# The real problem with Canon sensor technology?



## traveller (Jun 12, 2015)

Everyone is raving about the BSI sensor on the A7r ii; whilst it is yet another visible step forwards in Sony sensor technology, I don't think that the much vaulted BSI is really such a game changer. It's been said by others before, but the fill factor advantage isn't nearly as important on full frame -certainly not the 2 stops Sony marketing would have you believe. Nevertheless, the chance to use a high-res Exmor sensor with decent AF on an EF mount adapter and IBIS (yet to be independently confirmed) is very tempting if you are already considering the 5DS(R). 

We keep thinking that Canon will catch up with "the next EOS body" and getting disappointed when performance fall short of our hopes. My concern is that Canon will always be behind the curve because they simply don't produce enough sensors to justify the level of R&D and process updates that Sony (or even Samsung) can invest in. Last year Canon sold fewer than 6.5 million DSLRs1 (i.e. cameras that utilize their own sensors) compared to 74.5 million2 iPhones (using Sony sensors) in just the last quarter of 2014. 

It is the needs of small sensors that are driving the R&D efforts of the chip makers these days and Canon simply isn't in that game. 

1http://www.dpreview.com/articles/5928296460/canon-q4-earnings-report-shows-camera-sales-are-down
2http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-holiday-quarter-2014-iphone-sales-2015-1


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 12, 2015)

The market for image sensors is gigantic and growing rapidly. Smart phones as you said, but Sony believes every car will have not only a backup camera, but a lane camera on each side, a face recognition camera to unlock doors, another to unlock the ignition, automatic adjustment of the seat (done now by key code), the last I read was that they had identified seven areas to push for sensors in a car. 

The same goes for homes and appliances. Face Recognition appliances will be sold as safety enhanced devices, since children can't start them, the list of potential uses is endless, some are frivolous, some seem practical. Thinking up the next big must-have use for one, and getting into business ahead of the competition will make a few more billionaires. 

DSLR sensors by quantity are hardly a blip quantity wise, but profit wide, they still bring in $$$ as the small sensors sell for pennies.


----------



## KBStudio (Jun 12, 2015)

We keep thinking that Canon will catch up with "the next EOS body" and getting disappointed when performance fall short of our hopes

My sentiments exactly! With as much as I have invested in Canon hardware, jumping to a new platform is almost ridiculous. However, I did purchase a A7r/Metabones rig. I stopped shooting with my Canon bodies and used the A7r exclusively for personal work. I created work arounds for the AF issues and found I actually enjoyed going back to the Manual focus days. The IQ is amazing and that is what I am truly after. The rest helps get there but without IQ what is the point? So now the A7r II. This might cause a liquidation of Canon bodies. If and do repeat IF, the Metabones adapter AF can perform close to the native Canon bodies I am sold, again. I held my breath that the 7DMII would be a game changer, nope. I had hoped the next body would have the IQ of the A7r, juries is still out but online postings do not impress. So will Canon disappoint with the 5DM4? I love and will keep my 5DM3, IQ issues or not. I believe that Canon has the ability but not the will to deliver a high DR and high IQ combination. I do not see that in the 5DSr. Just shoving a whole lot of pixels at the problem does not seem to compete. IMHO


----------



## Marsu42 (Jun 12, 2015)

KBStudio said:


> So will Canon disappoint with the 5DM4? I love and will keep my 5DM3, IQ issues or not.



The 5d line is designed for all-round shooting up to pro level, and in the latter case "just works" beats and gadgets or difference in specs by far. If you're under time pressure, bump gear around or need it repaired you cannot care less about what the competition has, you simply want *your* gear to perform adequately. The 5d4 will sell no matter what Canon puts into it.

It's different for amateur-enthusiasts though having more time and money on their hands. They'll love what Sony rolls out next if you get used to their usability and evf.



KBStudio said:


> I believe that Canon has the ability but not the will to deliver a high DR and high IQ combination.



That's the big question no one 'round here can answer, after all some sensor tech esp. for low iso dr is patented by Sony et al. And Canon doesn't seem to be willing to license core tech for their central "money making" products.



KBStudio said:


> I do not see that in the 5DSr. Just shoving a whole lot of pixels at the problem does not seem to compete. IMHO



Depends on the problem. If you don't need highest dr at low iso (or are ok with bracketing), the 5ds of course is a stellar camera body. That's esp. as it's based on Canon's designs of decades and will show no quirks unlike the latestest and greatestest from Sonykon. And Canon won't replace it with the next model next year, protecting your investment.

In comparison to a *real* tech advancement like a faveon sensor vs. old-school bayer, the differences are still minor. You have to be prepeared to pay Canon's prices though, but it seems many people are.


----------



## KBStudio (Jun 12, 2015)

Depends on the problem. If you don't need highest dr at low iso (or are ok with bracketing), the 5ds of course is a stellar camera body. That's esp. as it's based on Canon's designs of decades and will show no quirks unlike the latestest and greatestest from Sonykon. And Canon won't replace it with the next model next year, protecting your investment.

Funny the no quirks comment. 7DMII AF issues? Light leaks on 5DMIII viewfinder.... All fixed but so are most problems with other makes. Sad to see the "Sonykon" reference. Only thing in common is the chip. 

Unlike most, I have 22 years of shooting digitally as a studio photographer. I think, humbly, that I can see the difference between each chip's performance. The body may be a pain to work with, and many were, but again the bottom line was and is IQ. That is what the clients pay for, at least part of what they pay for. 

Bracketing is a work around for low DR. When shooting dynamically, bracketing is not an option. Need to get it in one exposure. Static shots can have greater DR with bracketing but wouldn't be nice getting all in one?

As for the frequency of updates being a bad thing. Why is one losing on improvements that help create a better product for the client?


