why did it come as a surprise that the 6DII held it's intended market position (to be the 'entry level' FF camera)? If you want more bells and whistles, you buy the 5DIV. Seems straight forward to me. Seems like good business practices for Canon, no?

/Rant over...


----------



## magarity (Feb 15, 2018)

Back when I sold my film cameras and was looking for digital it was between Canon's 400D and Nikon's D50 and the Canon was clearly superior. At any given time there are first time customers who know that whatever system they start with will probably keep them locked in for at least a while so they're going to go with whatever is best in their price range at that moment. Thus I think innovation is important in that regard, attracting future long term customers.


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 15, 2018)

Why should they take chances on wasted R&D, marketing campaigns, edgy tech when they have a fat cash cow? They make great cameras backed by the best service in the industry. Their lenses win--and trap a lot of heavily invested owners.

We are talking business decisions. When Sony/Nikon/Fuji/Olympus threaten profits, maybe we'll see some of the innovation they've been sitting on?


----------



## HotPixels (Feb 15, 2018)

Talys said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I had the same type of experience owning an Infiniti. Worst car I've ever used. Expensive to maintain, and too many gimmicky, gadgety features. There was even a problem with the braking software that caused an accident when my wife was parking it. I was never so glad as when I got rid of the Infiniti and got a good reliable Honda Accord. Usable and practical for me are far superior to impractical gadgetry and feature bloat.


----------



## HotPixels (Feb 15, 2018)

I think part of the problem is that internet reviewers/bloggers/commenters tend to have a bias towards that which is new and novel, whether it is better or not. It gives them something to write about and justifies what they do.

So a company like Sony comes around and gives them quick iterations of camera models, and that gives them work. Canon updates less frequently, and when they release a feature, like Dual Pixel AF, they tend to get it right the first time, so they don't need so many updates. 

Another example: ergonomics. Canon gets it right and has for years. So their new models tend to follow a familiar design layout for controls and ergonomics. That's a good thing, and it makes it easy for a user to go from one Canon model to another. But there's not much to comment on. 

Sony seems to wrestle with its ergonomics with every release, and so internet pundits have something to write about.

With Canon, internet reviewers don't want to just write something like "well, it's another super solid, performing release from Canon." 

Bottom line: that which makes for an interesting life as a reviewer is not the same that makes for a great product for customers, and is often the opposite.


----------



## SkynetTX (Feb 15, 2018)

What kind of innovation Canon should make?

Sensors with better noise performance
Faster and lighter zoom lenses
Compact cameras with large sensor and zoom range (PowerShot APS-C 24-360mm f/3.3-5.6)

What kind of innovation Canon should not make?

65536 Pixel AF, all cross-type, f/1.4 and 65536 AF point
Video support for still cameras
More automatic modes (snow, waterfall, cat, dog, mouse, roach, whatever)
Built-in GPS, Wi-Fi, NFC, fingerprint scanner, whatever for DSLR

In my opinion, of course.


----------



## alienman (Feb 15, 2018)

My problem with canon's innovation is strictly on the video side. Other companies are just giving you more for your money, I don't have to go down the list. I understand some things with other companies may not work how you would expect but if you have any skill with a camera it isn't hard to overcome. Also I do not appreciate that people are saying that you do not need 4k as if it were some future technology only available to NASA. 4k displays can be found for a cheaper price than I would pay for a battery grip and with a reasonable codec editing 4k footage on consume laptops and desktops is not an impossible task how people make it seem.

For stills I am not a pro but form observation sony has closed the gap with the a9 and riii. They may not have the color science down but in terms of detail and DR I would say they have the upper hand. Focus speed seems to be equal if not sony has the upper hand. In terms of low light performance I believe Sony has the upper hand here as well. It seems like the only thing holding sony back from pros is a mature line of glass and it is simply new to them. This makes me wonder why people are complacent with canon being complacent.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Feb 15, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


> Why should they take chances on wasted R&D, marketing campaigns, edgy tech when they have a fat cash cow? They make great cameras backed by the best service in the industry. Their lenses win--and trap a lot of heavily invested owners.
> 
> We are talking business decisions. When Sony/Nikon/Fuji/Olympus threaten profits, maybe we'll see some of the innovation they've been sitting on?


 You sound like a sheep. How about we all eat sterilized poop with vitamins in it. It will save companies a lot of money and more profit for them because why should a consumer get what they want if it potentially decreases a company's revenue. If people want to believe that all a company should do is make profits by any means necessary (that is legal) than that is sad. That is also the problem with pure capitalism.


----------



## transpo1 (Feb 15, 2018)

Looks like the poll is a resounding No, No, No. I think we have our answer


----------



## Tahoejr (Feb 15, 2018)

I see this slightly differently. Canon doesn't need to extensively innovate the professional DSLR market given its maturity and also due to the fact that this isn't likely to bring in significant new users (DSLR sales decreased 9% in 2017 continuing a 6 year decline). 

What they must weigh is how heavily they want to invest in the mirror-less market as that is growing steadily. It was up 32% in 2017 and 10 fold in the last 5 years. Will these cameras truly be preferred by a professional cannibalize existing model franchises. 

Can Canon match someone like Sony in mirror-less with no impact to existing product development?

Source: Industry figures from CIPC (Camera and Imaging Products Association). January 2018 Annual Report


----------



## HotPixels (Feb 15, 2018)

RayValdez360 said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Why should they take chances on wasted R&D, marketing campaigns, edgy tech when they have a fat cash cow? They make great cameras backed by the best service in the industry. Their lenses win--and trap a lot of heavily invested owners.
> ...



I think the point is that in market capitalism, the people have a voice and vote with their dollars. Sure a company could release a food that was sterilized poop with vitamins, but it would not be a viable product in the market. The idea is that what maximizes profits for a company is to better serve the market. Granted, companies sometimes do the wrong thing to try to make a profit, but in general the only way a company can succeed long term is by providing value to its customers. 

The point of the article linked to on Fstoppers, is that Canon has innovated in important areas but that others have not caught up. The question perhaps one needs to ask is why others like Sony, after all of these years, have not yet caught up to Canon in color science, or in dual pixel AF, or in customer service, or in ergonomics? These are pretty foundational and obviously they matter more to more people than the advantages of the competition.


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 15, 2018)

RayValdez360 said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Why should they take chances on wasted R&D, marketing campaigns, edgy tech when they have a fat cash cow? They make great cameras backed by the best service in the industry. Their lenses win--and trap a lot of heavily invested owners.
> ...



I'm guessing that English is not your native language; otherwise, you would have seen that I'm grinning and bearing this situation with Canon. 

Now this is the second time you've replied to a comment of mine with references to a Marxist struggle. Could you please try to avoid dumping your ideology here?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 15, 2018)

Tahoejr said:


> I see this slightly differently.
> 
> What they must weigh is how heavily they want to invest in the mirror-less market as that is *growing steadily*. It was up 32% in 2017 and *10 fold in the last 5 years*.
> 
> Source: Industry figures from CIPC (Camera and Imaging Products Association). January 2018 Annual Report



Sorry, but WTF? It seems that in your case, 'seeing it differently' likely involves hallunications induced by a psychoactive substance.

Here are the CIPA numbers plotted for MILC shipments since 2012 (when they started reporting MILCs separately, 6 years of data):







Does that look like 'steady growth' to you? (Hint: what it really looks like is basically flat with the increase from 2016 to 2017 being the exception.)

Does 3.3 million to 4.1 million (the last 5 years) look like 'up 10-fold' to you? (Hint: it's a 23% increase form 2013 to 2017.)

Geez, there's exaggeration...there's hyperbole...then there's bat-sh!t crazy.


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 15, 2018)

RayValdez360 said:


> If people want to believe that all a company should do is make profits by any means necessary (that is legal) than that is sad. That is also the problem with pure capitalism.



You may call it sad but I look at it another way.
A company will maximise its profits by selling the largest number of units it can within its market sector. It does that by identifying what most people will buy and making it.
Sony cold not compete in DSLR so went mirrorless - and they have wowed the reviewers and internet forums
Nikon did it by buying in superior sensors than they could make - and they have wowed the reviewers and internet forums
Canon do it my developing parts of the camera that may not be spectacular but make the photographic experience overall more reliable and satisfactory - and they have grown year on year and been number one for a decade

So outside of internet forums and reviewers, who seems to understand best precisely what it is that most people want to buy?

