# Where are Canons innovation?



## Pitbullo (Jan 9, 2014)

I was just wondering about where Canons innovation has gone? Sure, they put a touch screen on a dslr, but that is not really innovative. We´ve had this on smart phones for a long time (yes, they are caneras as well), but that is about it. WiFi? They have offered WiFi for a long time as well, but as an add on feature. Integrating it is more of an evolution, the same as with the touch screen.

The reason I ask this question, "where are the innovation" is because I recently bought my wife a Sony NEX-6, anf my poor 550D looked really really ancient next to it!! Dont get me wrong, I do enjoy shooting my canon, and I have solid lenses, but it really was a huge gap between the Canon and the Sony. 

I do think that Canon produces very good, solid performing cameras, no doubt. The 5D3 and the 1DX really dont have true competition. They are not the best at everything, but as a whole, perhaps the best tools avaliable for the professionals. However, I´m not a professional, though quite enthustiastic 
Where is Canons equivalent to the Sony A7/R or the Nikon DF? Where is the downloadable apps for the Camera, motion sensors etc.? The EOS M? Never tried it, but from what I understand, a good, solid performer (after the FW update), but not very innovative. 

The thing is, the people at Canon are not stupid, I am sure they have all the technology in the world to make super innovative cameras (yes, even fix the DR-problem that really isn´t a problem), but why dont they show us, or just give us some hints? Where are Canon at the CES? 

I am not the type that want the latest and greatest technology at the moment it is released. But, I am gonna upgrade my equipment in a couple of years. Hopefully I can stick to Canon and not feel I´m buying an old relic.


----------



## mkabi (Jan 9, 2014)

If touchscreens are not innovative, then...
I dont think Canon has released anything innovative ever.

You see Sony is putting their fingers everywhere.... Putting them where it doesn't belong, trying to lure customers, while reducing their own reliability.

I will tell you something, and I trully believe this...
I believe that every company is good at one thing, and 1 thing only sometimes 2.
Canon is good with imaging, apple is good with user friendly GUI, etc.
Sony used to be King of TVs... Now falling behind Samsung, panasonic, etc.
And yet, I still buy Sony TVs for its past reputation.

Sony is good with innovation and disruptive technology, but whats the point of being on the bleeding edge if that same tech becomes obsolete because there wasn't enough acceptance and/or they replace with something bigger and better in 6 months? 

What I think Canon is doing is patiently waiting, waiting to see what everyone is accepting before they add that feature to their camera?


----------



## NancyP (Jan 9, 2014)

70D focus system is pretty innovative.


----------



## Pitbullo (Jan 9, 2014)

Thank you for a good and well thought out reply. I must say I agree with you for the most. 
Touchscreen could be innovative, if smart phones hadn´t shown what could be done with a touchscreen and a camera. They were a bit late. 

Sony is as you say, an inovative company. However not the most reliable. Canons way, just sitting on the fence is a safe and steady way, I just would like them to have a bit of Sony in them, if you know what I mean. Internally I bet they go bananas with ideas and prototypes, it is just that so little reach the public eyes and ears. A little bit of lunacy or madness, just a hint, would be nice. Show us a litle bit of that innovation.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 9, 2014)

Pitbullo said:


> Where is Canons equivalent to the ... Nikon DF?



First off, are you suggesting the Df is innovative? How so? A 'pure photography' camera with a focus screen unsuitable for manual focus? Regardless, if Canon just me-too's the Df, that's still not innovative on Canon's part.

Maybe you missed dual pixel AF, using nearly every pixel on the image sensor for phase detect AF? Kinda innovative, no?


----------



## unfocused (Jan 9, 2014)

Canon makes cameras. You use them to take pictures. How much innovation do you need? Will it make you a better photographer?


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 9, 2014)

What about all those people who care more that the camera is solid and reliable?

Inovation brings risk. Canon is a conservative company and has managed to stay on the top of the heap that way... I doubt you will see it change.

That said, they have a huge R+D department, produce lots of patents, and some of them make it to the real world. Most do not, but you learn as much or more from what doesn't work as from what does. Difractive Optics are an inovation... so is dual-pixel autofocus... What about the use of Flourite glass? Most of the inovations will be invisible to the consumer, like better processing algorithms, autofocus algorithms, manufacturing and machining advancements...

Go back ten years, look at the cameras and glass availiable, and then tell us there have been no inovations..

And to beat Neuro to the punch  Profitability  If you look at the competition, this may be the greatest innovation of all.


----------



## Pitbullo (Jan 9, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Pitbullo said:
> 
> 
> > Where is Canons equivalent to the ... Nikon DF?
> ...



To start, the dual pixel AF is a bit innovative, however, I am not sure Canon is the only ones to offer this (nor the first, but not sure about that). I see this as an avolutionary step to be able to drop the mirror and still keep the AF performance of the dSLR. 

The Nikon DF is perhaps not very innovative either, but it is a bold move! They dared to do something different than they usually does. I like that, even if the camera itself is not the perfect product.


----------



## Pitbullo (Jan 9, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Canon makes cameras. You use them to take pictures. How much innovation do you need? Will it make you a better photographer?



And phones are for making calls, what do you need an iPhone for?? And, if you are not interested in the camera technology, why are you even at this site? A rumor site!!

I am not here to start a fight, it was just a question. A question that popped at the moment I tried the NEX-6. It seemed lightyears ahead of my 550D (apart from AF). Using the same 18mpx sensor in a trillion cameramodels kind of exemplifies what my point is. As I said, perhaps "innovative" is the wrong word... Could Boring be more correct?


----------



## unfocused (Jan 9, 2014)

Pitbullo said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Canon makes cameras. You use them to take pictures. How much innovation do you need? Will it make you a better photographer?
> ...



Fair enough. But, since you didn't explain what it is about the NEX-6 that makes you feel it is light years ahead of Canon, the post sounded a bit like trolling. And, since you are comparing it to a four-year-old entry-level DSLR, do you think that is a fair comparison? Are you sure you aren't simply reacting to the realization that your 550D has gotten a bit dated?


----------



## RLPhoto (Jan 9, 2014)

The 600RT. I'd really like a 430RT.


----------



## Pitbullo (Jan 9, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Pitbullo said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



Sure my 550D is dated, but it still does its job, so I´ll hang on to it 

My bad, since I did not tell what about the nex-6 that put the Canon in the shadow... Well, it is a bit hard to out in words, but it is very compact, APS-C, a fantastic EVF, loads of functions like downloadable apps, WiFi, face detection and smile detection. Then there is the feel to it, it just feels... modern when I use it!
I have not had the time to use it that much, but it is the same with my dads A77, it just feels... modern!


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jan 9, 2014)

Pitbullo said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Pitbullo said:
> ...



I think again, a 4 year old camera (especially it being entry-level) compared to brand new high-end ILC isn't a fair comparison. For the 550D of course. Now, I'll grant you, the EOS-M doesn't really excite compared to the NEX-6 either, but that or the 70D is a much better comparison than the 550D.