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jun 12, 2015)

I have not noted any "Problems" with current Canon sensors, though I have noticed problems with other systems that use other sensors. The sensors are not the problem it's the cameras and the lenses.
For my photography there are only 2 suitable systems, namely Canon and Nikon. I couldn't care less what the others are doing as they simply do not make the gear required for wildlife (small and often moving quickly) photography.
A little while ago I had the opportunity to play with some Nikon gear and having read how wonderful the Nikons were with their sensors that were years ahead I had to give them a go! So glad that I did as I am now even happier with my Canon Gear. Admittedly I only tried 2 lenses (current Nikon 300 F2.8 and 500 F4 VR models) on the D800E and D4 cameras. Very nice they were too - but still behind my 1DX and Canon lenses.
The sensor is only one part of the system and not always the most important.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 12, 2015)

johnf3f said:


> The sensor is only one part of the system and not always the most important.



Blasphemy! The Exmorites will brand you as a heretic and burn you at the stake... 

EDIT: with the a7RII, they'll be able to capture detail in the flames and boost the shadows to see the expressions of glee on the onlookers' faces.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 12, 2015)

Sometimes, people have to actually purchase a camera to learn that a camera is a different thing than a spec sheet written by a PR writer.


----------



## alliumnsk (Sep 23, 2015)

traveller said:
 

> Everyone is raving about the BSI sensor on the A7r ii; whilst it is yet another visible step forwards in Sony sensor technology


Probably the main "game changing" behind BSI sensor is that Sony can now make smaller lenses. Unfortunately this has yet to be seen.


----------



## jrista (Sep 23, 2015)

traveller said:


> Everyone is raving about the BSI sensor on the A7r ii; whilst it is yet another visible step forwards in Sony sensor technology, I don't think that the much vaulted BSI is really such a game changer. It's been said by others before, but the fill factor advantage isn't nearly as important on full frame -certainly not the 2 stops Sony marketing would have you believe.



Couple of things. First off, full frame or not, BSI has nothing to do with frame size. It has to do with pixel size. As pixels shrink, the value of BSI on large sensors will become increasingly apparent. At 42.4mp, BSI is going to bring some improvement to the table. I don't think two stops (not sure where Sony actually said that...), but it isn't a meaningless improvement either.

More importantly, Sony has stated on a few occasions that the primary reason they moved to BSI was not to gain sensitivity, but to reduce pixel-induced vignetting due to the short flange distance and high angle of incidence with the mirrorless design. With FSI designs, wiring and transistors stand off the sensor substrate, above the photodiodes, by a fairly significant (at that scale) amount. With mere millimeters from the back of the lens, the angle of incidence for light anywhere outside of the center of the sensor is high, and extremely high in the corners. 

That causes an additional source of vignetting, induced by the pixels themselves, blocking light, rather than any lens characteristic. (And, it compounds with any lens vignetting). By moving to BSI for these large sensors, there is nothing to block light from reaching the photodiodes in each pixel. You have a layer of microlenses, layer of color filters, another layer of microlenses, and the photodiode. The overall height is very low (again, at that scale, a tiny fraction of the physical pixel depth that an FSI sensor has). No pixel induced shading.

That is huge for the corner and midframe performance of Sony cameras. That is the primary reason they moved to BSI.


----------



## 9VIII (Sep 24, 2015)

traveller said:


> We keep thinking that Canon will catch up with "the next EOS body" and getting disappointed when performance fall short of our hopes.



I think a lot of people completely blacked out what this industry was like (or never learned it) before 2012.
(For my personal perspective, I didn't know what "SLR" meant until 2012, so I'm a newb, but it only takes a few minutes looking at Wikipedia to get an impression of what the market was like. And I remember news articles screaming bloody murder that the 1Ds3 has too many pixels).

-Nikon waited almost five years to release a full frame sensor after Canon did.
-Before 2008 the 5D was the _only_ enthusiast level body on the market.
-Before 2012 the 5DMkII was the only enthusiast level full frame body with more than 20 Megapixels (that is, there were two enthusiast cameras: The D700 and the 5D2).

Big picture: Nikon had a head start in 1999 with the D1 and then from 2001-2012 they were playing catch-up. Not to mention the degree to which Canon is behind in technology is rather small compared to "APS-C vs. Full Frame" or "Not having an enthusiast body vs. Having an enthusiast body".
I think Canon has a little more wiggle room than people give them credit for.


----------



## Hillsilly (Sep 25, 2015)

Luckily Canon will purchase Sigma soon, pump some money into R&D and we'll all be shooting with enhanced Foveon sensors. Those Sony chaps won't know what hit them.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 25, 2015)

9VIII said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > We keep thinking that Canon will catch up with "the next EOS body" and getting disappointed when performance fall short of our hopes.
> ...



It takes a dozen things to make a good camera system. Canon is behind on one. People tend to forget that they are ahead on the other 11.....


----------



## unfocused (Sep 25, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> It takes a dozen things to make a good camera system. Canon is behind on one. People tend to forget that they are ahead on the other 11.....



But, are they really "behind" by any significant amount. I keep hearing about these magical Sony sensors, but have yet to see any magical game-changing pictures they produce. And, in fact, when I go to sites that test these things, I see only marginal, almost inconsequential differences at lower ISOs, and even those differences disappear very quickly as ISO goes up. 

I also keep reading about how Canon sensors aren't improving. Yet, I read comments from reviewers and real-live buyers of cameras saying they are shocked at how good the 5Ds is at even higher ISOs. Then, I bought a 7DII to try it out for sports and have been stunned myself at how much better the high ISO performance is on the 7DII compared to the 7DI and how close it is to my 5DIII. 

Invariably, when people claim Canon is "behind" they are talking about one metric and only one metric – Dynamic range at low ISO. Would I like a little more dynamic range. Yes. In fact, it would help me professionally because my work often requires that I shoot in less than ideal conditions. 

I'm not one who argues that more dynamic range is only needed by those who don't know how to expose (although there is a fair amount of that going on). I am often in situations where I can't control the light and have to take what I can get. So, yes, more dynamic range would be nice. But, one of the marks of being a professional is being able to come back with usable images regardless of the conditions and a situation where the range of light exceeds the capability of any camera's sensor is only one example of the challenges one might face and in fact, it's one of the least significant challenges I tend to encounter. 



traveller said:


> Everyone is raving about the BSI sensor on the A7r ii;



Who is everyone? I'm not. I could not care less what Sony does.



traveller said:


> We keep thinking that Canon will catch up with "the next EOS body" and getting disappointed when performance fall short of our hopes.



That's utter baloney. Canon cameras consistently perform above their specs.