Yes, a company can take on the role of educator ('this is what you need') and setting trends - Canon did that in making the first commercially viable DSLRs and inventing DSLR video. Sony started the ball rolling with mirrorless (though IMO its significance is greatly overplayed at the FF end - I think the MFT was far more significant). But those moments are fleeting and rare.


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 15, 2018)

3dit0r said:


> 3dit0r said:
> 
> 
> > For what it’s worth, my 2p is that I think Canon is getting it mostly right, but could also use some solid innovation in a few areas.
> ...



But who is IBIS actually great for?
https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/panasonic-gh5s/panasonic-gh5sA.HTM
"Additionally, Panasonic removed in-body image stabilization in the GH5S"

It's crystal clear that Canon does NOT focus on the enthusiast market, they're "consumer" and "professional" and they don't seem to get a lot of marketing data from the sliver of people inbetween.
I would say Canon needs to hire some more social media vloggers for internal testing, but those _are_ the people already buying the SL2 and 6D2, and in general people do love those products.
So who is Canon actually missing?


----------



## dak723 (Feb 15, 2018)

HotPixels said:


> I think part of the problem is that internet reviewers/bloggers/commenters tend to have a bias towards that which is new and novel, whether it is better or not. It gives them something to write about and justifies what they do.
> 
> So a company like Sony comes around and gives them quick iterations of camera models, and that gives them work. Canon updates less frequently, and when they release a feature, like Dual Pixel AF, they tend to get it right the first time, so they don't need so many updates.
> 
> ...



Absolutely correct, in my opinion. Without the internet, the camera "conversation" would be about the important innovations - most of which were solved many years ago - color, AF, contrast, lenses, ergonomics. As someone who grew up before smartphones - where every new release has to be "innovative" and "exciting" - it is pretty obvious that digital photography was already a mature technology with the first few DSLR releases. Every generation after has been minor upgrades. Mirrorless is still fairly new and thus almost all the innovations that people crave are in the mirrorless realm. Since Sony has the head start of mirrorless FF, they are looked at as being the most innovative. Having tried the earlier Sonys and owning two mirrorless cameras, there is only one innovation that I have found really useful - and that happens to be Canon's rear-screen touch focusing. 

I find it pretty humorous that folks expect Canon to just somehow - magically perhaps - become the leader in all aspects of camera-making. They ignore the fact that other companies have patents, too - some of which may be better and even if not, prevent Canon from solving particular problems. Some companies have more experience and are putting more effort into the video aspects - so it should be no surprise that they may be ahead on that front. What wold you prefer, that Canon makes less lenses every year and spends more of their resources trying to solve the heating issues that come with 4K? On the internet, the answer is probably pretty obviously 4K. Not sure most photographers would agree.

I can't speak for most photographers, but I would guess that many think that color is the most important aspect of their photography. In the opinion of many, Canon has the best color science. Why can't Sony innovate in the most basic element of photography? Well, you can't really measure it and it is subjective, so it's not important in the internet age. Perhaps most photographers would agree that lenses are the most important past of the system. But lenses aren't innovative, so they don't count much in the internet age. Same can be said for ergonomics and reliability.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 15, 2018)

dak723 said:


> I can't speak for most photographers, but I would guess that many think that color is the most important aspect of their photography. In the opinion of many, Canon has the best color science.



I’m not sure here.....

My impression of the “great unwashed masses” is that few of them realize that there is a difference, and that colour is colour.....


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 15, 2018)

9VIII said:


> But who is IBIS actually great for?
> https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/panasonic-gh5s/panasonic-gh5sA.HTM
> "Additionally, Panasonic removed in-body image stabilization in the GH5S"
> 
> ...



They removed IBIS from the GH5s because that camera is aimed squarely at serious video production teams and those guys most commonly put their cameras on gimbals. And there has been a lot of comment from professionals that gimbal+IBS = not good. So they took it out.
Of course, internet forums and gear sites are full of wannabe and youtube vloggers who think it best to handhold so the most vociferous ones are likely the ones (in this particular instance) whose opinion does not matter in Panasonic's design criteria.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 15, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > But who is IBIS actually great for?
> ...



It also allowed Panasonic to fit a bigger sensor in the body which meant they could maximize the crop ratios. They actually did an amazingly nice engineering job with the sensor size and the various aspect ratios that maximizes the image circle in each format at the expense of never using the entire sensor because of the vignetting in the corners. Very nice work.


----------



## Tahoejr (Feb 15, 2018)

I probably should have stated that the 10X mirror-less growth figure since 2012 was for pro models only. Those costing more than $1000 for the body. In other words, those most likely to impact Canon's full frame share.

A small figure for sure, but definitely growing with all of the new models being announced.


----------



## Jack Jian (Feb 15, 2018)

3dit0r said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > 3dit0r said:
> ...



As far as I know, when watching a video (movie) on a big screen, a shallow DOF is never pleasant and is often avoided (go watch a movie to see that). I believe the modern APS-C size is derived from the film videos days where a smaller format frame is crammed vertically in a reel and Anamorphically compressed to retain the wide screen format. now that in digital age, instead of going for Anamorphic compression, the digital sensor is stretched to give the Super 35 frame. 70mm in film days are to get higher resolution (rather than FOV) due to projection resolution limitations of the APSC/S35 frame in the 35mm film reel. That is now replaced by high resolution 4K/6K/8K etc sensors. We won't likely see MF or 700 equivalent video sensors.

S35/APS-C benefit in movie is a deeper DOF albeit larger aperture, and sharp corners, better vignetting, lower cost, less bulk etc.

And for some people commenting on wide angle FOV, in a movie or any 'Proper' video viewed on a big screen, UWA is not that great and how many scene is shot on UWA? 24mm to 85mm is the most common range which is in more natural FOV. Even if a wide landscape is shot, it's usually done on longer lens shoot from far distance. So, I do not find arguing on favoring FF because of UWA lens not practical.

I believe Canon came up with the APS-H, 1.3x crop to accommodate the speed requirement on the 1D series to achieve that speed, both mechanically and electronically, but now that technology has advanced, it's no longer an issue and is now back to proper FF. 

All in all, that's what, Canon always consulted the real working Professionals (not to be confused with self style pros who buys skills via latest gadgets) and implements what is required in the field, which is practical and their tools does what it's suppose to do exactly without any hiccups which is why Canon leads the pack since a long time and will continue to be for long.


----------



## Woody (Feb 15, 2018)

Canon invest a lot of their innovations in lens design. Yes, there are holes to plug. But they are generally quite well ahead of the rest of the pack.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 15, 2018)

Looks like a lot of people need to go out and buy a dictionary. Most of what people are complaining about here has nothing to do with technological innovation. Rather most are simply complaining about implementation of existing technology.

The hard truth that some people don't want to accept is that by any objective standard Canon is one of the most innovative companies in the world. The consistently lead the market in patents. They are frequently showcasing new cutting edge technologies (Just look at some of their past videos on extreme low-light imaging, such as the one a few years back that was lit by fireflies). In fact, there has not been any big innovation in DSLRs by anyone since Canon's dual-pixel autofocus was developed. 

The pace of innovation has slowed among all camera manufacturers, which is only natural, since we are now well into the second decade of affordable digital imaging. It's a maturing industry and like all mature industries, the pace of development slows down.

But, most of the people here are just whining because Canon has not implemented all the available technology in their lowest-priced full frame DSLR. Gee. What a shock.

The 6D has always been the budget DSLR, not the leading edge camera. Canon prices it at under $2,000 and then leaves enough room in the margins so it can be discounted to under $1,500 within a few months of introduction. Happened with the 6DI and now with the 6DII. What about entry-level do people not understand?

And, by the way, people might actually want to read the original article that CR Guy linked to. The whole premise of the article is that Canon actually does innovate, it's just that the innovations take the form of rock solid, reliable performance. 