----------



## sb in ak (Jan 9, 2014)

Canon can get away with it as they are at the top of the heap. They might as well just watch Sony muck around with the mirrorless stuff until they get it right enough, then jump in.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 9, 2014)

sb in ak said:


> Canon can get away with it as they are at the top of the heap. They might as well just watch Sony muck around with the mirrorless stuff until they get it right enough, then jump in.



I might be a bit more charitable in phrasing it, but I sort of agree. I think both Nikon and Canon are content to slow walk their entry into mirrorless and let others spend the money to do their market research for them. They are both 800 pound gorillas and if the market looks profitable, they can pretty well come in and crush everyone else simply on the strength of their brands.


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 9, 2014)

If the OP feels that Sony's innovations are inviting then he should move to Sony. After all this is why Sony are producing these cameras; they want people to buy them. Just don't mention lens innovations. 

For myself, the most recent Canon innovation is the 6D sensor. Excellent dynamic range coupled with film-like tonal graduation and astonishing high ISO performance. Quite extraordinary.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jan 9, 2014)

unfocused said:


> sb in ak said:
> 
> 
> > Canon can get away with it as they are at the top of the heap. They might as well just watch Sony muck around with the mirrorless stuff until they get it right enough, then jump in.
> ...



You mean kinda like what Apple likes to do? Most of what they've done in the past decade (leaving aside OS X) has been to wait until others get the basic technology up to a certain level and push out a bunch of different options that may be, mostly, lackluster but have a few good ideas here and there. Then re-package them in a better form, add some great industrial design, and make it seem hip, cool, and never been done before.

Granted, I don't think Nikon/Canon will make much of anything like a hip/cool must have accessory, but the mirrorless has taken a while to actually really start making quality stuff that's catching up with some features that the standard DSLRs have had and done well for a long time.


----------



## Kit. (Jan 9, 2014)

Pitbullo said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Canon makes cameras. You use them to take pictures. How much innovation do you need? Will it make you a better photographer?
> ...


I personally don't.

I prefer phones that are better for making calls than an iPhone.



Pitbullo said:


> And, if you are not interested in the camera technology, why are you even at this site? A rumor site!!


For the rumors about the lenses (duh!).

I might be interested in the new 100-400. Not sure about the 12[14]-24; I'm pretty satisfied with my TS-E 17 for what I need from a wide angle lens.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 9, 2014)

Kit. said:


> Pitbullo said:
> 
> 
> > And, if you are not interested in the camera technology, why are you even at this site? A rumor site!!
> ...


I would be willing to bet that a lot (most?) of the people on this site have more invested in lenses than in camera bodies....


----------



## AE1Pguy (Jan 10, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> If the OP feels that Sony's innovations are inviting then he should move to Sony. After all this is why Sony are producing these cameras; they want people to buy them. Just don't mention lens innovations.
> 
> For myself, the most recent Canon innovation is the 6D sensor. Excellent dynamic range coupled with film-like tonal graduation and astonishing high ISO performance. Quite extraordinary.



Yeah, I was counseled by a well-known photo publisher not to buy a new Canon, because they had lost their ability to keep up. But I just couldn't stomach ditching my huge lens investment, so I picked up a 6D with a 24-105 (and a Sigma DP2M - another underappreciated camera).

They say the 6D AF stinks and the sensor is yesterday's news. Ok. Whatever. It's a drastic leap forward from my 40D. I can make enormous prints with terrific color, at absurdly high ISO. And I didn't have to sell a car to buy a whole new set of lenses. I'll sell enough shots to more than recover my expenses quickly.


----------



## garyknrd (Jan 10, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Kit. said:
> 
> 
> > Pitbullo said:
> ...



Yep, and the best in the world for what I like... Can't wait to see this years offerings.


----------



## surapon (Jan 10, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Kit. said:
> 
> 
> > Pitbullo said:
> ...




+ 1000 for me too, Sir, Dear Mr. Haines.
" I would be willing to bet that a lot (most?) of the people on this site have more invested in lenses than in camera bodies "
Yes, I , my self will buy the good/ great Camera 21 in every 3-4 years, BUT, I will buy Great Lenses 1-3 Per Year.
Good night, Sir.
Surapon


----------



## Vincent_F (Jan 10, 2014)

Pitbullo said:


> I was just wondering about where Canons innovation has gone? Sure, they put a touch screen on a dslr, but that is not really innovative. We´ve had this on smart phones for a long time (yes, they are caneras as well), but that is about it. WiFi? They have offered WiFi for a long time as well, but as an add on feature. Integrating it is more of an evolution, the same as with the touch screen.
> 
> I can't actually believe that there is a post on that subject: are you all mad or just ignorant? To refresh your minds, you might want to have a look at these links:
> http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/product/cinema_eos/cameras.do
> ...


----------



## Artifex (Jan 10, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> If the OP feels that Sony's innovations are inviting then he should move to Sony. After all this is why Sony are producing these cameras; they want people to buy them. Just don't mention lens innovations.
> 
> For myself, the most recent Canon innovation is the 6D sensor. Excellent dynamic range coupled with film-like tonal graduation and astonishing high ISO performance. Quite extraordinary.



I totally agree with you. For me, as a MF shooter who started on film SLR and loved it, the 6D is a bit of a dream come true once the stock focussing screen is replaced. As you stated, the tonal graduation is lovely and the high ISO performance is ridiculously good. However, there is something that impresses a lot that isn't much discussed; the look of the high ISO noise. Unlike the 550D or the 7D, the noise doesn't actually look like "noise", but makes me more think of film grain. Even at 6400-12 800, where it starts being heavy, I actually don't find it ugly; it resemble the grain added in post in film shoot on digitals cameras more than "regular" noise.


----------



## Ewinter (Jan 10, 2014)

Who needs innovation when you can just stick with a good thing. Like having native lens options above 210mm...Well, seems like canon win that one. And RT flashes. And the best fast primes on the market....

I've got a sony A7, it's stunning, but funnily enough, I don't use it with sony lenses.


----------



## davidson (Jan 10, 2014)

i find that when a lot of people talk about innovation, they dont actually mean innovation. they mean features they can brag about or toys and "gimmicks" they can play with , that dont actually much real value to the product. they gripe that company X doesnt have an innovative feature that company Y has. but if company X did what company Y did then its not innovation is it??


----------



## sanj (Jan 10, 2014)

Pitbullo said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Canon makes cameras. You use them to take pictures. How much innovation do you need? Will it make you a better photographer?
> ...



Agree. But innovation is mandatory for all companies. Do not intend to start a fight either.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 10, 2014)

sanj said:


> But innovation is mandatory for all companies.



Certainly, at least for tech companies. But the point of the OP's thread was that Canon isn't innovating. Fastest frame rate in a dSLR. Most cross-type AF points with the widest spacing. Smallest dSLR. Supertele lenses that are >25% lighter than their predecessors. Dual pixel AF. 