People whined about the 6D. Until it got into buyers' hands. Then, you began reading comments from owners about how much better the camera was than expected.

I can personally attest to how the 7DII outperforms expectations.

The 5DIII continues to be a true workhorse for pros who buy their own equipment and need an all around performer at a reasonable price. 

If Canon was so disappointing, they wouldn't sell as many cameras as they do. 

You may be disappointed, but you need to accept that you are in a tiny, tiny minority. And, you might ask yourself why you are disappointed when so many others are not. 



traveller said:


> My concern is that Canon will always be behind the curve because they simply don't produce enough sensors to justify the level of R&D and process updates that Sony (or even Samsung) can invest in.



Volume is only important if it translates into profit and investment. Sony has struggled to be profitable. Canon has consistently earned profits. Sony claims to be making a significant investment in sensor development, but we don't know how much of that is aimed at cell phone sensors and other specialty items. 

Canon's recent announcements regarding sensor development focused on extremely high ISO performance and sensors with extremely high resolution would indicate they are investing a substantial portion of their revenue into research and development. Canon's game changing DPAF also demonstrates that the company not only invests in sensor research and development, but that they are capable of bringing those improvements to market.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Oct 16, 2015)

Before the darts fly I've constantly upgraded my Canon equipment and have no intention of changing. 
However Sony are definitely leading the field in sensor development and contrary to statements here there sensor business is very profitable. 
BSI is definitely the future for all the reasons Jirsta states and more but the one area Sony needs to work on is the color science of processing their images they are renown for issues with Reds & flesh tones. Canon are much better at processing the image signals as are Arri in cinematography. But the most common mistake too many people make is treating cameras & lenses as something entirely different to optimise performance they should be matched for optimising resolution and color rendition through coatings and glass types again Canon gets this right more times than wrong and the new 35mm prime with closer attention to lateral cromatic aberrations is a point in question and plays directly to the higher MP sensors and more demanding lens performance.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 16, 2015)

unfocused said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > It takes a dozen things to make a good camera system. Canon is behind on one. People tend to forget that they are ahead on the other 11.....
> ...


And to really be fair, with the things they are ahead on, are they really ahead by any significant amount?

and concerning sensors and quantum efficiency, the 7D2 at 59% is HIGHER than any other Canon DSLR, HIGHER than ALL the current Nikon DSLRs, and Sony only beats it with the A6000 (61%) and the A7s at 65% (Sorry A7 and A7r)..... but the read noise is worse almost across the board....

We are headed towards convergence. The differences between brands are shrinking.....


----------



## benperrin (Oct 16, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> BSI is definitely the future for all the reasons Jirsta states and more but the one area Sony needs to work on is the color science of processing their images they are renown for issues with Reds & flesh tones. Canon are much better at processing the image signals as are Arri in cinematography.



This has changed with the a7r2 and a7s2. Both have much more accurate colour than their predecessors. Sony are certainly making some good strides forward with their sensor technology but like Don says they are still behind on many things.


----------



## Aglet (Oct 16, 2015)

The real problem with Canon's sensor tech is that it is _good enough_ for the large majority of people who use it. There's little to complain about regarding other aspects of their system .. tho I'd like to see someone list 11 of those key points.  (Don, up to the challenge?)

If people are buying the product in the numbers that they do, there's little to warrant the investment in improving that last aspect of it because it'll cost them.
It's taken them years to produce the latest line of bodies that no longer exhibit excesssive FPN. They had a very low FPN character back in the days of Digic 2 and 3 bodies and likely only required a better power supply, shielding and board design to improve over the stripey mess of the Digic 4 products.

The company is, like any other major corp, all about generating profit. Max return on investment. They ARE very good at that in their camera game.

Seems like every other mfr decided to prioritize image quality as the main thing and that's where we find relatively better sensor performance. There are those who value better image quality above the few (not necessarily 11) other points which Canon are good at, after all, image quality is what a camera _is_ about.

Everything is a pile of trade-offs, pick the balance that works for you.
For many of us there are better options than Canon's. And there's nothing magical about Canon lenses, other than they have a lot to choose from. (As do Nikon & Pentax since they maintained high mount compatibility for many decades)

So what is Canon really good at, other than convincing people to buy their products?..
IMO, only 2 related things; camera ergonomics and system user interface. (earlier flash controls were horrid). And maybe service & support for those who regularly break their toys.
That doesn't sound like much of a technical leader to me, just a market leader that's riding their momentum and still capable of bringing in many new customers because they have built a nice intuitive and easy to learn user interface... Altho Pentax and Panasonic are very good in that area too.

Canon. Nuthin' special. Good enough for the masses. (The K-cars of the camera world?)
/mild_rant


----------



## scottkinfw (Oct 16, 2015)

I have and love my 5DIII, and gaggle of L lenses.

I am waiting to update to the next (hopefully 5DV).

I read comments, opinions, spec sheets, and look at sample pics, etc. 

It seems to me that there are a lot of strong opinions, even propaganda flying around right now. It serves, imo, to just confuse my upgrade path. It becomes difficult to sort out opinion from fact. 

For me, give me a bit better iq, better focusing, and a few other things, and I 'll be happy. How much more of these will it take- good question, I don't know.

For people who are sure that the future of sensors or cameras are somehow fixed, I say, my crystal ball is broken and I don't see that at all.

I think this is an exciting time for cameras, though a bit scary too. 

I eagerly await Canon's next 5DIV and 1DXII offerings. For financial reasons, I hope that the IV I will be awesome enough to meet my dreams, or I will likely go for the 1DXII.

Sony may be in some way "the future of sensors" as it is, perhaps bought out, or who knows. Who also knows what new sensors are in the pipeline but are "top secret. The future we seem to be so sure of may not look anything at all like we expect. 