> Canon makes cameras that have the most important and fundamental features right. Bells and whistles are fine and are things to get excited about, but if the core features of how a camera is supposed to operate are compromised then it's no longer practical. These are some of the reasons why Canon continues to dominate. The thing to consider here is that *Canon has already innovated because they're still ahead* when it comes to how their cameras perform for the majority of professionals. Their competitors just don't have the lenses, the autofocus features, or the color science they offer. *Has Canon stopped innovating? Not at all if anything they have already provided the most important innovations and it's other companies that are playing catch-up.*


----------



## Jack Jian (Feb 15, 2018)

alienman said:


> My problem with canon's innovation is strictly on the video side. Other companies are just giving you more for your money, I don't have to go down the list. I understand some things with other companies may not work how you would expect but if you have any skill with a camera it isn't hard to overcome. Also I do not appreciate that people are saying that you do not need 4k as if it were some future technology only available to NASA. 4k displays can be found for a cheaper price than I would pay for a battery grip and with a reasonable codec editing 4k footage on consume laptops and desktops is not an impossible task how people make it seem.
> 
> For stills I am not a pro but form observation sony has closed the gap with the a9 and riii. They may not have the color science down but in terms of detail and DR I would say they have the upper hand. Focus speed seems to be equal if not sony has the upper hand. In terms of low light performance I believe Sony has the upper hand here as well. It seems like the only thing holding sony back from pros is a mature line of glass and it is simply new to them. This makes me wonder why people are complacent with canon being complacent.



Other companies are just giving you more for your money: Most of it are just gimmicks especially targeted to internet enthusiasts. There are lot more than the "4K" label when it comes to video production.

Focus speed seems to be equal if not sony has the upper hand. (all system's pro line up works the same, all did what they are suppose to do) In terms of low light performance I believe Sony has the upper hand here as well. Most serious projects requires me to shoot between ISO 640 - 6400, where the base DR/ISO of the other system isn't even applicable. bright backlits always warrants for a lighting, even 16 stops of DR can't substitute flash in this kind of case, although there are few cases where DR helps, but still, it's never the money shot, so 11ev of DR is more than enough if you know what you are doing. (These are from my experience.)


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 16, 2018)

Tahoejr said:


> I probably should have stated that the 10X mirror-less growth figure since 2012 was for pro models only. Those costing more than $1000 for the body. In other words, those most likely to impact Canon's full frame share.
> 
> A small figure for sure, but definitely growing with all of the new models being announced.



got some info to back that up with? I'd love to see it.

in 2012 what mirrorless pro models were there anyways? none. your stats are a little flawed.


----------



## alienman (Feb 16, 2018)

Jack Jian said:


> alienman said:
> 
> 
> > My problem with canon's innovation is strictly on the video side. Other companies are just giving you more for your money, I don't have to go down the list. I understand some things with other companies may not work how you would expect but if you have any skill with a camera it isn't hard to overcome. Also I do not appreciate that people are saying that you do not need 4k as if it were some future technology only available to NASA. 4k displays can be found for a cheaper price than I would pay for a battery grip and with a reasonable codec editing 4k footage on consume laptops and desktops is not an impossible task how people make it seem.
> ...



I think the the GH5/GH5s are more than capable video production cameras with the only weakness being auto focus which will not be used in a serious production. Anamorphic 6k, DCI 4K, Log profiles........ You can go down the list. The only cameras that Canon makes that can compete when it comes to video are double the price. 

Which sounds more reasonable to you, Buy two 1dx markii's to pair with my c200, or buy a gh5 and gh5s with a pair of speedboosters for my canon glass? Or buy 2 5d4's that are handicap when it comes to video or buy a gh5 and a gh5s?


----------



## reef58 (Feb 16, 2018)

Not complaining really but since this is the conversation:

What is wrong with the 6d2 nothing really expect they failed to raise the bar at all on image quality. Keep everything the same and use one of the updated sensors and they have a winner. They still may have a winner, but I am going to pass.

What is wrong with Canon: Nothing really. I am not jumping ship or predicting doom, but in 2018 if you want a good landscape camera with a tilt screen you have one choice a 6d2 with a very uninspiring sensor. 

To me it is an easily fixable situation as a 5d4 with a tilt screen had pretty much all I need / want. 

I had to decide between the 5d4 and 6d2 and went 5d4 as I can work around the lack of a tilt screen easier than I can stomach the update to the 6d2.


----------



## ethanz (Feb 16, 2018)

Jack Jian said:


> 3dit0r said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...



I think I agree Jack. FF 4k really doesn't seem like that big of an issue to me. I'm not a professional videographer like in films or anything, but I do use the 1d for videos at my job. Using my 24-70 has never really been a problem with not being wide enough.


----------



## Diltiazem (Feb 16, 2018)

As expected discussions have moved from the topic of the thrad: innovation. 
Let us stick to the topic and see how Canon compared with others in last ten years or so. 

Canon's two noteworthy innovations during this time, DPAF and BR element used 35/1.4 II. Most agree, DPAF is the best compared to other AF implementation in video or live view.. BR seems excellent, but available only in one lens.

What is Nikon's innovation during this time? Can't think of any. 

How about Sony? People mistakenly attribute many new or relatively new features to 'Sony innovation'. 
On sensor ADC? Not a Sony idea.
BSI? No. They were not even first to implement it.
IBIS? No again. 
Pixel shift to increase resolution? No.
Mirrorless ILC. No. 
Is there anything noteworthy Sony innovated in last 10 years? Can't think of any. Yet, internet pundits keep repeating the myth and we all believe in it. 

I think Canon's image problem (among some users) stems from the fact they were late in implementing on chip ADC (DR issue) and mirrorless ILC. Canon is also blamed for limiting video features in ILCs. Some confuse limitation of features with lack of innovation. Not the same thing.

I do hope that Canon innovates more, especially in connectivity. People should be able to upload pictures in internet from the camera. And Canon should match or exceed Nikon in fast action AF for still photography without delay.


----------



## Isaacheus (Feb 16, 2018)

ethanz said:


> Jack Jian said:
> 
> 
> > 3dit0r said:
> ...



Bringing it all back to the original thread topic, it's not that everyone needs super wide 4k, it's more that canon is the only one out of the big three that doesn't offer it yet. It would fit the argument of canon being behind the others


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 16, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



I'm still impatiently waiting for the day someone does that with APS-C.
I loved shooting 4:3 with the Sigma 18-35A on a 5D2 when I had it, but I want the ability to shoot "tall" in a compact body.
Sure, holding a camera sideways isn't that hard, but having native 4:3 support would be a big improvement, I might even stop complaining about the death of APS-H if they gave us a Rebel with multiple aspect ratios.

Better yet, they could start making octagonal sensors (that way you wouldn't waste any silicon off the wafer) and you'd be able to pick almost any aspect ratio without significant cropping.


----------



## Talys (Feb 16, 2018)

Isaacheus said:


> Bringing it all back to the original thread topic, it's not that everyone needs super wide 4k, it's more that canon is the only one out of the big three that doesn't offer it yet. It would fit the argument of canon being behind the others



More accurately, Canon doesn't have a _cheap_ super wide 4k.


----------



## dsut4392 (Feb 16, 2018)

SereneSpeed said:


> And, as a side topic, perhaps someone can explain to me why the 6DII feature list was such a shock? The 6D cut into 5DIII sales. No doubt. I know enough people (myself included) who compared those cameras against each other when the time came to purchase a body, to understand that the difference was not enough to segregate their market placement. So, why did it come as a surprise that the 6DII held it's intended market position (to be the 'entry level' FF camera)? If you want more bells and whistles, you buy the 5DIV. Seems straight forward to me. Seems like good business practices for Canon, no?
> 
> /Rant over...



The 6D in my eyes was positioned as the Canon FF body without the features pros need (high frame rate, dual card slots, top AF system, ruggedness) but with sensor performance up there with the best. The 'shock' was that the 6D2 hasn't kept that market position at all; it's still in the same _price_ bracket, but sensor IQ isn't remotely up there with the best Canon has, and in some ways is worse than the original 6D. 

I can't comment on whether it was a good business decision for Canon to widen the gap between 5D4 and 6D2, all I can say is I was expecting to buy one as soon as it was released, but haven't.