The issue isn't Canon not innovating, it's that people define innovation as developing only those products/features they _personally_ want. I don't shoot video with a dSLR and when I'm using Live View, I'm not in a rush. By the logic of many people bashing Canon for not innovating, I should not call dual pixel AF an innovation, because it doesn't benefit me. But it is innovative, as even the OP has acknowledged.


----------



## jrista (Jan 10, 2014)

Pitbullo said:


> I was just wondering about where Canons innovation has gone? Sure, they put a touch screen on a dslr, but that is not really innovative. We´ve had this on smart phones for a long time (yes, they are caneras as well), but that is about it. WiFi? They have offered WiFi for a long time as well, but as an add on feature. Integrating it is more of an evolution, the same as with the touch screen.
> 
> The reason I ask this question, "where are the innovation" is because I recently bought my wife a Sony NEX-6, anf my poor 550D looked really really ancient next to it!! Dont get me wrong, I do enjoy shooting my canon, and I have solid lenses, but it really was a huge gap between the Canon and the Sony.
> 
> ...



First off, check patent filings. Canon innovated almost 3200 times last year. Thats a lot of innovation, and from a patent count standpoint, Canon actually innovated more than Sony, and a hell of a lot more than Nikon.

Second, adding a touch screen to a camera could be considered innovative. They did not innovate touch screens, but they have produced some innovative ways of accessing and managing camera settings and configuration.

Third, are you seriously forgetting all the innovations Canon has included in their most recent cameras? The 1D X alone is PACKED with innovation, several in the AF system, several more in their metering system, the way their meter and AF system is linked with a dedicated processor is innovative, they innovated with their new shutter and mirror assembly that broke the 12fps barrier, they innovated Dual Pixel AF. 

Don't forget, photography is as much about the lens as it is about the sensor and the camera. Canon has even more innovations packed into their newest lenses, and they have a whole host of additional lens releases slated for 2014. 

I think your being naive if you think that simply responding to your competitors is innovative. On the contrary, being a copy-cat "me too!" company is actually about the farthest thing from innovative as you can get. Nikon is actually not a very innovative company. Nikon is a company of alliances...they ally themselves with counterbodies like Sony, then buy and sometimes share their own technology in order to produce a product. Nikon does not have a cohesive approach to producing cameras...just look at their camera model naming scheme, and the only thing you'll see is schizophrenia. Nikon camera names are chaotic, confusing, and even potentially conflicting. Nikon, since they don't innovate critical technology, has some extra time to produce fancy little tidbits such as 24karat gold plated cameras, the Nikon Df, and a whole host of other random, one-off, and frequently quirky little devices that...for a SHORT time...make fans rave, but over the long run do NOTHING to make them a better company.

Canon, on the other hand, is most assuredly innovative. Canon, given their track record, doesn't give a flying rat's ass about "the competition." Canon rarely produces cameras that "directly" compete with anything their primary competition has to offer...which is why we don't often see things like a Canon SomethingD with 36mp, or a full frame mirrorless to "directly compete with" the Sony A7r. We probably WON'T see such things either. Canon is not a copycat "me too!" company. They are an innovative company. Canon, as it stands, is actually a company that really seems to listen to their customers, is diligent about filtering the noise from the critical customer demands, careful and conservative in their development, testing, and refinement of their products, and will deliver when they believe they have found a product that TRULY answers THEIR, CANON'S, CUSTOMER DEMANDS. Whatever Canon releases in the coming years, I highly doubt anything but the 1D X will have any "direct" competition from either Sony or Nikon. Whatever Canon releases, it will rather pointedly service Canon customer needs.

Canon hasn't stopped innovating. They just aren't rushing. (Oh, and they have no reason to "hype" by dropping pointless little rumorbombs all over the place to get peoples hopes up about technology that isn't ready yet.)


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jan 10, 2014)

jrista said:


> Canon hasn't stopped innovating. They just aren't rushing. (Oh, and they have no reason to "hype" by dropping pointless little rumorbombs all over the place to get peoples hopes up about technology that isn't ready yet.)



+1000


----------



## Pitbullo (Jan 10, 2014)

jrista said:


> Pitbullo said:
> 
> 
> > I was just wondering about where Canons innovation has gone? Sure, they put a touch screen on a dslr, but that is not really innovative. We´ve had this on smart phones for a long time (yes, they are caneras as well), but that is about it. WiFi? They have offered WiFi for a long time as well, but as an add on feature. Integrating it is more of an evolution, the same as with the touch screen.
> ...



I am not denying that Canon is not innovating, they are, how else would they be market leader! They have an enormous R&D department, not only for photography, but also medical imaging (I use large Canon x-ray detectors at work, they are very good!). However they dont listen too much at customers. How many years did it take for them to implement Auto ISO in M-mode? Oh, and only in the 1DX, which cost way too much for most people. Do they even have spot metering linked to the chosen focus point? Fokus peaking? Zebra? Intervallometer? No!! They dont listen too much. They are a business, and in it to make money, and that they do well. Canon make a camera, not to be as good as it can be, but to fit a gap in the market. Reasonable, but not exciting. As you put it, "Canon, given their track record, doesn't give a flying rat's ass about "the competition." This is very arrogant, and is sure gonna cost them customers. We saw a little about this in the 50D -> 60D, more or less gimping the camera. In the 70D, they redeemd themself. 

Comparing the old 550D with the rather new nex-6 is not fair, but how did the rebel series develop? Sensor, pretty much the same from 550D to 700D (minor tweaks). 550D -> 600D, added wireless flash control. 600D -> 650D, touch screen and articulated screen, also upped the AF (?), 650D -> 700D Changed the knob to go all the way around... Small steps, carefull evolution, nothing big. Though, they are entry level cameras, they could have done more, not keeping at a minimum all the time. But then again, as tools they are good, steady cameras. No denying!

As Neuroanatomist asked earlier, if I really find the Nikon DF innovative? Well, no, not innovative in the common sense, but it is a very bold move! Not regarding the Leicas (rangefinders), it is probably the second FF mirrorless camera with ICL (Sony A7/R as the first). Anyway, they are early on. It also has no video, which is bold, and it is ugly as hell! Would Canon launch this? No, they wouldn´t. But they also wouldn´t launch something like the Nikon 1 AW 1. 

Dont get me wrong, I do like my canon dslr, and as several people has pointed out, they are very very good at lenses. My 70-200 F4L IS is absolutely fantastic!!! In a couple of years, when I´m gonna change camera, I probably will stick with canon. My only reason to jump to Sony is to be able to share accessories/lenses with my wifes nex.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 10, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > But innovation is mandatory for all companies.
> ...