Just a reality check.

sek


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Oct 16, 2015)

Aglet said:


> Canon. Nuthin' special. Good enough for the masses. (The K-cars of the camera world?)
> /mild_rant



Good enough for the masses? So, by implication, Canon's pro gear is only good enough for the masses too?
Having used some of the best that Nikon can offer (no others make comparable gear) I thought they were quite good for non serious use. Unfortunately the owners of the Nikon Superteles and "PRO?" bodies I was trying were using my Canon gear in the meantime, oh dear they were FAR from happy! What use is the wonderful sensor of the D810 if it can't focus until the subject has moved? What use is the better high ISO of the D4/D4S when you have clunky AF tracking and sub Canon lenses?
The mid range Nikon bodies definitely have advantages over some Canons, but when you hit the 7D2/5D3 level or higher then things start to alter quite a bit. As to Nikon long lenses? Well I hope the, just released 500 & 600 lenses, are comparable to Canon equivalents as their predecessors were mediocre at best. Having used Nikon gear I feel for their customers who shoot anything other than fairly static subjects with short lenses.
Just my experience - but what do I know? I have only used the gear.


----------



## arthurbikemad (Oct 16, 2015)

Canon seem to get a lot of stick, stood side by side with a A7RII owner shooting bikes he seemed a little dissapointed in the super fast AF and IQ of my 5D3 today! I was happy that my old clunker still gets the shots, bring on the Mk4 and the 1DXII and lets get shooting of another X years, Canon seem to be doing OK in my book.. I could not give a toss for specs on paper or blasted all over the net, it's how it does the job that matters to me


----------



## Aglet (Oct 17, 2015)

johnf3f said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > Canon. Nuthin' special. Good enough for the masses. (The K-cars of the camera world?)
> ...



You've nicely argued your choice of compromise.
Many others have chosen differently and are happy with their choice.

The point of the OP is _the problem with Canon's sensors_ which I answered by stating that they're _good enough_ for those who chose them.. so why should Canon bother to invest the capital and effort to improve that aspect? 
Your post just justified my post.. In short, you're content with the IQ of your chosen system for various reasons as you explained. So why would Canon improve the sensor if you're happy with the results?


----------



## brianftpc (Oct 17, 2015)

The A7r2 isnt the camera canon needs to be worrying about. The camera they need to worry about is the one that Nikon puts that sensor in.


----------



## jrista (Oct 17, 2015)

brianftpc said:


> The A7r2 isnt the camera canon needs to be worrying about. The camera they need to worry about is the one that Nikon puts that sensor in.



I agree with this. Nikon has demonstrated they can push the Sony technology farther than Sony themselves can. The A7r II shadow detail surprised me. Add in all the other Canon-grade features, like weather sealing and AF and metering and such...should be a hearty competitor. I am looking forward to see what the next D800 series camera is (there are rumors of a D810s, not sure what that might be, before a D850.)


----------



## jd7 (Oct 17, 2015)

This article on Fstoppers seems apposite in the context of this thread:
https://fstoppers.com/camerashootout2

People talk about Exmor sensors providing "better IQ", but as I understand it, the only objective measure in which Canon is behind is DR at low ISO. In my view that is not synonymous with IQ, eg other characteristics, such as ability to render skin tones, are important too (although query how you tease out what is due to the sensor, what is due to processing within the camera, etc). 

Anyway, more DR is good, all else being equal, but inevitably all else is not equal so you have to choose the set of trade-offs which best suits you and what you want to shoot. Not everyone is going to give the same weight/significance to more DR at low ISO.


----------



## Aglet (Oct 17, 2015)

jrista said:


> brianftpc said:
> 
> 
> > The A7r2 isnt the camera canon needs to be worrying about. The camera they need to worry about is the one that Nikon puts that sensor in.
> ...



+1 but... 
I doubt Canon will worry much if such a body arrives since they know they can still sell their same old schtick with minor improvements and still keep shareholders happy and customers content.
I've given up (yrs ago) on thinking they're going to compete on sensor tech and I'm glad I didn't wait.

(better than?) Canon-quality, available now, in smaller, lighter, cheap micro-four-thirds bodies vs. most of Canon's APSC range.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19270.msg553097#msg553097


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 17, 2015)

jrista said:


> brianftpc said:
> 
> 
> > The A7r2 isnt the camera canon needs to be worrying about. The camera they need to worry about is the one that Nikon puts that sensor in.
> ...



Shrug. Unless the usability of whatever comes after the D810 is significantly better than my D7000, I'll be happy sticking with my A7R2 and my 5D3 (or 4 if it tickles my fancy). The cheaper native-mount Zeiss glass for E-mount is really compelling. The 25 is on my short list, I just can't find one, but I'd never even legitimately consider an Otus, for F or for EF. For long lens use, I'm sticking with Canon. For everything else, short of something unexpected (i.e. not just putting the 42MP BSI sensor in a DLSR and running it at ISO50 or whatever), the nikon will be trivia. I look forward to the competition, but don't have any expectation of buying.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 17, 2015)

Aglet said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > brianftpc said:
> ...



Perhaps that means what they are selling is not, in fact, schtick, but rather that the advantages their competition wields is not of significant weight to most buyers.


----------



## jrista (Oct 17, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > brianftpc said:
> ...



Personally, I have no intention of buying into Nikon. Too expensive, as it cannot be adapted to other lenses as easily. That is one of the big appeals of the Sony system.

I am just interested in seeing what Nikon is capable of doing with the 42mp sensor. They have done some pretty impressive things with the 36mp sensor.


----------



## jrista (Oct 17, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Canon has a fanatical following.  That doesn't die easily. That said, Sony has gathered quite the following these days as well. There are some key limitations of the Sony system that I think a lot of existing Canon and Nikon who might be interested in switching are waiting to be resolved. A high quality native flash system with radio control capabilities seems to be one of them. Higher quality weather sealing another. I'm curious to see if the landscape changes when those things are resolved.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 17, 2015)

jd7 said:


> People talk about Exmor sensors providing "better IQ", but as I understand it, the only objective measure in which Canon is behind is DR at low ISO. In my view that is not synonymous with IQ, eg other characteristics, such as ability to render skin tones, are important too (although query how you tease out what is due to the sensor, what is due to processing within the camera, etc).
> 
> Anyway, more DR is good, all else being equal, but inevitably all else is not equal so you have to choose the set of trade-offs which best suits you and what you want to shoot. Not everyone is going to give the same weight/significance to more DR at low ISO.