----------



## Isaacheus (Feb 16, 2018)

Talys said:


> Isaacheus said:
> 
> 
> > Bringing it all back to the original thread topic, it's not that everyone needs super wide 4k, it's more that canon is the only one out of the big three that doesn't offer it yet. It would fit the argument of canon being behind the others
> ...



Do they have FF 4k at all? I thought the cine line sensors were smaller than 135. The 1d series (mk2 and C) are both cropped to 1.3 as far as I know


----------



## Quackator (Feb 16, 2018)

People living in the internet oversee that a guy like Casey Neistat 
calls the 6D MkII "the ideal vlogging camera", which probably
triggers more sales than any of you enthusiasts ever imagine.

Despite all your appallment, it sells very well.


----------



## dsut4392 (Feb 16, 2018)

Diltiazem said:


> As expected discussions have moved from the topic of the thrad: innovation.
> Let us stick to the topic and see how Canon compared with others in last ten years or so.
> 
> Canon's two noteworthy innovations during this time, DPAF and BR element used 35/1.4 II. Most agree, DPAF is the best compared to other AF implementation in video or live view.. BR seems excellent, but available only in one lens.
> ...



Love your user name, I did my honours thesis on inhibition of drug metabolism by diltiazem metabolites.
I think you are confusing 'innovation' with 'invention'. For all that Sony didn't invent the things you list, how many other manufacturers are selling a full-frame ILC with IBIS using a BSI sensor with on-sensor ADC? 
Is it not innovation to actually build and sell a product with capabilities nobody else's product has?


----------



## dsut4392 (Feb 16, 2018)

Quackator said:


> People living in the internet oversee that a guy like Casey Neistat
> calls the 6D MkII "the ideal vlogging camera", which probably
> triggers more sales than any of you enthusiasts ever imagine.
> 
> Despite all your appallment, it sells very well.



You're probably right, and the 6D2 is probably a perfectly fine tool for many uses. I'm far more appalled at Casey Neistat than I could ever be with a camera, what a tool of the highest order!


----------



## Diltiazem (Feb 16, 2018)

dsut4392 said:


> Diltiazem said:
> 
> 
> > As expected discussions have moved from the topic of the thrad: innovation.
> ...



Diltiazem continues to save life. I am sure you know better than I do.  

Anyways, I understand innovation as a NEW idea or method and translation of these ideas or methods into new products and/or services. Samsung was the first company to use BSI in a sensor larger than phone sensors in NX2 although they didn't invent it. Similarly, Pxel shift, IBIS etc was first used by other companies. We can say, Sony uses other people's new or already implemented ideas into their products and everyone call them innovative. Canon made DSLR video popular, but Nikon used it first in a DSLR. We can say Canon made it popular, but we shouldn't say Canon was innovative in this regard. 
BTW, no one says Nikon is not innovative despite the fact that they are not.


----------



## tomscott (Feb 16, 2018)

Ive been a pro for over 15 years.

I would just like to say that I love my canon gear. It has never once failed me shooting daily and it takes the abuse and keeps shooting. Thats what I need and thats why I shoot Canon. 

I also love the glass and they have a lens for almost every eventuality.

I also shoot a lot of differing genres of photography. Motorsport, commercial, events etc so I have a range of cameras and each one has its uses. I currently shoot with 6DMKII 7DMKII 70D and have just received a 5DMKIV.

I actually went an interesting direction. I had the 5DMKIII but it was stolen and went to the 6DMKII. The 5 was in my mind almost the perfect camera with a few downfalls in IQ but I rarely had too much issue. The 6DMKII although has lost a card slot the AF system isnt as good the IQ in my mind is better in the usable range. 

The cost to replace the 5DMKIII was around 2k at the time and the 6DMKII has all the features I needed from the 5 plus the tilt screen. A feature I have been craving from a FF body for years. I bought the 5DMKIII at launch so had it for 4 years, didnt really want to spend 2k for another when it feels like an old camera. The 5DMKIV although again improves the III it didnt do enough to warrant almost double the cost over its predecessor (at the time).

The 6DMKIIs IQ shortfalls only rear its head when you push it to the very limit and its high ISO capabilities are tremendous. As a pro I haven't got close to the limit yet. Im very much a get it right not fix in post kind of guy and if you shoot this thing right it does very little wrong. I think if you learned the trade and can master light in a given situation DR isnt as much of an issue as the internet makes out. If im in a situation where the light isnt good I wont just shoot it and hope for the best later like these stupid pulls internet reviewers show. Thats not why you employee a professional and any 'pro' that does this sort of work is pulling the wool.

I use a lot of light modification which generally means pulling 3-4 stops of shadows or exposure is void to me.

It has incredible colour and the bump resolution really helps all my lenses feel that touch sharper on this body.

The reason I went in this direction is that there is no doubt that the 5DMKIV is one of the best cameras around but it was twice the price at the time and I really didnt feel it was worth the money over the 5DMKIII and I was looking for something that would aid me in image making, allowing me to get images that were difficult with the 5DMKIII rather than just buying a newer body with slightly newer tech. The screen on the 6DMKII is that feature for me. 

At around £3k for the 5DMKIV and I paid £1489 for the 6DMKII on release day. The slightly better shadow recovery wasn't really worth twice the cost to me.

Another reason is that it was the end of the wedding season and in the winter months I generally shoot lots of standard commercial imagery. I have taken a contract to photography PPE, all studio work and I have also been shooting pubs, bars and restaurants. This doesn't require shooting in adverse conditions mostly on a tripod and is super chilled in comparison to event photography.

The 6DMKII is far better because of the tilt screen. British pubs are tight and even with 16-35mm i find myself up against walls most of the time so the screen makes my life so much easier, same with getting slightly odd angles, no more lying on the floor etc. It really has made my life a lot easier, my back and knees certainly!

I also shoot motorsport and i took the 6D along and they have certainly tweaked the AF because it hits and hits really well especially when you set the AF up properly. Basically has the same options as the 5 series but no presets so if you know what you are doing you just dial it in. I had no issues at all with it and shot with my 7DMKII and came home with more in tack images with the 6 than the 7.

Granted the one card slot isnt ideal. In actual practice I have never had a single card go on me, ever! Shooting roughly 500k images on each body ive owned before retiring it. In my mind its not really a huge issue, but I look after my cards and swap them out for new ones fairly regularly. On the other hand shooting events it is not wise at all, as there is no way to go back. Like I said one camera is not the answer and I use different gear for different situations.

Now wedding season is coming back and my first one is in March I have bought a 5DMKIV because for weddings and events having dual card slots is imperative you cant mess around with a day most hope to be the only one.

After using the 5DMKIV I still dont think its an incredible upgrade over the III obviously it is an incredibly rounded camera the IQ is excellent and has lots of the newer features which makes day to day image making a joy. It is like others have said so easy to pick up and shoot and processing the images I can use the same presets which makes life so easy. The other thing that is nice is the body design with the AF selection etc although you can get around this with the top and circualr mode dial on the 6DMKII in tandom for AF selection the AF stick on the 5 series is far better and a lot easier to use in time sensitive situations.

The main thing is when you remove the upgrade in IQ and some of the newer features like GPS and WIFI it doesn't help me make hugely different images over the III. I dont look to the camera to produce miracles but there is no denying that certain features do make image making easier and when you shoot all day every day those features are very much welcome, save time get in and out quicker and make more money.

For this reason the 6DMKII is probably one of my favorite Canon cameras thus far. It is super underrated if you liked the 5DMKIII you would love the 6.

Just a shame the reviewers only focus on shadow pulls rather than the camera as a package for image making.

If you want to read some of my real world thoughts I did write make a thread with the initial impressions with examples etc shooting real jobs etc.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=33212.0


----------



## shutterlag (Feb 16, 2018)

I'm not a pro shooter, but I am an enthusiast with the means to buy whatever gear I want.

I sold my Canon gear (several L lenses and a FF 6d) because a) I wanted video capabilities b) IBIS c) smaller form factor d) focus peaking e) hi-res mode f) continuous innovation in the firmware releases, not just a sad static development model.

Of the four photogs I talk to on a regular basis, a few years ago it was a 3 Canon 1 Nikon split. In recent years, they've all moved, 2 Sony FF, 1 Fuji, 1 Panasonic. All of those moves were driven by features and the view that Canon and Nikon were both declining.