Canon have had so many firsts over the years. Some of their features are still way ahead of the competition. 
When I look at their camera and lens cataloge and then go and look at the competition...Canon's stuff is generally better and more advanced. I have an 85mm f1.2 II L...I love it, I have a TS-e 17L and it's amazing, I have a pair of 5DIII's and they are the best camera's I've ever used. I have a 400mm f2.8 L IS and it's an amazing lens, I have a 8-15mm L fisheye....it's brilliant. 
Canon when they innovate generally get it right first time. Their AF system / mount is quite old now...but it's still state of the art. Other brands often come around to Canon's thinking over time. Canon were the first to go CMOS....everyone else was mad on CCD chips....but look at the market now.


----------



## bluewolf37 (Jan 10, 2014)

AE1Pguy said:


> They say the 6D AF stinks and the sensor is yesterday's news. Ok. Whatever. It's a drastic leap forward from my 40D. I can make enormous prints with terrific color, at absurdly high ISO. And I didn't have to sell a car to buy a whole new set of lenses. I'll sell enough shots to more than recover my expenses quickly.



I love my 6d image quality but i came from a 7d and miss a few thing they had in the 7d. I do miss the extra physical buttons, layout, and the 1/8000s shutter speed. I don't really notice that big of a speed difference in the autofocus since i only use the center focus point anyway. I also didn't use the high speed burst mode because i like composing a image and don't do sports so the 6d is wonderful. 

I would like it if they had better/competitive point and shoots and mirrorless cameras though.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jan 10, 2014)

Pitbullo said:


> However they dont listen too much at customers. How many years did it take for them to implement Auto ISO in M-mode? Oh, and only in the 1DX, which cost way too much for most people. Do they even have spot metering linked to the chosen focus point? Fokus peaking? Zebra? Intervallometer? No!! They dont listen too much. They are a business, and in it to make money, and that they do well. Canon make a camera, not to be as good as it can be, but to fit a gap in the market. Reasonable, but not exciting. As you put it, "Canon, given their track record, doesn't give a flying rat's ass about "the competition." This is very arrogant, and is sure gonna cost them customers. We saw a little about this in the 50D -> 60D, more or less gimping the camera. In the 70D, they redeemd themself.
> 
> Comparing the old 550D with the rather new nex-6 is not fair, but how did the rebel series develop? Sensor, pretty much the same from 550D to 700D (minor tweaks). 550D -> 600D, added wireless flash control. 600D -> 650D, touch screen and articulated screen, also upped the AF (?), 650D -> 700D Changed the knob to go all the way around... Small steps, carefull evolution, nothing big. Though, they are entry level cameras, they could have done more, not keeping at a minimum all the time. But then again, as tools they are good, steady cameras. No denying!



So wait, Canon does not listen - that's why the 5d3 had pretty much everything 5d2 users were asking for? They can't take every suggested thing and just toss it in the camera - they take in thousands of pages of feedback, weigh what seems to be the majority, then try to squeeze other stuff in if it's financially feasible. 

What you can arrogant I call wise. If you have a plan - In 2012 we release this, 2013 this, 2014 that, and 2015 this ---then ohh in 2013 nikon comes out with this ---does canon really say ohhh darn, they have a camera with feature A, we had planned on releasing a camera with feature A but a better feature A in 2015. Does Canon, gimp that camera by rushing it out the door in order to compete? Or do they release it when its ready, according to plan. 

Let's say,one of the reasons the big MP body is that to have more than just big MP they need to get digic 7+, or 8+ ready - without that no one gets improvements in DR and overall IQ at base ISO's. They have the sensor, just waiting for the things around that sensor to take shape so it can be done right. Then Nikon pushes out the d800. Canon could just slap that new sensor in the old framework and have it not perform as they want just to answer the d800 - or, they could do as they are doing ---say screw the competition, keep working on the new processors, and the new glass and put out a new product on the timetable they have set when the product is ready. Which would ya rather have?


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 10, 2014)

When I read about people demanding every possible feature on a camera I can't help but to think about "the Homer"... a very tongue-in-cheek look at what happens when you let the user design without constraints....

And just like "The Homer", which has 3 horns "because you can't find the button when you are really angry", I think we need a camera with 3 sensors.... one for high megapixel, one for DR, and one for high ISO


----------



## jrista (Jan 10, 2014)

Pitbullo said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Pitbullo said:
> ...



The wording of your title and body seem to indicate otherwise, but perhapse I misread.



Pitbullo said:


> However they dont listen too much at customers.



Before I dive in and counter your statements, this is so fundamentally wrong, its laughable. You have to remember that it takes YEARS for a new camera to be developed. Today, people are screaming for more DR and more megapixels. Four years ago, five and six years ago...do you remember what people were most loudly screaming about? I mean, LOUDLY screaming about? FEWER MEGAPIXELS!! BETTER HIGH ISO!! BETTER AF SYSTEM!!



Pitbullo said:


> How many years did it take for them to implement Auto ISO in M-mode? Oh, and only in the 1DX, which cost way too much for most people. Do they even have spot metering linked to the chosen focus point? Fokus peaking? Zebra? Intervallometer? No!! They dont listen too much.



Those are all customer requests...but are they the MOST DEMANDED customer requests? I hear people asking for Auto ISO only after they hear that Nikon has it. And then, it is only a few people who really consistently ask for it. Intervalometer? If you say that word to any random but sufficient sampling of photographers, most will go: "Intervawat?"As for focus peaking and zebras...they aren't that useful in a DSLR, where you spend the vast majority of your time looking through an OPTICAL view finder. They might be interesting little features that get some limited use for live view junkies...but overall, they are FAR from the most significant customer demand that Canon MUST respond to.

There are a few critically important things that are truly critical to Canon's core, loyalist customers. Canon's most important group of customers is not the average Rebel buyer...no. Canon's most important group of customers are the pros, semi-pros, and hard core avid enthusiasts who regularly spend thousands of dollars on their most coveted products...the 1D series, the 5D series, L-series lenses. Overall image quality is one of the single most important factors that Canon MUST address. Focus peaking/Zeebras in live view? Sorry, that just DOES NOT make the cut when you have much bigger fish to fry...such as designing a radical new AF unit that completely trounces anything Canon, or for that matter any of their competitors, has ever released. Auto ISO? Doesn't matter a whit when you have to invest immense amounts of money designing a sensor and readout system that can offer the cleanest and highest native high ISO settings at 14fps. (Auto ISO also doesn't matter a wit when a significant amount of pro photographers just don't care about it...they either use full manual because they insist on total control, or they simply go Av/Tv and forget the rest.)

Canon isn't arrogant. It is not arrogant to not care about the competition, and instead listen to and actually address the most vocal outcry of YOUR OWN customers. It is BETTER to listen to your customers and deliver what they demand, and that is exactly what Canon did. There were three primary demands from Canon's customers regarding the 1D and 5D lines (the two lines that are really the most important for Canon): 
1. Stop increasing megapixels without making them better. 
2. Improve high ISO performance by A LOT. 
3. Release an AF system that does not have the problems the 1D III had & put a MUCH better AF system in the 5D III. 