ONLY LOW ISO DR MATTERS!!! That, and the ability to push your shadows 5+ stops. The lack thereof has led some people (e.g. jrista) to state that Canon delivers poor/unacceptable IQ. When are otherwise logical and sensible people like you (and me) going to get it?!? </sarcasm>

The *real* problem with Canon's sensors is that some _people_ want more low ISO DR then they provide...which means the real problem isn't with Canon's sensors at all.


----------



## Stu_bert (Oct 17, 2015)

The real problem is that people want to convince other people that their view is correct, and anyone who doesn't concur is foolish...

Doesn't anyone else here get tired of defending their choice? Do you think you're going to convert people? Every company has it's fanatics, but maybe for some of them it's the fact that the kit they have matches or exceeds their abilities, and swapping wont change that, which means they have not swapped brands.

I am real curious - do you all analyze engine performance, or electrical efficiency of your household goods to the same amount that you analze sensor performance? And do you swap brands every year to be with the "best" according of course to your criteria ?

Honestly, whereas I enjoy discussing merits to a point, when it comes to threads where people want to enforce that current users are clearly wrong, the only people who benefit are those that run the site. More advertising = Good for them!

Everyone has their criteria on what they want from a camera. Can't we just accept that and go spend more time understanding our chosen tools and using them out in the field, improving our photography by using our tools, not slating others. Pentax, Olympus, Nikon, Sony, Canon - they make kit which if used correctly produces stunning pictures. 

Go take a look at the Widlife photograher of the year, and when you look at the pictures, if you first thought is "I wonder what sensor was used" or indeed anything about the tech other than the techniques used to take the shot then wow, you need to seek help.

/rant off.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 17, 2015)

Stu_bert said:


> I am real curious - do you all analyze engine performance, or electrical efficiency of your household goods to the same amount that you analze sensor performance? And do you swap brands every year to be with the "best" according of course to your criteria ?



I guess it depends on your passion. For most people, changing household infrastructure is likely too much of a pain in the rear to even consider. Ed Begley Jr may, however.

For many people, changing cameras is more like changing phones (especially given that most cameras come with a lens), or laptops, or tablets. I'll think you'll find as much silly analysis on iOS vs android threads and OS X vs Windows threads and Galaxy vs iPad vs surface vs whatever threads as you do on Sony vs canon threads.


----------



## Stu_bert (Oct 17, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> Stu_bert said:
> 
> 
> > I am real curious - do you all analyze engine performance, or electrical efficiency of your household goods to the same amount that you analze sensor performance? And do you swap brands every year to be with the "best" according of course to your criteria ?
> ...



I think a lot of people here have more invested in their cameras than that (smartphone or laptop). When I go to Canon repair just for a lens calibration, my camera & lens is worth more than my car. Which tells you a lot about my relative priorities, lol.

But yes, I agree, some people seem to go to the nth degree to justify their decision, no matter the tech. I was curious if it overspilt into cars & white goods, and if it doesnt it just peaked my curiousity as to why.

Like I said, I understand discussing diferences. It's educational, and I've learnt a lot here, and elsewhere. I would not have known that BSI can help alleviate vignetting for instance. But I think you can just state that (as was done), without having to infer that one's choices (already made) are flawed. 

Maybe it's just me, but it just becomes irrelevant noise (pun intended)... ;D


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 17, 2015)

Stu_bert said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Stu_bert said:
> ...


My car has 240,000K on it. I bought it because I would "do the job".... In the eight years since, tech has improved and there are all kinds of new features, but it still does its basic task well. I keep up on what would be a suitable replacement, and if it were to die today I know the dealer and model I would call and I would be going again by the end of the day....

I treat cameras the same way...my old camera lasted me 5 years.... I doubt that my new one will be any different.... It is a tool to be used. If my needs change, I change tools.... But I don't change for the sake of getting the latest doodad or feature.

People seem to fixate on sensors, but I find that a great piece of glass has more impact on my photography than any sensor does. To me, it's a lot like getting a car with a powerful engine, but without the suspension and tires to keep it on the road..... One needs balance.....


----------



## meywd (Oct 17, 2015)

Stu_bert said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Stu_bert said:
> ...



Its about passion, is your hobby racing or drifting? then you will care about cars/engines/gear box/wheels/air and oil filters/brake and clutch disks/....etc.

Are you a gamer or a programmer? then graphic cards ATI vs nVidia, Asus vs EVGA vs Gigabyte vs MSI/sound cards/PCI, 8 channels vs 16/dual triple and quad channels memory/CPUs Intel vs AMD/Power Supplies/keyboards mechanical vs gaming vs curve/Mice/Windows vs Mac/open source vs Microsoft/.... and so much more, and it also depends on your level of passion, some programmers don't know how to troubleshoot windows, some build their own computers, when I bought my last PC I spent 6 months reading on the current technology and the current products to get the most for the money.

The same for photography, before I bought my first DSLR I spent 5-6 months readying about photography, light, and composition though it was all articles and Wikipedia, reading about Canon vs Nikon, Which lenses to get, third party lenses, and while waiting for it I used my friend's DSLR to practice.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 17, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> Stu_bert said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



I have had my car since new in 1999. But, it wouldn't be much good for you as it is a cabriolet and you couldn't put your canoe on top.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Oct 17, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> jd7 said:
> 
> 
> > People talk about Exmor sensors providing "better IQ", but as I understand it, the only objective measure in which Canon is behind is DR at low ISO. In my view that is not synonymous with IQ, eg other characteristics, such as ability to render skin tones, are important too (although query how you tease out what is due to the sensor, what is due to processing within the camera, etc).
> ...



Yes, it's all a trade-off. I would rather have true colors across the entire visual spectrum than super high DR. Since my film days,(1960) correct exposure and lighting was the rule. With today's cameras and software, that is getting to be less relevant. Getting everything right the first time is my goal. I have no problem with Canon's DR to lift a shadow area and bring it to the point of how my eyes saw the subject. When I see the subject and know the DR will not be sufficient, I shoot a 3 to 5 shot HDR.
Canon has backlit sensor technology, but I'm thinking they held back to insure the overall image quality meets with their philosophy. With Canon's user friendly designs and wide assortment of focal lengths, they are in doing it right. Canon is getting some stiff completion from some lens makers now, so that is a concern. Competition is a good thing and will hold prices down.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 17, 2015)

Stu_bert said:


> The real problem is that people want to convince other people that their view is correct, and anyone who doesn't concur is foolish...
> 
> Doesn't anyone else here get tired of defending their choice? Do you think you're going to convert people? Every company has it's fanatics, but maybe for some of them it's the fact that the kit they have matches or exceeds their abilities, and swapping wont change that, which means they have not swapped brands.
> 
> ...