That F-Stoppers article is idiotic - completely devoid of marketing reality. Perception translates to confidence, and the negative perception is already locked in. People like me have already left, because of real gaps in the product feature set. That will, over the next couple years, accelerate. As it accelerates, even diehard pros will look to systems like Sony, that offer better features, comparable glass options, and a solid future.

I will say I miss the Canon menus. It's pretty sad at the same time though, that the menu system is the only thing I miss


----------



## joselete (Feb 16, 2018)

Hi. Here are a few thoughts about canon line up for videographers. 

I'm a profesional videographer for almost 20 years. Over this time I've shot with a variety of cameras. the best camera I've ever used was the c100, I've also work with the c300 but the increase on weight makes it hard to manuver, for documentary and wedding work.

This year, making the switch to 4K I bought two cameras from other manufacturers, although I would rather have bought a canon camera, as I like my previos purchase and the use of c-log, but canon has no camera on their entire line that i could consider as an option. Here is why: 

- the c200 would have been the the natural progresión. But based on my previous experience with the c300, that kind of weight for that form factored it's a problem. Once you put a couple of receivers even the c100 can get a bit heavy, at that point it start to get unstable for the monopod as well. For me the weight and size of the c100 is the max I used. This isn't just me but the documentary directors I work with hey have notice that we work faster with lighter set ups, so they demand the use of small light equipment. Also wedding customers they ask for unobtrusive cameras (dslr type). so that's the c200 option gone. 

There is a couple basic things that I look for in a camera. 
- A profesional picture profile - log 
- Intechangeable lens mount - basic
- Light weight and small form factor (max c100 weight and size)- as requested by directors and customers I work for. 
- Tilt or swivel LCD. ( I think this will be helpful for photographers too as I keep seeing photographers holding their camera really uncomfortably when using live view) plus I don't see the point of using an external monitor when you are going for a light and portable set up. 

Those are 4 really basic specs, that every manufacturer has 3 or 5 options to chose from. and that I know canon has none. 

there is a couple of updates over the past years that have been really welcome and they are really helpful for us the videographers, like the DAF and IBIS.


----------



## Billybob (Feb 16, 2018)

TLR, so if what I say has been stated already, I apologize. 

My first Canon DSLRs--well, if I'm honest my first SLR was a Minolta, the I moved to Nikon when that got stolen, but that was 30 yrs ago--and I do agree that the Canon lens lineup is amazing. I got back into photography with a passion in 2009. I had a 40D. I added a Nikon D90 because it was ranked so highly on DXOMarks. It was better in some ways than the Canon--the 40D was boring but completely reliable--but trailed in certain aspects. I just looked back on some of my shots, and--shocking surprise--the Canon's skin tones were better. However, that may have been as much if not more due to the lenses. On Canon, I shot with the 135L, 85 1.2 L II, and 100mm L. It took me a while before I acquire pro-grade Nikon lenses.

I continued to shoot dual systems for most of the last 9 years. I loved the DR of the Nikons (I moved to D800E then D800) but still preferred the ergonomics of the Canons. Nikon continued to improve in multiple areas including color, but I did not see similar improvements on the Canon side. 

By last year, I sold my Canon 5DM3 and was down to just the 80D. I was primarily a Nikon guy, but wasn't ready to give up my Canon glass. The 80D showed promise and, from what I heard, the 5DMIV had closed the gap even more. If Canon repeated their history of not releasing a camera with inferior IQ, then the 6DMII would be at least as good. That entry-level FF body would nicely compliment my Nikon kit. But that was not to be. To say that I was disappointed would be an understatement. I won't rehash all my negative thoughts about this offering, suffice to say that I finally considered selling my Canon lenses. 

Then Sony released the A7rIII. I was reticent about working with a third system, but the possibility of a high-megapixel body with excellent AF, state-of-the-art IQ (both at base and high-ISO) that could shoot 10 fps was extremely enticing. What closed the deal was the ability to adapt my Canon class.

To keep it short, the transition has been extremely successful. The Sony is excellent with the Metabones adapter. I can shoot my 24-70L II and 100-400L II lenses for everything except birds in flight, and erratic action shots. Okay, the camera also struggle with adapted lenses in low-light photography. So, it is impossible to completely rely on Canon glass, but it is a fine short-term solution.

But the image quality. All I can say is, Wow! Color is superb straight out of camera and requires little PP. Skin tones are excellent, far better than Nikon. I may even like them better than Canon's, but I'm still experimenting.

What I've stated is not groundbreaking. Canon is producing cameras with IQ tech from 2011-12. Competitors are hungrier and have moved on. I'm glad that I've been in a position to take advantage of the advances.

So, to address the topic on the table, does Canon need to innovate more? For commercial success, probably not. Canon continues to release phenomenal glass--the 35L II is a prime example (pun intended)--and their service to pros is best of breed. Moreover, their marketing, name recognition, and ubiquitous presence at major sporting events almost assures their continued dominance for another decade. 

But that's not the same question as should I continue to support them. I'm seeing tremendous improvements in usefulness, functionality, and IQ over my 5DMIII. I don't know if the Sony makes me a better photographer, but I do know that I leave a shoot with more keepers and IQ (rendition, clarity, DR, and resolution) that I never dreamed up with earlier kits.


----------



## Takingshots (Feb 16, 2018)

From the discussion, it seems to be people are not satisfy with current Canon execution on their "innovation". In the prosumer and professional category, hypothetically let's assume that 33% are not happy with Canon lackluster or crippling innovation. And that of that 33% half of them decided to jump ship or not buying (holding off buying). That is revenue loss each time Canon executes their new series, and each generation could less likely buying Canon. I am in that category that I decided to suspend buying until current camera dies before I decide to buy another Canon or jump ship.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 16, 2018)

shutterlag said:


> Of the four photogs I talk to on a regular basis, a few years ago it was a 3 Canon 1 Nikon split. In recent years, they've all moved, 2 Sony FF, 1 Fuji, 1 Panasonic. All of those moves were driven by features and the view that Canon and Nikon were both declining.



Well, gee whiz...that's a really big sample of the global market. Four. Are you saying that you four are representative of the global market? Copy/paste "define:hubris" into a Google search. 




shutterlag said:


> That F-Stoppers article is idiotic - completely devoid of marketing reality. Perception translates to confidence, and the negative perception is already locked in. People like me have already left, because of real gaps in the product feature set. That will, over the next couple years, accelerate. As it accelerates...



Sorry, but what is completely devoid of marketing reality is your post. The reality is that Canon has _gained_ market share over the past few years (how many times do I have to post that simple fact before it sinks in?). So the market reality is that people aren't leaving Canon, in the overall market (and neither Canon nor Nikon give a crap about you and your three buddies). That trend may reverse, but so far the evidence points the other way.


----------



## BeenThere (Feb 16, 2018)

Companies will make their business decisions and each photographer will buy what is best for him/her, and the chips will fall where they will. I don’t get the fan passion for company A or company B. If you don’t work for one of the companies, or own their stock, just do what is best for your personal situation. The market will grind out the winners and losers.


----------



## reef58 (Feb 16, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> shutterlag said:
> 
> 
> > Of the four photogs I talk to on a regular basis, a few years ago it was a 3 Canon 1 Nikon split. In recent years, they've all moved, 2 Sony FF, 1 Fuji, 1 Panasonic. All of those moves were driven by features and the view that Canon and Nikon were both declining.
> ...



I am not saying Canon is *******, and I am not going anywhere as I just received my 500f4 yesterday. That being said the market is mature and Canon gaining market share in the past may not reflect what happens going forward as that gained market share regenerates. I have no desire to change brands, but I did give some thought to the Nikon D850. Once canon gives me a good full frame sensor, 10fps and a tilting screen I will be happy for a long as it works. 

I do find it frustrating that unless I buy a low mega pixel 1dx2 I cannot get even two of the three asks above from Canon. I would gladly pay 1dx2 money for a new 5d, maybe the SR2, with a fast frame rate, no AA filter, and a tilting screen.