Sports and action photographers, who probably make up the single largest segment of loyal Canon customers, were extremely clear about their demand for a better AF system (especially after the fiasco with the 1D III AF system) and much better high ISO performance. Sports photogs, which includes Olympics photogs, are a MASSIVE group, and account for a significant amount of revenue for Canon's photography division. They care less about megapixels, and far more about having lots of clean, low noise frames per second at high ISO. Canon delivered EXACTLY what that large, vocal group demanded. 

Wedding/portrait photographers make up another significant segment of loyal Canon customers. The 5D and 5D II have been staples for wedding photographers for years. The single biggest complaint from them? The AF system. The 5D II 9pt AF system, while not "bad", was FAR from as capable as necessary for wedding and portrait photographers. So it is no surprise that Canon put the 61pt AF system in the 5D III. Again, Canon delivered EXACTLY what a very vocal and profitable group of customers demanded. 

Neither of those three critical improvements were cheap to achieve, either. Canon has a large R&D budget, but it gets spread around. They develop medical imaging, printing, CMOS fabrication and other optical technologies in addition to photography. They don't have their full R&D budget to dedicate solely to photography improvements every year. I think Canon responded very well to their customers, all things considered, with the 1D X and 5D III. The 6D, while it doesn't compete directly with the D600, is certainly no slouch either. The 6D demonstrated one even FURTHER improvement in high ISO performance, as it has some of the cleanest, lowest noise high ISO output I've seen (it has practically zero color noise, and very low luma noise, once you get to ISO 1600 and beyond.)

So sorry, but Canon most certainly DOES listen to their customers. They just don't have the option of actually RESPONDING to EVERY SINGLE customer demand. Rebel and xxD buyers are at the bottom of the list, and rightly so. Those are consumer-level products, and in the grand scheme of things, they really don't matter. That doesn't make Canon arrogant, it simply makes them business savvy. They put their money where it TRULY matters.



Pitbullo said:


> They are a business, and in it to make money, and that they do well. Canon make a camera, not to be as good as it can be, but to fit a gap in the market. Reasonable, but not exciting. As you put it, "Canon, given their track record, doesn't give a flying rat's ass about "the competition." This is very arrogant, and is sure gonna cost them customers. We saw a little about this in the 50D -> 60D, more or less gimping the camera. In the 70D, they redeemd themself.



I think the 60D was a mistake, but contrary to your opinion...they actually WERE listening to their customers. One of the frequent requests from consumers is for lighter weight entry level bodies. The Rebel series and xxD line are not pro-level lines, they are consumer lines. The 60D's use of a plastic body was an attempt to respond to customer demand for a lighter weight body. Canon DOES listen to their customers. Problem is, the most vocal group, and the loudest demand, changes over time. It seems clear, given the outcry about the 60D's loss of a metal body, that Canon listened to the wrong group. They did indeed "correct" the mistake with the 70D, and brought in more semi-pro features from the 7D to make it a more viable product again. But that doesn't mean Canon wasn't listening. They DO listen...but it can be difficult to filter the noise from the legitimate needs. The demand for smaller, lighter DSLRs from consumers has not stopped, by any means. Canon is STILL responding to that demand...just look at the SL1. It's the smallest and lightest DSLR on the market right now. 

I think your misinterpreting a lot of things from Canon, and unfairly judging their reactions to what customers want. You also fail to properly rank the requests that crop up on internet forms with more vocal and critical requests from very large bodies of Canon's key revenue-generating customer groups. Fancy firmware features for live view, and things like Auto ISO, are trivial fluff in the grand scheme of things. It is unsurprising that Canon does not dedicate a lot of resources to those features, because they aren't really what will keep their important customers happy and returning for more. Sorry if that brushes off the low-end consumer, but the low-end consumer isn't what Canon's photography division is really about. 



Pitbullo said:


> Comparing the old 550D with the rather new nex-6 is not fair, but how did the rebel series develop? Sensor, pretty much the same from 550D to 700D (minor tweaks). 550D -> 600D, added wireless flash control. 600D -> 650D, touch screen and articulated screen, also upped the AF (?), 650D -> 700D Changed the knob to go all the way around... Small steps, carefull evolution, nothing big. Though, they are entry level cameras, they could have done more, not keeping at a minimum all the time. But then again, as tools they are good, steady cameras. No denying!



Your still talking about entry-level stuff. The entry-level doesn't really matter all that much. Consumers are fickle, they jump ship, then jump back on the ship, on a moments whim. Satisfying the consumer is an endless and generally fruitless endeavor. It is NOT surprising that Canon just keeps plugging away with what's working. Why shouldn't they? 

I mean, seriously...would you rather Canon actually be like Nikon from a business standpoint? Nikon has struggles for years. They are barely innovative, they can't seem to get all their ducks in a row, they have had consistent problems maintaining supply chain and actually keeping product on the shelves, they often dedicate considerable resources to developing things that DO NOT actually make them much money in the long run (i.e. a $12,000 24 karat gold plated DSLR with real lizard-skin grip...I mean, seriously? It's an INTERESTING product, but it is a complete and total WASTE of time, effort, and money!!) Nikon is a flagging company...they don't seem to have consistent direction. They PACK in as many features as they possibly can because they MUST in order to get the sales they do, and yet, on more than a few occasions, packing in the features caused them problems. Nikon has had numerous problems listening to their customers as well. Ergonomically, Nikon bodies have gone through a couple changes that resulted in some significant backlash, not the least of which were some of the recent button and dial changes on the D800 and other newer Nikon cameras. 

Nikon doesn't make a fraction of the revenue Canon does on their photography division. That doesn't bode well for future Nikon innovation. As it stands, the bulk of the innovation in Nikon's most recent camera bodies came from other companies, like Sony. That is a precarious position to be in...relying on other companies so much. If any one of them faltered or failed, Nikon could be dragged right down with them.

Canon, on the other hand, is a business run like a business. Yes, they are in it to make money. That is a GOOD thing. It means they will still be here in ten years. It means they will continue to have revenue to innovate, which means in the long run, they will continue to be able to respond to their customer's key demands. 



Pitbullo said:


> As Neuroanatomist asked earlier, if I really find the Nikon DF innovative? Well, no, not innovative in the common sense, but it is a very bold move! Not regarding the Leicas (rangefinders), it is probably the second FF mirrorless camera with ICL (Sony A7/R as the first). Anyway, they are early on. It also has no video, which is bold, and it is ugly as hell! Would Canon launch this? No, they wouldn´t. But they also wouldn´t launch something like the Nikon 1 AW 1.



The problem with the Df is not that it's an intriguing and interesting little camera. Nikon has no problem with intriguing and interesting. Like I said, 24karat Gold Plated Lizard Skin DSLR.  The problem with the Df, is Nikon didn't put in the proper effort. It doesn't sell not because it's got a "retro" design. It doesn't sell because it probably has one of THE WORST control designs on the face of the planet. Stacked dials? Seriously? That's about the most useless control mechanism I can think of. Nikon rushed the Df to market. Again, probably because they felt they had to, in order to attract more interest in a niche line, because...well a) that's what they do, and b) they are having a hard time selling things like the D800 (it's total sales volume is a fraction of the 5D III.) 

