# New EOS-1 in 2014 [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 20, 2013)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=14774"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=14774">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>New EOS-1 to launch in 2014

</strong>According to NL, Canon plans to launch a new EOS-1 in 2014, around the same time as a rumored Nikon D4x. This camera will be Canon’s first foray into the high megapixel realm for a DSLR. There will also be lenses to match launching at the same time as an EOS-1D Xs (name to be decided).</p>
<p>Apparently Canon does not want to launch this new camera the same way they did with the EOS-1D X. If you remember, Canon announced their flagship before Nikon’s D4, only to watch the D4 get announced and begin shipping before we actually saw an EOS-1D X at retailers.</p>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/cameras/Canon_1D_Xs.html" target="_blank">NL</a>]</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## scottkinfw (Nov 20, 2013)

Juicy details?



Canon Rumors said:


> <div name=\"googleone_share_1\" style=\"position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;\"><glusone size=\"tall\" count=\"1\" href=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=14774\"></glusone></div><div style=\"float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;\"><a href=\"https://twitter.com/share\" class=\"twitter-share-button\" data-count=\"vertical\" data-url=\"http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=14774\">Tweet</a></div>
> <p><strong>New EOS-1 to launch in 2014
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Eldar (Nov 20, 2013)

We can only cross our fingers and hope ...


----------



## Maui5150 (Nov 20, 2013)

So high megapixel? For Canon that means what? 24MP Might be pushing it... Prob closer to 23.8MP


----------



## Kumakun (Nov 20, 2013)

I'm guessing it is going to be a little expensive.


----------



## Ricku (Nov 20, 2013)

Like I said before. Canon's "Answer" to the Nikon D800 (and future D900, and the Sony A7R) will come as a big bulky elephant sized 1D-body, with a price tag that most people can't touch. 

Oh Canon..


----------



## LukieLauXD (Nov 20, 2013)

My dad has been waiting forever to replace his 1Ds Mark III since he wants a 1Ds instead of a 1D, but cameras are so expensive to replace anyways T-T I'm currently using a 5D Mark II and I'm going to be interested in upgrading to a 1D Mark 4 when the 1DsX whatever comes out.


----------



## dolina (Nov 20, 2013)

The 1D X marked its 25th month and I am sorely looking forward to its replacement next year.


----------



## TrabimanUK (Nov 20, 2013)

But will they be doing a white version?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 20, 2013)

Ricku said:


> Like I said before. Canon's "Answer" to the Nikon D800 (and future D900, and the Sony A7R) will come as a big bulky elephant sized 1D-body, with a price tag that most people can't touch.



Ok, then...but what are Nikon and Sony's "Answers" to the 5DIII, which has outsold the D800 and will vastly outsell the a7R? :

Why do people think Canon needs to play Nikon's game? The D800 was Nikon's attempt to play the game by Canon's rules (we'll see your 8-9 MP increase, and raise you by another 14 MP), and Nikon lost.


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Nov 20, 2013)

Maui5150 said:


> So high megapixel? For Canon that means what? 24MP Might be pushing it... Prob closer to 23.8MP



not that more MP would make a difference for your images....


----------



## Viggo (Nov 20, 2013)

Jackson_Bill said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > The 1D X marked its 25th month and I am sorely looking forward to its replacement next year.
> ...



How do you think the 1ds3 owners feel :


----------



## David Hull (Nov 20, 2013)

Ricku said:


> Like I said before. Canon's "Answer" to the Nikon D800 (and future D900, and the Sony A7R) will come as a big bulky elephant sized 1D-body, with a price tag that most people can't touch.
> 
> Oh Canon..



But it will have a fast AF system that actually works ;-)


----------



## mountain_drew (Nov 20, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Ricku said:
> 
> 
> > Like I said before. Canon's "Answer" to the Nikon D800 (and future D900, and the Sony A7R) will come as a big bulky elephant sized 1D-body, with a price tag that most people can't touch.
> ...


When someone attacks a Canon body, you always resort to raw sales. That'S not very interesting.


----------



## Rick (Nov 20, 2013)

*Huge Mistake Dear Canon*

A 1 series body with the traditonal 1 series size, weight & price tag will sell like cold hotcakes. If Canon intends to release a 5D3 X, then okay, maybe Canon isn't as stupid as I am thinking they are right now. Canon has been steadily leaking users to the D800E and now most likely to the A7r. This will be tantamount to the damn breaking.