----------



## exquisitor (Feb 16, 2018)

I am happy with my 6D and Canon lenses, but I can understand frustration with 6DII. It is obvious that Canon has a new sensor technology and every camera after and including 80D has it. But from some reason Canon decided to not put this new sensor in 6DII, whereas every other camera in FF and APS-C lines after 80D has it already. Whether it is for cost or for differentiation (protecting 5DIV) reasons, the move is highly questionable.
6DII is a great camera otherwise from my point of view, exactly as it should be. But the new sensor tech would just do it even better, considering this is everywhere else in the line.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 16, 2018)

reef58 said:


> I am not saying Canon is *******, and I am not going anywhere as I just received my 500f4 yesterday. That being said the market is mature and Canon gaining market share in the past may not reflect what happens going forward as that gained market share regenerates. I have no desire to change brands, but I did give some thought to the Nikon D850. Once canon gives me a good full frame sensor, 10fps and a tilting screen I will be happy for a long as it works.
> 
> I do find it frustrating that unless I buy a low mega pixel 1dx2 I cannot get even two of the three asks above from Canon. I would gladly pay 1dx2 money for a new 5d, maybe the SR2, with a fast frame rate, no AA filter, and a tilting screen.



I don't think anyone who truly uses their equipment and is honest thinks things are perfect. There are lots of things about Canon that I wish were better and I've certainly made that clear. A few highlights: The 1DX series is a dust magnet; Canon's autofocus could be better; the 5DIV metering is poor under certain conditions; the lack of illuminated focus points on the 5DIV can be a real pain; APS-C noise performance could be improved; and most importantly: 
*
All* manufacturers ought to be embarrassed by the lack of features and poor connectivity in comparison to smart phones. And, if you don't think that is having a negative impact on professionals, you have your head stuck in the sand. 

What I find frustrating is a) the broad stroke claim that Canon is less innovative than others, when what people are whining about is that Canon didn't put every available feature into its entry-level camera; b) the assumption that just because I want a particular feature Canon is stupid/greedy for not giving me the feature I want; and c) that minuscule differences in sensor performance at the edges of utility makes a camera worthless and matters to anyone in the real world.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 16, 2018)

exquisitor said:


> I am happy with my 6D and Canon lenses, but I can understand frustration with 6DII. It is obvious that Canon has a new sensor technology and every camera after and including 80D has it. But from some reason Canon decided to not put this new sensor in 6DII, whereas every other camera in FF and APS-C lines after 80D has it already. Whether it is for cost or for differentiation (protecting 5DIV) reasons, the move is highly questionable.
> 6DII is a great camera otherwise from my point of view, exactly as it should be. But the new sensor tech would just do it even better, considering this is everywhere else in the line.



When the original 6D came out, the internet lit up with complaints about the antiquated autofocus system. When it actually got into users' hands, they found it actually performed fairly well and the camera sold incredibly well once its price settled in to what the market would bear.

Canon fixed the major complaint of the 6D with the 6DII, giving it a much better autofocus system. Now the internet is lit up with complaints about the sensor. And once again users are finding that it actually performs quite well. The price is also settling down to what the market will bear. 

We don't have inside information the cost of the 5D IV vs. 6D II sensor, although we do know that the 5D IV sensor is really something special -- providing excellent shadow recovery; while also providing nearly as good of noise performance as the 1DX II, even though it has a lot greater pixel density. 

I strongly suspect that that 5D IV sensor is an expensive component and offering that same performance in a camera that is half the price would not be feasible.


----------



## stevelee (Feb 16, 2018)

tomscott said:


> For this reason the 6DMKII is probably one of my favorite Canon cameras thus far. It is super underrated if you liked the 5DMKIII you would love the 6.
> 
> Just a shame the reviewers only focus on shadow pulls rather than the camera as a package for image making.



My experience with the 6D2 has been extremely positive. I came to it from some years of using a T3i, so my perspective will differ from that of the pros and gearheads, of course. I like tinkering with controls, but I find that the autofocus and autoexposure work really well under challenging circumstances.

I didn't use the swivel screen on the T3i that much until the August eclipse, just a few months before I bought the 6D2. I have used the tilt screen on my G7X II a lot as I travel and take pictures inside domes and up through spires. After those experiences, I wouldn't want to be without the feature. 

Crocuses have come up in front of my house. They are tiny little flowers close to the ground. I've been taking pictures of them using the non-IS 100mm macro I already had. I found that using autofocus and autoexposure and framing on the tilt screen worked really well, and I've posted some of the pictures in the macro flower pictures thread. I had not tried hand-held photos in the macro range before (other than an unsuccessful attempt at chasing around a bumble bee). So I have been amazed at how well all this works, just holding the camera near the ground and aiming the screen up at my face. And yes, for a pro shoot of the flowers I would rig some sort of tiny tripod or reversible one or something and set everything manually and preview depth of field. But for just some nice pictures of little flowers in my front yard, working quickly before the light changes, this all worked just great. I did use aperture priority some of the time and tried different looks at f/5 and f/16. I found I even liked the painterly effect of the picture where only the very front of the flower is in sharp focus.






My first outing with the 6D2 was to a Chinese lantern show at a botanical garden. As it got dark I was taking very contrasty available light shots and video hand-held using the kit 24-105mm STM, and got surprisingly good results. I thought this was a fun shot of a friend making a selfie:





Some day I do hope to be able to reproduce the problem with dynamic range that has so many panties in a knot, but until then I am going to keep enjoying taking pictures rather than worrying about what chip is where in the camera.


----------



## entoman (Feb 16, 2018)

Fundamentally I'd agree. Canon doesn't need to innovate, but what it does need to do is too improve performance in several areas:

AF lags behind Nikon significantly. Accuracy is fine, but the system seens unable to recognise the subject as well as the more intelligent system in Nikon cameras, and Canon AF tracking simply can't keep up with the subject anywhere near as well as Nikon. I've extensively tested 5DS, 5DMkiv, D750, D810 & D850 with 100-400mm Mkii and Nikkor 80-400mm lenses respectively, side by side, and the Nikons win hands down every time.

Dynamic range and noise control at high ISO are still poor when comparing equivalent models e.g. 5DS vs D850. OK, the 5DS is 3 years old now, but the 5DMkiv which only has 30MP is still inferior to D810 and D850 in terms of low ISO DR and high ISO noise reduction.

Noise and vibration - although silent shutter mode is much better than normal mode, it remains noisy and reduces burst speed. In comparison to most mirrorless cameras it is archaic - wildlife and event photographers in particular want and need a camera that operates in near silence, and retains high burst speeds.

I've used Canon professionally for 7 years. I love the reliability, the ergonomics, the ease of operation, the stunning lenses and the pro service. I'm not considering a system change despite very strong challenges from Nikon and Sony. I don't want any radical changes in control layout of general design. I don't need radical innovation.

But I do want significant and overdue performance improvements as outlined above, and it's difficult to understand why Canon seems unable to meet these demands.


----------



## exquisitor (Feb 16, 2018)

unfocused said:


> exquisitor said:
> 
> 
> > I am happy with my 6D and Canon lenses, but I can understand frustration with 6DII. It is obvious that Canon has a new sensor technology and every camera after and including 80D has it. But from some reason Canon decided to not put this new sensor in 6DII, whereas every other camera in FF and APS-C lines after 80D has it already. Whether it is for cost or for differentiation (protecting 5DIV) reasons, the move is highly questionable.
> ...



Yeah, 5DIV is great. It is possible that Canon had a choice between high DR sensor with worse high ISO performance and "normal" DR sensor with great high ISO, and they have decided for latter one.

This is highly subjective of course, but I find focus system even on 6D completely fine. I use a manual focusing most of the time anyway (with EG-S screen), which slows down the things and provokes more thoughts about composition. In fact I like to use old medium format cameras from 60-80s just for this reason.


----------



## Gino (Feb 16, 2018)

Overall, I think Canon delivers a solid product, and I understand from their management standpoint that they need to meet ROI requirements, but I think they are making poor decisions when they purposely hold back features on their higher end cameras that should be included, and as a consumer I find it very annoying. 