If Canon put their mind to releasing a retro-styled DSLR, I would bet good money that not only would they do it, they would do it right, do it on their own time table, and when it finally hit the shelves, it would sell well. Why? Because it wouldn't be impossible to control, and people would know that it had that Canon guarantee of quality behind it. It would have been thoroughly and properly tested and field vetted before it hit the streets. It would have Canon's superb and superior customer service backing it up. 

Will Canon do it? Well, probably not. I'm sure some people are demanding it, but again...Canon responds to the most critical demands first and foremost, and they only have so much money to spend on R&D.


----------



## jrista (Jan 10, 2014)

Pitbullo said:


> Dont get me wrong, I do like my canon dslr, and as several people has pointed out, they are very very good at lenses. My 70-200 F4L IS is absolutely fantastic!!! In a couple of years, when I´m gonna change camera, I probably will stick with canon. My only reason to jump to Sony is to be able to share accessories/lenses with my wifes nex.



Well, have fun with Sony. Sony makes a lot of products...but since the late 1980's when I first started using Sony products, I have to say, I've never been as impressed with Sony anything as I have been with other brands. Some aspects of Sony technologies intrigue me, but their final end products always seem lacking and lackluster. The A7r, for example, while an intriguing product with a great sensor (an aspect of the technology) just doesn't seem to impress "overall". I seriously considered getting one myself, but the whole package just isn't there...not on the same level as a Canon. I would honestly rather get an EOS-M, and have a well thought out full package, than get the A7r..."just for it's sensor". I'd be frustrated with all the rest...all the time.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 10, 2014)

jrista said:


> Nikon doesn't make a fraction of the revenue Canon does on their photography division. That doesn't bode well for future Nikon innovation. As it stands, the bulk of the innovation in Nikon's most recent camera bodies came from other companies, like Sony. That is a precarious position to be in...relying on other companies so much. If any one of them faltered or failed, Nikon could be dragged right down with them.


This is a point so important that it is staggering! There are not a lot of companies out there producing large quantities of imaging sensors that could go into DSLR's... What happens if Sony fails, or at the least, gets rid of the portion of it's business that makes the sensors for Nikon? Hopefully, someone will buy that division and the production will continue, but if it doesn't, Nikon will be out of business until someone else can set up a production line and get up to speed... a process that will take years....


----------



## jrista (Jan 10, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon doesn't make a fraction of the revenue Canon does on their photography division. That doesn't bode well for future Nikon innovation. As it stands, the bulk of the innovation in Nikon's most recent camera bodies came from other companies, like Sony. That is a precarious position to be in...relying on other companies so much. If any one of them faltered or failed, Nikon could be dragged right down with them.
> ...



I think Nikon could probably fabricate their own sensors. They used to in years past. Their management thought it would be more profitable to stop investing money in their own fabrication, and buy their sensors and the like third party. I don't think that decision really changed the fundamentals for Nikon. 

I don't think sensor IQ has been nearly as much of a boon for Nikon as it should have been...and I think the reason why is Nikon doesn't have nearly the production pipeline consistency and quality that Canon does. I never noticed it when I was first in the market for a camera...I was only looking at the low end, comparing Canon and Nikon entry level bodies. But in recent years, I've been completely baffled by Nikon's model naming scheme. It doesn't make any sense, which to me indicates some more fundamental underlying issue at Nikon that is giving rise to the naming issue. 

Additionally, Nikon seems to expend a lot of effort on things that really aren't going to change their status quo. The Df is one of those things. I understand the mentality behind it...Nikon management probably feels the need to set themselves apart on a product by product basis, and the Df is an intriguing release in that it is supposedly "stills only focused". But the Df still demonstrates the same underlying attention-deficit that Nikon's naming scheme does...it was rushed onto the market, and clearly demonstrates a major debacle on the control front.

We can't forget all the misshaps with recent camera releases as well. Poor ergonomics and bad choices for button placements. The yellow-green LCD issue with the D800. The AF point issues with the D800. The oil spots issue with the D600. The choice to RENAME the "bugfix" for the D600 issue by calling the camera the D6100. Not to mention the customer support nightmare that it was for Nikon users who actually encountered these issues, and ended up getting the runaround for a couple months before Nikon support SLOWLY started to SPORADICALLY acknowledge the issue actually did exist, and finally start fixing it (which still often took multiple round trips, on the customers dime for shipping cost). 

Alliances or no, Nikon has some other kind of fundamental issue internally that is the core of their problem. They demonstrate a kind of corporate schizophrenia, like different parts of the company have different voices telling them to do odd things...


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 10, 2014)

jrista said:


> I think Nikon could probably fabricate their own sensors. They used to in years past. Their management thought it would be more profitable to stop investing money in their own fabrication, and buy their sensors and the like third party. I don't think that decision really changed the fundamentals for Nikon.



I think they could too, but it takes time to ramp up to speed, plus, who actually owns the design for the sensor???

What happens if a Chinese company decides to get into DSLR's and gets their financial hands on Sony? Poof! They now have sensors and a fabrication facility... and with this, away goes the Nikon supply. 

A lot of camera components are fairly easy to manufacture and there are numerous facilities around the world that you can contract out to fairly easily, but the two killers are large sensors (lots of competition for p/s fabrication) and large optical elements. That's probably why Canon keeps it's fluorite lens facility "close to home"

And back to the topic about where are Canon's innovations... you have to look at lenses... fluorite glass, nano-coatings, lightweight materials, focusing motors and algorithms, diffractive optics, and slip-in teleconverters. You can't tell the difference between a series one and a series two "big white" by looking at them from the outside, but pick them up and use them.... lighter, faster and better focusing, stellar image quality... it had to come from somewhere.

And going back to camera bodies, look at the Digic chips.... go back to the not so distant past and pick up a 5D2 with it's Digic4 processor. Then we went to dual Digic4 (2X faster), the Digic5 (6X faster), then Digic5+ (17X faster), and the 1DX with dual Digic5+ (34X faster). With 34 times the computing power of a 5D2, you can bet that there has been a lot of work and innovation on the processing algorithms, and what is to come? Digic 6 is out in p/s cameras and I would not be surprised to see dual Digic6 in the rumoured 7D2... will it have the computing power to track and focus on that bird in flight, recognizing which part of the image is the bird and which part to ignore?


----------



## jrista (Jan 10, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I think Nikon could probably fabricate their own sensors. They used to in years past. Their management thought it would be more profitable to stop investing money in their own fabrication, and buy their sensors and the like third party. I don't think that decision really changed the fundamentals for Nikon.
> ...



All good points, and I agree with all of them.