This is one of the more rational posts I've read in a long time.

My view: Photography is by nature both very easy and very hard. Almost anyone can take a decent picture and as technology has improved it has made it easier to do so. 

Unfortunately, this technical ease is deceptive and leaves many people with the false impression that they only need better technology to get better.

But, once you've got the basics down, the real challenge begins. And, this is where problems arise. At some point, the left side of the brain will only carry you so far and unless you have real talent and vision, you are going to hit a wall. 

Photography is very much like music in that respect. You can master all the technical aspects of music, but that won't make you a great musician. 

So, there will always be a certain segment of the population who blames their tools and believes that if they just had the right tool, they would be great. As the tools improve, and they still don't achieve greatness, then people have to focus on smaller and smaller aspects of their tools and infuse those small aspects with an importance far beyond the reality.

Cameras and photo processing software have advanced so far in the past dozen years that the differences which exist between equipment has become insignificant. The lowest cost interchangeable lens camera, whether it be Nikon, Canon or Sony is so good that 99% of photographers in 99% of situations don't need anything else. 

But, we have to justify our purchases and desire for more. We also have to justify why we can't get the perfect picture. Blaming equipment is easier to accept than looking in a mirror. 

So, what we end up with is a lot of technologically-minded individuals who believe that the right technology will make them talented. But, it's not going to happen.


----------



## scyrene (Oct 17, 2015)

unfocused said:


> Stu_bert said:
> 
> 
> > The real problem is that people want to convince other people that their view is correct, and anyone who doesn't concur is foolish...
> ...



Nicely put.


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Oct 17, 2015)

Wanna know the true reason Canon has not improved low ISO DR much in the last few years? 

Because idiots like myself value workflow, ergonomics, quality lenses, reliability, high ISO performance, etc... over having low ISO DR of 14+ stops. As long as us stupids keep buying Canon's innovative and high performance lenses, there is little incentive for Canon to put money into something that will kill short term net profits. If only we were smarter people, we would realize how low ISO DR trumps everything else. We would ditch Canon and let them go bankrupt or be forced to improve their "crap" sensors. 

I mean, bracketing my shots when needed and then exposure blending them is like pulling teeth compared to not having the lenses I want to use, or having to fiddle with adapters, or having poor live view implementation, or tiny buttons, or poor customer service, or poor reliability, or poor battery life, or poor ergonomics, or EVFs. or lossy RAW files, or no aperture control in Live View, or no histograms, or AFMA with only one focal setting, or having to press two buttons at once to change ISO, or... well you probably get the idea.  

Getting rid of my Canon gear for another brand would be like kicking an attractive woman out of bed for eating crackers. Sure I would prefer her to not get crackers in the bed, but why ruin a good time?


----------



## Stu_bert (Oct 17, 2015)

meywd said:


> Stu_bert said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



I completely agree it's about your passion, and what drives you. And I love the technology behind dSLRS, as I mentioned, I've been educated a lot by people on here... Not much of that however will make me a better photographer.

But passion is not me telling you that your camera is inferior to mine...

When you'd researched your PC and components. Did you then go onto a bunch of PC forums and tell everyone that there kit was unable to run windows as well as yours? Is lightroom or whatever your editor of choice producing better pictures cause the underlying HW is better?

I know it's a rumours forum, and biased towards the hardware therefore, it's just that there seems to be an awful lot of irrelevant "contests". Competition and choice are great, I'd just wish that from time to time, people could post it less to offend or bate people, or just plain direct it direct to the vendor...


----------



## Stu_bert (Oct 17, 2015)

unfocused said:



> Stu_bert said:
> 
> 
> > The real problem is that people want to convince other people that their view is correct, and anyone who doesn't concur is foolish...
> ...



Couldn't agree more, and thank you to everyone who has confirmed that I am not the only one with this view, lol.

Please dont get me wrong. I still think we should push every manufacturer to give us more, for less and keep highlighting where features which another system has would be brilliant on ours, or features that just dont plain work as expected or at all. Without feedback and competition, we'd still have AF which doesn't work in heat / direct sunlight!!

Music is a great example, I have to admit I have zero skills and zero knowledge... Always wanted to play a saxaphone though (no idea why I shared that,  )

PS. love the crackers comment


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Oct 17, 2015)

Stu_bert said:


> The real problem is that people want to convince other people that their view is correct, and anyone who doesn't concur is foolish...



I agree. Anybody that doesn't agree with this statement is an idiot. ;D


----------



## meywd (Oct 17, 2015)

Stu_bert said:


> meywd said:
> 
> 
> > Stu_bert said:
> ...



Actually I was just answering the question of why people care too much about their DSLR sensor than the specs of the fridge or the washing machine, yeah I didn't go to a forum to brag about my PC, but if someone ask me what brand of graphic cards to get I will tell him what makes which better, or if someone comes to me saying Linux is better than windows, then I would give him a piece of my mind ;D


----------



## benperrin (Oct 18, 2015)

unfocused said:


> Stu_bert said:
> 
> 
> > The real problem is that people want to convince other people that their view is correct, and anyone who doesn't concur is foolish...
> ...



Agreed. Great post.


----------



## sanj (Oct 18, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> Stu_bert said:
> 
> 
> > I am real curious - do you all analyze engine performance, or electrical efficiency of your household goods to the same amount that you analze sensor performance? And do you swap brands every year to be with the "best" according of course to your criteria ?
> ...



Agree. It is fun for many photographers including me to keep in connect with latest technology and want to upgrade. It is a feel good factor which may or may not improve the actual photography.


----------



## Antono Refa (Oct 18, 2015)

I suspect the real problem with Canon sensor technology is that Sony's is better.