For example, why didn't Canon use a UHS-II card slot in the 5D Mark IV, and why doesn't the 5D MK IV have the same translucent red LED autofocus points as the 1DX MK II. Lastly, both the 5D MK IV and 1DX MK II should have backlit buttons on the back of the camera, like Nikon offers on their high end cameras.


----------



## john kriegsmann (Feb 16, 2018)

I am a long term Canon user. Love their glass and the mechanics and durability of their bodies. There is no denying that they have fallen behind in the sensor field. I just paid 3200 for a Canon 5D4 which I love but from all the reviews I have read and I have reviewed many the 5d4 is about equal to the five year old Nikon 750, a camera that sells for half the price of the 5D4. I was planning on buying a 6d2 but the vast majority of reviewers and I read over 15 reviews on this issue, the new 6D2 addressed the autofocus issue but equipped the camera with a sensor with less dynamic range than the original 6d. Canon rumors also predicted that the new 6d2 sensor would have improved dynamic range and it would have two sd card recording slots. Wrong on both counts. Canon hurt itself with that release I would have paid 2500 for a 6D2 if it had two card slots and a sensor equal to the Nikon D750. Canon has the resources to clean up on the mirrorless market if they ever got serious about it. They finally produced a good body in the M5 but have a minimal native lens offering of mostly slow zoom kit lenses.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 16, 2018)

john kriegsmann said:


> Canon has the resources to clean up on the mirrorless market if they ever got serious about it. They finally produced a good body in the M5 but have a minimal native lens offering of mostly slow zoom kit lenses.



They're #2 in global MILC sales, and while that's not quite 'cleaning up', it's rather good given their relatively limited investment to date.


----------



## reef58 (Feb 16, 2018)

unfocused said:


> reef58 said:
> 
> 
> > I am not saying Canon is *******, and I am not going anywhere as I just received my 500f4 yesterday. That being said the market is mature and Canon gaining market share in the past may not reflect what happens going forward as that gained market share regenerates. I have no desire to change brands, but I did give some thought to the Nikon D850. Once canon gives me a good full frame sensor, 10fps and a tilting screen I will be happy for a long as it works.
> ...



I think Canon's innovation is great. I think they have some great technology it is just hard to get it in one package. I love my 5d4, but would love it more with a tilt screen. The 6d2 would make a great camera with a bit better sensor. Not that it is bad, but it could have been better. Yes I am an ISO 100 tripod guy for the most part. The 1dx2 is great, but wish it had a few more mega pixels. If they did a good better best market then i could get that. They do in a way, but leave off features at each level. 

I look forward to the 5DSR2. I hope it stays at 50mp gets a better sensor and a tilt screen. I would gladly pay 1dx2 money for a 1dx2 without a built in grip, the 5d4 sensor, tilt screen and fps reduced to 10. Basically a d850.


----------



## scyrene (Feb 16, 2018)

*Re: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*



snoke said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > AdjustedInCamera said:
> ...



You're missing my point, perhaps it's the language barrier. There's a meaningful distinction between a professional who uses a phone, and a "phone professional" - the latter doesn't really exist. The original post was making a comparison with professional photographers, i.e. those whose profession is photography/those who use cameras to make a living. No equivalent exists in the world of mobile phones (as *phones*, rather than phone cameras, which are used occasionally by professional *photographers*).

Anyway, this is way off topic.


----------



## scyrene (Feb 16, 2018)

rikstir said:


> Canon is going to need a FF mirrorless that can jump ahead of Sony if they don't want to lose more marketshare.



Canon hasn't lost any marketshare, do keep up.


----------



## BillB (Feb 16, 2018)

scyrene said:


> rikstir said:
> 
> 
> > Canon is going to need a FF mirrorless that can jump ahead of Sony if they don't want to lose more marketshare.
> ...



There seems to be an alternative universe where everybody knows that Canon is falling further and further behind because other cameras are so much better for shooting 4K video, apparently hand held, using the EVF. Not that I have seen any output.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 17, 2018)

*Re: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*



scyrene said:


> snoke said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...


i have friends at Ericsson who would disagree


----------



## Talys (Feb 17, 2018)

john kriegsmann said:


> Canon hurt itself with that release I would have paid 2500 for a 6D2 if it had two card slots and a sensor equal to the Nikon D750. Canon has the resources to clean up on the mirrorless market if they ever got serious about it. They finally produced a good body in the M5 but have a minimal native lens offering of mostly slow zoom kit lenses.



Congratulations on your 5D4. I hope you really enjoy it!

The Canon 6D2 was designed to be a $1,500 camera (street/sale), not a $2,500 camera. But from what you've described, you're basically saying, you'd really have liked the Canon 6D2 to be a 5D4, but cheaper. Out of everyone who has objections to the 6D2, that seems to basically be what it boils down to.

But the idea of the 6D2 was to provide an entry level full-frame camera, with similar low light performance, but all around, a little less, for a lot less money.

The M5/M6 seems to be designed for size and price point, and Canon seems to have hit the mark with it, in terms of it being very popular. Here, what I think you're saying is, you'd like Canon to commit to high end mirrorless, rather than prosumer mirrorless. A lot of people who are sold on mirrorless echo this; it probably won't be happening in 2018.

But I'll tell you one thing for sure, if the 5D4 is a perfect tool for you, I don't think a Canon-made A7R3 would be, and vice versa. They're just different at what they're good at (the Sony A7R3 and the Canon 5D4), and they excel at different things. 

For almost all the things I do, I would take a Canon 5D4 any day of the week. This is because I don't shoot many candids (nearly none). Everything I do is either indoors, in an environment where I supplement lighting with off-camera strobes -- or wildlife. In both cases, mirrored TTL OVF is just much more comfortable to use. However, if you like street photography, prefer candids, or do a bunch of video, I can definitely see the attraction of mirrorless.

I would love a Canon-made DSLR with many of the D850 features, but I wouldn't switch (back) to Nikon, because of a variety of reasons, mostly EF lens system, color science, and ergonomics; with DPAF a factor -- I hardly ever use DPAF, but liveview AF on a Nikon is like t2i.

Is any camera perfect? No, but I think that the 6DII is an amazing camera for its price.


----------



## stevelee (Feb 17, 2018)

I'm not sure how relevant this is to this discussion, but it is something that I have recently realized from my experience, and people are commenting here about color science as one reason they prefer Canon cameras.

I almost always shoot RAW files. I currently use a 6D2 and for travels a G7X II. Earlier I shot with Rebels and the S95 and then the S120. So I open my pictures in ACR, and when I look at the color I might try "Auto" and some of the presets. Almost invariably "As Shot" is the best looking one of the bunch. Then I may well go on to tweak the sliders, sometimes a compromise between "As Shot" and "Auto" when they each have their advantages, sometimes just a "that's not the way I remember it" adjustment to imitate my recollection of reality.

(Presumably my experience in Lightroom would be the same, if I preferred to work that way.)

I take it then that had I been shooting JPEGs, the camera would have got the color on the nose or very close (to my eyes at least) almost all of the time.

I do sometimes shoot other than AWB, for example I'll use the "Daylight" setting if I want to preserve the look of late afternoon sun, so that when it comes up in ACR it looks like near-sunset light. Some of you here have encouraged me to do it that way. Even then, I find that Canon's idea of "Daylight" is more to my liking than Adobe's, though the difference is not huge. Seeing the two slightly different versions of reality is often helpful in my adjustments.

I got my first Rebel about ten years ago, so I concede there might be something like confirmation bias here. Maybe my Canon cameras have taught me to see color their way.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 17, 2018)

stevelee said:


> ...I open my pictures in ACR, and when I look at the color I might try "Auto" and some of the presets. Almost invariably "As Shot" is the best looking one of the bunch...



Exactly my experience. Canon's RAW "as shot" is remarkable. I rarely have to adjust the color much at all. I shoot indoor sports a lot and even under those conditions, I rarely have to have to make an adjustment. Even with stage lighting and mixed natural and artificial, the out-of-camera colors almost always look better or only need a slight tweak to add or subtract a little warmth to make it more pleasing.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 17, 2018)

That's funny, I can't stand the Adobe version of 'As Shot', it is world's away from the DPP version. I always make custom profiles for my cameras and they are always much closer to DPP, Canon colors, than Adobe.