I actually find it a bit sad that Nikon is the company they are. I actually kind of wish they were a bit more conservative, and able to put up more of a fight against Canon and Sony. Over the long term, I actually wonder if Nikon will still be here in ten years as the second major photography company, or whether Sony will have taken over. All things being equal, I still consider Nikon equipment to be superior to Sony, and losing them as a major competitor would actually be a huge negative for Canon users...it would eliminate a key competitor, and that would only mean Canon's conservative nature (which is currently their strength) would assert itself with a vengeance (which would still be good for Canon, but might actually end up being bad for the consumer and professional in the long run.)


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jan 11, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon doesn't make a fraction of the revenue Canon does on their photography division. That doesn't bode well for future Nikon innovation. As it stands, the bulk of the innovation in Nikon's most recent camera bodies came from other companies, like Sony. That is a precarious position to be in...relying on other companies so much. If any one of them faltered or failed, Nikon could be dragged right down with them.
> ...



I have thought about the what's if's for the end result of this evil alliance. Sony being sony, they like to start things and forget about them. Will sony be ready when nikon needs them? Or, given that sony doesn't seem to care to much, would they sell the same sensor tech to other brands? Is the deal with sony/nikon exclusive? that would be interesting to know (if I shot on nikon, I'd want to know!!!) 

another outcome, Sony gets the bug to dip further into the SLR world (is the A7 and A7r a prelude?), so they decide to gimp the sensors for nikons next round of bodies and put the real nice ones in theirs?

Or, sony could just be like a crack dealer and up the price for the next round of sensors!

On the positive side of it for nikon, maybe the deal with sony is a temp measure. They did not have the R&D power to match canon's sensors in MP's, so in comes sony. sony makes the sensors for 1 cycle of updates, which gives nikon time and R&D $$$ to build something of their own again? 

Who knows really. But I can't help but believe that partnering with sony was a dangerous move for nikon


----------



## sanj (Jan 11, 2014)

Pitbullo said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Pitbullo said:
> ...



Shit my head is in the gutter. I so misread that.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 11, 2014)

jrista said:


> The problem with the Df is not that it's an intriguing and interesting little camera. Nikon has no problem with intriguing and interesting. Like I said, 24karat Gold Plated Lizard Skin DSLR.  The problem with the Df, is Nikon didn't put in the proper effort. It doesn't sell not because it's got a "retro" design. It doesn't sell because it probably has one of THE WORST control designs on the face of the planet. Stacked dials? Seriously? That's about the most useless control mechanism I can think of. Nikon rushed the Df to market. Again, probably because they felt they had to, in order to attract more interest in a niche line, because...well a) that's what they do, and b) they are having a hard time selling things like the D800 (it's total sales volume is a fraction of the 5D III.)
> 
> If Canon put their mind to releasing a retro-styled DSLR, I would bet good money that not only would they do it, they would do it right, do it on their own time table, and when it finally hit the shelves, it would sell well. Why? Because it wouldn't be impossible to control, and people would know that it had that Canon guarantee of quality behind it. It would have been thoroughly and properly tested and field vetted before it hit the streets. It would have Canon's superb and superior customer service backing it up.
> 
> Will Canon do it? Well, probably not. I'm sure some people are demanding it, but again...Canon responds to the most critical demands first and foremost, and they only have so much money to spend on R&D.



I agree about stacked knobs and what about the 1/2 stop shutter dial....hullo? The Df is a nice looking camera, but that's exactly who Nikon have gone for...looks over substance. It's an ok camera but it's UI is severaly limited. Most selections have to be made in the menu system which kind of misses the point with a retro styled camera. I suspect that a lot of buyers who are attracted to this camera want to "look" like a photographer over actually "being" a photographer. It's the strength of the images which count and not what the box looks like.
I have an old Canon A1 and AE1 program. I bought them new a long time ago...do I use these at weddings to give the impression I'm a real photographer? Certainly not! I'm hired fro my skill and reputation and not for the camera in my hands...lets fact it, anyone with deep pockets can buy a pro camera but that doesn't make them a professional.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 13, 2014)

Auto Micro adjust patent....sound like innovation to me


----------



## Pitbullo (Jan 13, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Auto Micro adjust patent....sound like innovation to me



Lol yeah! I saw this announcement earlier and thought, there it is!
Good to see they have taken a pretty basic function, and tries to improve on it as well. Hopefully they will implement focus adjustment in more models, not just 70D and upwards. I really really miss it in my little 550D.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 14, 2014)

Pitbullo said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > Auto Micro adjust patent....sound like innovation to me
> ...


I remember when the 40D came out with live view, I was showing a friend of mine who is a professional landscape photographer...at first he was sceptical but pretty soon he saw the benefit. It's a shame it too Canon so long to bring out a 5DII with that feature. At the time a lot of Nikon fanboys were running the feature down. But the ability to compose, meter, check DOF and lens flare so easily is a serious benefit to landscape work. Nikon's implementation of Live view has been patchy and not a fully though out as Canon's...which always makes me laugh when I hear people say the 8D00 is better than the 5DIII for landscape work. Sure, more resolution...but what of the rest of the camera?
Canon's live view now has dual pixel AF, a built in spirit level and has been improved over a number of years. I looked over a D7000 a few months back and it looks like Nikon have gone backwards with theirs. 

Then there's the micro adjustment, again it's getting better over time. My 5DII allowed me to adjust each lens, but my 5DIII allows me to adjust zoom lenses at each end of their focal scales...nice. It's looking like a 5D4 might do all this automatically! Very nice!


----------



## rs (Jan 14, 2014)

Pitbullo said:


> Where is the downloadable apps for the Camera


http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/Digital_SLR/eos_remote.aspx



Pitbullo said:


> Where is Canons equivalent to the Sony A7/R or the Nikon DF?


I hope you're not suggesting the Df is innovative? If so, Morgan make the most innovative cars in existence. There's nothing like a modern engine nailed into a chassis made of timber 

Sony throw a lot of ideas out there, mostly random. Some stick. Others don't. Some are terrible decisions for their more established user base. For instance, the Sony QX10/100 are fairly random. Buying out Konica Minolta's camera business was a good move, it got them some serious recognition overnight. Now they don't make a single DSLR to go with those great lenses. And there's every indication that the A mount is dead because it appears like all new Sony cameras will have either a crop or FF version of the E mount.

If Sony have an idea, they do it. That includes innovation, and abandoning professional user bases. Canon seem to take a much more considered approach, and as a result pro's can rely on the kit to be dependable - from the reliability point of view, and from the future proofing point of view.

Cheaper Canon DSLR's borrow many of the pro like features and dependability of the pro cameras. For instance, the NEX cameras couldn't be used effectively in challenging conditions such as when its too cold to not wear gloves. Plenty of tech thrown at them to entertain the masses, but really nothing much that actually contributes to it being a better tool for the job.

Canon have given us the first viable FF digital camera. Dual pixel PDAF. More patents than any other photographic company. And their apparent commitment to the mount coupled with their market leading sales puts us all in a comfortable position when it comes to investing more in the system. I'm guessing the value of all those KM/Sony A mount lenses are right on the edge of a cliff...

If I'd spent all my camera/lens money on the Sony A mount system, I'd be in a very difficult place right now.