That is to mean, Canon's tech is good enough, but

1. Some people will buy the best, whether they need and/or put the difference to good use or not.

2. Some people will bitch about Canon's technology not being the best.


----------



## ChristopherMarkPerez (Oct 18, 2015)

Excellent description of what I, too, experience when talking with folks who claim to love the act of photography, but who seem to constantly be in search of "better" equipment.

Brooks Jensen over at Lenswork Magazine noted a couple years ago that current image making technologies will allow a greater number of potential artists to realize their images easier than we could just a decade ago. He noted that at the dawn of photography you might have a couple truly outstanding artists. They were the people who could understand the technology and use it to make wonderful images.

With the advent of dry plate and film technologies we saw perhaps 10 or 15 photographers in any given generation who could work the tech and come way with outstanding images.

Technology presently hides many of the unpleasant/time-consuming details of how to operate a device, thus freeing people to concentrate on the image. It was Brook's contention that we could see perhaps 10,000 to 15,000 truly outstanding photographic artists as a result.

Coming back to the conversations about technologies, it seems to me that we miss valuable opportunities to improve our own work by expecting the manufacturers to solve our art problems for us. They can't and they won't.

What they do provide are amazing tools for creative expression. The technologies seem to be evolving rapidly. Just 7 years ago I was thrilled to be able to afford the then new 5D MkII. But I sold my entire Canon system just over a year ago after I realized that the new generation of tools better met my needs. They were smaller, sharper, and offered network connectivity that I knew I could make use of. This doesn't mean the Canon's sensors weren't sufficient to the task. It just means that my overall needs to downsize in terms of weight and mass having lead me inadvertently to sharper off the sensor images came as a bonus.




unfocused said:


> ... My view: Photography is by nature both very easy and very hard. Almost anyone can take a decent picture and as technology has improved it has made it easier to do so.
> 
> Unfortunately, this technical ease is deceptive and leaves many people with the false impression that they only need better technology to get better.
> 
> ...


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Oct 18, 2015)

Aglet said:


> johnf3f said:
> 
> 
> > Aglet said:
> ...



I argued my case of avoiding compromise or at least minimizing it! Regardless of the advantages of the Sony produced sensors (which I have yet to see - though I keep an open mind) they are of little relevance if the manufacturers who use them don't make suitable lenses or adequate camera bodies, or both in the case of Sony.
Would I like a "better" sensor in my current camera? Certainly! But how do I get one? The finest sensor in the world is of no importance if the rest of the system is inadequate. 
So the wonderful Sony sensors (NO sarcasm - they appear to be very good) are completely useless is a flimsy Sony body with no lens because they don't make a suitable one! When these sensors are incorporated in Nikon bodies the situation improves dramatically (especially as Nikon seem to know how to get the most out of them) but they still lag significantly behind Canon in other areas eg. AF and tracking.

Therefore I would contend that, for many users (especially me), that Canon make the very best sensors simply because they put them in the cameras that will get me the image and produce (most of the time) the best lenses for the job. I hate to think of the frustration that I would have had if I bought a D4S or a D810 and a Nikon Super Tele! If I were doing landscapes then the D810 is GREAT! But for anything that moves Nikon lag behind Canon and Sony aren't in the game - so their sensors are not as good as they are in systems that are poorer(Nikon)/useless (Sony) at getting the image I require in the first place.
These days the sensor is just a small part of the system and other factors are more significant - especially for anything that moves or needs fast response.

Now it the new Nikon 500 and 600 Superteles are up to snuff and the impending Nikon D5 is a great leap forward then I may have to eat my words! We shall see????


----------



## Rocky (Oct 19, 2015)

Men buying photograghic equipment is just like women buying jewelry. They buy what they want and goes way beyond the need.


----------



## scyrene (Oct 19, 2015)

Rocky said:


> Men buying photograghic equipment is just like women buying jewelry. They buy what they want and goes way beyond the need.



Aside from the sexism, the two are not quite alike - as jewellery is entirely decorative. For some at least, cameras are functional.


----------



## sdsr (Oct 19, 2015)

PhotographyFirst said:


> Wanna know the true reason Canon has not improved low ISO DR much in the last few years?
> 
> Because idiots like myself value workflow, ergonomics, quality lenses, reliability, high ISO performance, etc... over having low ISO DR of 14+ stops. As long as us stupids keep buying Canon's innovative and high performance lenses, there is little incentive for Canon to put money into something that will kill short term net profits. If only we were smarter people, we would realize how low ISO DR trumps everything else. We would ditch Canon and let them go bankrupt or be forced to improve their "crap" sensors.



Sure, but if Canon made sensors with better low ISO dynamic range (which is all we're talking about, isn't it?), Canon's lenses, high ISO performance, ergonomics, etc. wouldn't get worse. Do we know that Canon can't afford to develop such a sensor?


----------



## sdsr (Oct 19, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> People seem to fixate on sensors, but I find that a great piece of glass has more impact on my photography than any sensor does.



Yes. And it's interesting (or something) that lenses don't seem to generate this sort of antagonism - except perhaps the 50L.... (My perspective is somewhat paradoxical - the reason why I like Sony's latest cameras is not the DR of their sensors, nice though that is, but because they they make it easier than any other FF cameras to use a very wide range of lenses, many of them, luckily, inexpensive.)


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 19, 2015)

scyrene said:


> Rocky said:
> 
> 
> > Men buying photograghic equipment is just like women buying jewelry. They buy what they want and goes way beyond the need.
> ...


And this is why you never see a somebody using a pair of 1DX as earrings.....


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 19, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Rocky said:
> ...



But if your let it hang just right I'm pretty sure it has served as a codpiece.


----------



## aj1575 (Oct 19, 2015)

The real Problem with Canon sensor technology?

My first respond to this title; is there a problem? I'm not sure. Yes Canon is lagging behind Sony at the moment in some aspects of sensor technology, mainly DR at low ISO. But Canon also shows its strength (250MP FF sensor; ISO 300'000 sensor...). So Canon is working on sensor technology.
Sony got a lot of praise for their sensors lately. But please go over to dpReview to look at the real images, not the synthetic DXO measurements. The much hyped high ISO performance of the Sony, just does not show in the pictures, they look about the same to me. You could also get the impression that Sony has the high ISO, high DR, high resolution monster sensor; but they don't. They have a low resolution high ISO sensor, they have a high resolution sensor with an okay high ISO performance, and they have something in between. I just wonder what people would say when Canon would do the same; aren't they able to make a sensor who does it all? Sony has some nice sensor tech, but they are cocking with the same water as Canon does. On a test bed, the Sony is ahead, but how much of it does show in the real pictures?