----------



## stevelee (Feb 17, 2018)

unfocused said:


> I shoot indoor sports a lot and even under those conditions, I rarely have to have to make an adjustment.



I live in a small college town. My main video project each year comes in June during the boys' basketball camp. I don't photograph the campers, but I go into arena just after 9 pm when they are wrapping up for the day. Shortly thereafter there is a series of pick up games that include counselors and guests. The counselors include current men's basketball players including the entering freshmen, and alumni who are mostly playing pro ball in Europe. Guests include hopeful prospects, players' little brothers, and, up until things got hectic for him a few years ago, an NBA star and his little brother who was playing for Duke would show up for a night or two. It's a fun occasion and great to see alumni back on the court and to renew acquaintances. A bunch of us old guys will show up and watch, and the head coach, who is not supposed to watch the games, will wander by some nights to say hello.

Where the video comes in is for folks in other parts of the country who want to see the entering freshmen on our court for the first time, playing with and against current players and some pros. Often I will use whatever is my newest camera, in large part to see how well it does, and especially if it is quite new, to learn how to use the camera and to get used to it. I sometimes learn from stupid mistakes, such as when I somehow had accidentally turned on something in the S95 that substituted magenta for the grays. The second night I learned how to turn that off.

There are two main problems to deal with (not counting the head coach if he thinks rival teams will use my videos to scout the new players). There is plenty of light, but they have the "TV lights" turned off. So the color temperature is a little off and seems to miss some frequencies. Also, the school's colors are red and black. Since hardly anybody is in the stands, the camera mostly sees a sea of red seats across the way, and will add a cyan bias to the already wonky color balance. A couple years ago, I shot 4K with my iPhone 6S and used FCP X to edit, zooming in on the action. The iPhone dealt with the color balance rather well.

Last June I used my G7X II, and the color was not that good. I'm not good at color grading in FCP, and I'm not adept enough in Premiere (where I can adjust the colors better) to get the project done in a timely manner. I was not happy with the color, but my intended audience didn't care. They watch to see the players' artistry, not mine, but I'd still like to do a better job. I've wondered about taking a white sheet of paper with me and setting up a custom color balance in the camera.

Since the 6D2 is my new toy this year, I guess I will use it and the STM kit lens. Focus has not been a problem in the past. From my hyperlocal distance calculations, everything in the arena should be in focus in that amount of light anyway. But I've not used a FF camera before on this project, so the math is different, and I might zoom in a little more, lessening the depth of field. Maybe not, though, since the danger of getting in tighter is of missing something. And FCP allows a decent amount of blowup without much loss of quality. But anyhow, it might be good to see how the focus tracking of the 6D2 deals with basketball.


----------



## Gino (Feb 18, 2018)

I'd like Canon to give the consumer more sensor options to choose from in the 5D and 1D bodies. Personally, I'd like to have the 30MP sensor in a 1DX body. Here is what I envision:

*1DX body with 3 different sensors to choose from for those who want the flagship pro body:*
* 18-20 MP sensor with the highest FPS and best ISO performance (14-16 FPS)

* 50-60 MP sensor for those who want the best dynamic range and resolution, but are not as concerned with FPS (6-8 FPS)

* 30-36 MP sensor for those who want a compromise between resolution, ISO performance, and FPS (10-12 FPS)

*5D body with 3 different sensors to choose from:*
* 18-20 MP sensor with the highest FPS and best ISO performance (10-12 FPS)

* 50-60 MP sensor for those who want the best dynamic range and resolution, but are not as concerned with fps (5-6 FPS)

* 30-36 MP sensor for those who want a compromise between resolution, ISO performance, and fps (7-9 FPS)


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 18, 2018)

*Re: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*



Hesbehindyou said:


> Here's the problem:
> 
> Canon responds to the needs of, and builds products differentiated for, two groups: professionals and consumers.
> 
> We are enthusiasts. Canon does not respond to our desires - we're too small a market.



I would argue that the enthusiast market is bigger than the pro market, even if we are to accept that the enthusiast market isn't the consumer market.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 18, 2018)

*Re: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*



CanonFanBoy said:


> Hesbehindyou said:
> 
> 
> > Here's the problem:
> ...



I would agree, plus we must consider that there is so much overlap between pro and enthusiast as to make distinctions meaningless......

For example, at work, I am "pro", and at home I am "enthusiast", but I have better gear at home than at work


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 18, 2018)

*Re: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*



Don Haines said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Hesbehindyou said:
> ...



I envy you Don. Lockheed Martin here in DFW is advertising a career for a photographer. They require a degree. That leaves me out.  That will probably be a real nice position for somebody.


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 18, 2018)

*Re: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*



CanonFanBoy said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > CanonFanBoy said:
> ...



You should apply anyway, and tell them why the experience you do have more than compensates for the lack of a degree. I've seen people get high-level jobs for which they did not have the supposedly required degree.


----------



## Talys (Feb 18, 2018)

*Re: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*



Orangutan said:


> You should apply anyway, and tell them why the experience you do have more than compensates for the lack of a degree. I've seen people get high-level jobs for which they did not have the supposedly required degree.



Couldn't agree more 

The degree-only requirement is often just to avoid a million applicants.

Especially for a job where portfolio and experience matters a lot more than formal education -- photographers, graphics designers, artists, modellers, software developers, etc -- the formal education is almost always overlooked when the applicant has a stunning portfolio. 

As long as you can get to the interview phase, you'll be fine. All you need is a good answer to the formal education question, and you're golden. In my opinion, an online portfolio of some of your best work is very helpful to get to that point.


----------



## Architect1776 (Feb 21, 2018)

*Re: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*



Canon used to be first at most things, that's not the case anymore. They built their digital camera business on being first more often than not. Full frame, adoption of CMOS (I think) AF tech, usable DSLR video, price points, sensor tech, liveview, and really getting pros into digital.

That said, I do believe the lens lineup does keep a lot of people in the system.
[/quote]

Actually Canon has not been first very often at all.
The F-1, a most excellent system camera, was contemporary with the Nikon F2 a whole generation behind Nikon. For AF again Canon lagged behind except for the T80 that was not too good. But when they did come out with AF in a serious way they made the entire industry obsolete by over 20 years. As we see all others are trying to catch up even to this day with the EOS system. Mirrorless I believe we will see the same feeling around then a real serious mirrorless camera(s) will be introduced.
Canon still does have firsts that are notable, the AE-1 was a game changer like the EOS system, The DPAF again is a huge game changer as well. But I see Canon watching and looking at others stupid missteps, taking notes then introducing something way out ahead again.


----------



## dak723 (Feb 21, 2018)

*Re: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.*



Architect1776 said:


> Canon used to be first at most things, that's not the case anymore. They built their digital camera business on being first more often than not. Full frame, adoption of CMOS (I think) AF tech, usable DSLR video, price points, sensor tech, liveview, and really getting pros into digital.
> 
> That said, I do believe the lens lineup does keep a lot of people in the system.



Actually Canon has not been first very often at all.
The F-1, a most excellent system camera, was contemporary with the Nikon F2 a whole generation behind Nikon. For AF again Canon lagged behind except for the T80 that was not too good. But when they did come out with AF in a serious way they made the entire industry obsolete by over 20 years. As we see all others are trying to catch up even to this day with the EOS system. Mirrorless I believe we will see the same feeling around then a real serious mirrorless camera(s) will be introduced.
Canon still does have firsts that are notable, the AE-1 was a game changer like the EOS system, The DPAF again is a huge game changer as well. But I see Canon watching and looking at others stupid missteps, taking notes then introducing something way out ahead again.
[/quote]

Yes, as usual people have a perception based on fantasy not reality. First DSLR with video - Nikon. First DSLR with live view - Olympus. First FF DSLR (although Canon was already in development with theirs) - Contax N Digital, First Pro DSLRs (although very pricey) - Kodak. First affordable pro camera (not FF) - Nikon.


----------



## stevelee (Feb 21, 2018)

FF is just an artificial convention evolved from using movie film sideways to shoot stills. But it is a handy point of reference for us old guys and how we think of focal lengths.

That's not as weird as measuring small digital camera sensors by TV camera tubes of the 1940s or '50s, though.


----------