----------



## sdsr (Jan 14, 2014)

Pitbullo said:


> I am not denying that Canon is not innovating, they are, how else would they be market leader! They have an enormous R&D department, not only for photography, but also medical imaging (I use large Canon x-ray detectors at work, they are very good!). However they dont listen too much at customers. How many years did it take for them to implement Auto ISO in M-mode? Oh, and only in the 1DX, which cost way too much for most people. Do they even have spot metering linked to the chosen focus point? Fokus peaking? Zebra? Intervallometer? No!! They dont listen too much. They are a business, and in it to make money, and that they do well. Canon make a camera, not to be as good as it can be, but to fit a gap in the market. Reasonable, but not exciting. As you put it, "Canon, given their track record, doesn't give a flying rat's ass about "the competition." This is very arrogant, and is sure gonna cost them customers. We saw a little about this in the 50D -> 60D, more or less gimping the camera. In the 70D, they redeemd themself.
> 
> Comparing the old 550D with the rather new nex-6 is not fair, but how did the rebel series develop? Sensor, pretty much the same from 550D to 700D (minor tweaks). 550D -> 600D, added wireless flash control. 600D -> 650D, touch screen and articulated screen, also upped the AF (?), 650D -> 700D Changed the knob to go all the way around... Small steps, carefull evolution, nothing big. Though, they are entry level cameras, they could have done more, not keeping at a minimum all the time. But then again, as tools they are good, steady cameras. No denying!



You seem to be relying in part on a few questionable assumptions. First, the fact that Canon doesn't make some change that you or a handful of contributors to internet forums want doesn't mean they don't listen - maybe they're listening to those with other priorities. Second, how many significant innovations result from listening to customers? Who asked for focus peaking (which doesn't work very well anyway) and zebra? They might be nice features, but surely they're simply another example of supply creating demand (but not much, apparently). As for the marginal variations from one Rebel to the next, that's true of most entry-level cameras, isn't it? They're the cameras they sell the most, and companies seem to think (and perhaps they're right, otherwise why bother?) they need to keep issuing new ones every year to keep consumers interested. Frustrating for those suffering from Gear Acquisition Syndrome, perhaps, but otherwise hardly important.

To the extent that Canon appears cautious (as you concede, they obviously don't lack innovation in what are arguably the most important areas), perhaps it's with good reason. Much of the innovation you describe involves mirrorless cameras. I happen to like that technology a lot (as implemented by some companies, at any rate), but there's no denying that aside from parts of Asia the overwhelming majority of camera-buyers aren't interested, and they are evidently the consumers Canon are listening to. What's more, lots of these innovations are rather limited in practical effect. With Fuji, for instance, who appear to be constantly responding to customer requests with firmware updates, you get an innovative sensor with very low noise but images that seldom look really sharp, an AF system that may finally be fast but still isn't accurate enough, and RAW files that are hard to manipulate with even the best software (DxO doesn't even try, perhaps with good reason). Sony A7/7r? Putting superb FF sensors in a small body is an innovation of sorts, and they handle very nicely (though not as well as Olympus OM-Ds), but their main virtue, and the only reason why I bought a 7R, is more than a tad anachronistic: you can now easily use legacy manual lenses (plus most other lenses) on a FF digital camera (if only it had IBIS...). And it's just as well, because as we all know there are hardly any native lenses for them, and, aside from the (quite decent) kit zoom, they're expensive. So far, despite their superb image quality, it's hard to consider them as more than an appealing adjunct to a better developed system such as are provided by Canon and Nikon dslrs or, if you don't need/want FF, Micro 4/3. (One professional's adventures in trying to make the A7/r his main kit are the subject of many entries in his blog, which is well worth reading if you don't know it: http://soundimageplus.blogspot.com/)

Of course, those who really want innovation should get one of these:

http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/new-hasselblad-lunar-titanium-version/

Who else can sell you what's essentially a Sony Nex with a mediocre kit lens in the ugliest casing yet invented
for a mere 7200 Euros, pre-tax?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 14, 2014)

jrista said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Perhaps I'm wrong, but doesn't Nikon fab the D4 sensor?


----------



## jrista (Jan 14, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



They designed it, or at least had a hand in its design, much like the D800 sensor. I am not sure they actually manufactured it...I thought Aptina did the actual fabrication.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 14, 2014)

jrista said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Could be. This is what I found: http://nikonrumors.com/2012/08/22/the-sensor-inside-the-d4-is-made-by-nikon.aspx/
but it is hardly conclusive. I have worked for companies which sell circuit cards. They usually went outside for fab, but included their logo in a silkscreen layer. 

Either way, it's not particularly relevant. Even if they build sensors for the D4, D3200, etc., Sony halting their line would be a huge speedbump for Nikon.


----------



## jrista (Jan 14, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



Yeah, kind of hard to be conclusive about it. Some of Canon's parts have Canon's name on them, but fabrication markings from other fabs. For example, DIGIC5 has Canon's name, because they designed it (along with Ti), but it was fabbed by UMC (http://www.chipworks.com/en/technical-competitive-analysis/resources/blog/inside-the-canon-rebel-t4i-dslr/). I know Nikon has had a hand in designing most if not all of the parts that are included in their cameras. I honestly don't know when they last fabbed their own sensor, though.

As far as Canon goes, I am very curious to see Chipworks tear apart whatever new sensor finds it's way into the 7D II. If it has some radical changes, especially a die shrink, I'd be very curious to know if it was fabbed by Canon, or fabbed elsewhere.


----------



## jrista (Jan 14, 2014)

Nalle Puh said:


> Sorry, I do not think Aptina has anything to do with Nikon D4, it is a Renesas made sensor as in D3



And what information do you have to back that up? There is no mention of CMOS Image Sensors on Renesas' site. I found one article that mentioned Nikon uses Renesas microcomputer parts for controller chips in some of their cameras, but that is not the same thing as a CMOS Image Sensor.

Chipworks has a breakdown of the D4 sensor, however you have to pay (a hefty price) for it. The only other mentions of the D4 sensor is on Nikon Rumors, and last I remember, it was there that I saw the D4 sensor and Aptina mentioned together. Chipworks also did a breakdown of the D3 sensor, and they mentioned Renesas as a possibility, but only because they had prior ties to Nikon (for the controllers), however they also noted that Renesas has no history of actually manufacturing CIS parts (despite apparently having a couple patents for CIS technology.) 

The Renesas idea has been brought up before, but there is absolutely no hard evidence to suggest they actually fabbed any Nikon sensors. The only concrete link between Nikon and Renesas is for controllers. There were numerous debates on DPR about Renesas and Nikon, even there there has never been any conclusion that Renesas has ever manufactured a CIS part, let alone any D3/D3s/D4 sensors.

Aptina, on the other hand, most definitely has a very powerful and strong presence in the CIS world. If any third party, other than Toshiba and Sony, has ties with Nikon to manufacture sensors, it would be Aptina.


----------