And then, the sensor is just a small part of the system that let's us take pictures. So I think it get's too much attention, especially since todays sensors are all quite damn good.


----------



## msm (Oct 19, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> BSI is definitely the future for all the reasons Jirsta states and more but the one area Sony needs to work on is the color science of processing their images they are renown for issues with Reds & flesh tones. Canon are much better at processing the image signals as are Arri in cinematography.



This is a claim I often see on this forum and I just don't believe it is true. What I suspect happens is someone using some random conversion in a random raw converter using some random profile and prefers the Canon colors and mistakenly think that has something to do with the cameras ability to capture colors. And yes Adobe Standard profiles are random, they are not even consistent among Canon cameras.

When you shoot raw Canon does not even process the image signals, your raw converter does.

If you want accurate colors, make your own profile.


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Oct 19, 2015)

msm said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > BSI is definitely the future for all the reasons Jirsta states and more but the one area Sony needs to work on is the color science of processing their images they are renown for issues with Reds & flesh tones. Canon are much better at processing the image signals as are Arri in cinematography.
> ...


Maybe it has more to do with the lenses than the sensors? I know back in the film days, there was a visible difference between a Nikon lens and a Canon lens when shooting the same film. 

I personally had a D800 for a while and found the white balance to always be inaccurate in temperature and hue. All of my Canon cameras have been much better and rarely need any correction in post. Every single one of my D800 images needed correction in post. Always seems to be a little too green. 

With that said, I find the images coming from the D750 RAW files to look much better than any other Nikon I have seen. The colors and white balance seem to match more to what I would expect from a Canon.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 19, 2015)

ChristopherMarkPerez said:


> Brooks Jensen over at Lenswork Magazine noted a couple years ago that current image making technologies will allow a greater number of potential artists to realize their images easier than we could just a decade ago. He noted that at the dawn of photography you might have a couple truly outstanding artists. They were the people who could understand the technology and use it to make wonderful images...
> 
> ...Technology presently hides many of the unpleasant/time-consuming details of how to operate a device, thus freeing people to concentrate on the image. It was Brook's contention that we could see perhaps 10,000 to 15,000 truly outstanding photographic artists as a result.



A very interesting observation. I often wonder what the future of photography as an art holds. I think his estimate of 10,000 to 15,000 may actually be conservative. But, I wonder what the ramifications are. The infrastructure of the art world (which largely remains in the 19th and 20th centuries), is ill-equipped to handle a world where there are even 1,000 truly outstanding photographic artists practicing today.

By necessity, these artists will need to bypass the traditional gallery and museum-based infrastructure. Most likely taking their work directly to the public through the web. But, that's also a difficult challenge. 

When the world of photojournalism collapsed in the 1960s and 70s, the book publishing and art gallery world stepped in and offered an outlet for many creative photographers who were left without a market. Now, the mass marketed photo book is largely dead as well (that is, the cost of publishing and distribution is so great that publishers are unwilling to take a risk on new artists and would rather stick with tried and true classic but intellectually unchallenging photographers. Thus the perennial popularity of reprinting Ansel Adams images from the 1920s and 30s). 

Getting noticed as an artist in the ocean of talent that exists today is harder than ever before. I have no solutions, only questions. But, I will say, this is a much more interesting subject than arguing about the dynamic range of sensors.


----------



## yungfat (Oct 20, 2015)

I am a nikon D7000 user, no doubt the Sony sensor inside nikon dslr are nice, and nikon marketing are very clever to fully utilised those advantages of the sensor as the main tools to tell a very good story about how capable of the camera sensor. But almost recent announced full frame camera are having some quality issues, I not sure how many % nikon user has on hold their upgrade or buying decisions after so many cases been reported. I have the same feeling as the Nasim 

https://photographylife.com/dont-be-a-guinea-pig

I am totally agreed.

Is Canon really didn't put effort to improve their DSLR system? I don't think so. Let's use example, AF System:

D700, 51 points, 15 cross type ; 5DII, 9 (+6) point, 1 cross type
D800, 51 points, 15 cross type ; 5DIII, 61 point, 41 cross type
D810, 51 points, 15 cross type ; 5DIII, 61 point, 41 cross type

D3, 51 points, 15 cross type ; 1DIV, 45 points, 39 cross type
D3S, 51 points, 15 cross type ; 1DIV, 45 points, 39 cross type 
D3X, 51 points, 15 cross type ; 1DIV, 45 points, 39 cross type 
D4, 51 points, 15 cross type ; 1DX, 61 point, 41 cross type 
D4S, 51 points, 15 cross type ; 1DX, 61 point, 41 cross type

Perhaps Nikon has too proud on their 51 af system and the are constantly producing DSLR with good sensor (only?) while I can see the Canon has consistently improving their camera system including lenses. Indeed, Canon is making some better lens.


----------



## yablonsky (Oct 20, 2015)

PhotographyFirst said:


> Wanna know the true reason Canon has not improved low ISO DR much in the last few years?
> 
> Because idiots like myself value workflow, ergonomics, quality lenses, reliability, high ISO performance, etc... over having low ISO DR of 14+ stops. As long as us stupids keep buying Canon's innovative and high performance lenses, there is little incentive for Canon to put money into something that will kill short term net profits. If only we were smarter people, we would realize how low ISO DR trumps everything else. We would ditch Canon and let them go bankrupt or be forced to improve their "crap" sensors.
> 
> ...



+1
Exactly my thoughts. The lenses have far more influence on IQ than the sensor. I cannot see anything close to the 24-70 2.8 II in the Sony lens lineup. Adapters are no alternative. There is no sense in switching to a smaller, lighter body, when using the old and heavy glass with adaters. The only downside of my camera is size and weight. But from my perspective there is currently nothing on the market with the same IQ which has half the weight and size.


----------