----------



## Orangutan (Nov 20, 2013)

mountain_drew said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Ricku said:
> ...



We would all like to have a perfect, no-compromise body, having all components leading-edge, straight out of R&D, and using most current fab processes. Such a camera would be either unaffordable or unprofitable or both. The reason for the "raw sales" argument is to reiterate, yet again, that all manufacturers make compromises to keep their products profitable (not just the body, but the whole line). Nikon made compromises on the D800 (and D600), Canon makes compromises on their bodies. Those who are willing to accept the D800 compromises complain that Canon didn't make the same compromises (and the reverse is also true).

The "raw sales" argument is to remind you (and all the other D800 salivators) that not everyone will choose the same compromises and, in fact, you may be in the minority. Yes, yes: we can always argue about whether Canon's sales successes are entirely due to marketing, but I find it hard to believe that Nikon's marketing is completely incompetent.

In short, the "raw sales" argument means Canon (and Nikon and Pentax and Sony and...) are businesses who are trying to make a buck, they are not interested in creating your perfect body.

Yes, that's much more interesting than complaining that Canon won't sell a $10,000 "perfect" camera for $2,500.


----------



## arbitrage (Nov 20, 2013)

Be prepared for the first $10,000 body that isn't in the cinema lineup.


----------



## distant.star (Nov 20, 2013)

.
This is what I'd call the "Canon stretch."

While the camera was announced (Hey, we've got a great camera we're going to sell next year!!!) in October 2011, it was not generally released for at least six months. As I recall, it was late spring last year when the 1DX finally went from breathless fantasy to reality.

Given their history I'd suggest you may be "sorely looking forward" for a long, long time.




dolina said:


> The 1D X marked its 25th month and I am sorely looking forward to its replacement next year.


----------



## Orangutan (Nov 20, 2013)

*Re: Huge Mistake Dear Canon*



Rick said:


> A 1 series body with the traditonal 1 series size, weight & price tag will sell like cold hotcakes.



According to sales figures, their market research team has been doing an excellent job of predicting the market. No, I won't buy a 1-series body, but lots of others will.




> Canon has been steadily leaking users to the D800E



Citation? Or is this just your unsubstantiated opinion?


----------



## distant.star (Nov 20, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Why do people think Canon needs to play Nikon's game? The D800 was Nikon's attempt to play the game by Canon's rules (we'll see your 8-9 MP increase, and raise you by another 14 MP), and Nikon lost.



I've long said most people seem to give Nikon more credit than they deserve for influencing Canon. Certainly Canon takes them into some consideration in their product decisions, but I believe there are many factors they take far more seriously than what Nikon may or may not be doing.

For Canon, I think Nikon is really no more than the neighbor's noisy dog.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 20, 2013)

mountain_drew said:


> When someone attacks a Canon body, you always resort to raw sales. That'S not very interesting.



The point of citing sales figures is that profit is the primary driver for publicly-traded companies like Canon and Nikon, and what they care about is developing products that will sell well and provide a return on investment, not products that will please a minority segment of the market that happens to be very vocal on internet forums. 

You may not find it interesting, but that's the reality of business...and the reality that determines what products are available to purchase (or in some cases, products that people have no intention of purchasing, but choose to complain about anyway). 

I'd also suggest that elaborating on a rational viewpoint is more interesting than a weak, one-line 'refutation'.


----------



## docsmith (Nov 20, 2013)

mountain_drew said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Ricku said:
> ...



Ugh...what isn't interesting is debating two excellent camera bodies......


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 20, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> mountain_drew said:
> 
> 
> > When someone attacks a Canon body, you always resort to raw sales. That'S not very interesting.
> ...



You did not answer the question: do you have specific sales numbers for Nikon D800/E and 5D III?
My personal guess is, that Nikon sold more D800/E. 

And generally, no need to be oh so concerned about Canon's sales numbers and profits. They got boatloads of managers and employees taking care of that. ;-)

If Canon made fully competitive products in terms of performance and value to us, their customers, we would be happy and their sales and profits would also in great shape, rather than nosediving.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 20, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> mountain_drew said:
> 
> 
> > When someone attacks a Canon body, you always resort to raw sales. That'S not very interesting.
> ...



Also, sales price is not determined by how cheap you can make an item, but to maximize profit....Let's say it costs $1000 to build a camera. If they market it at $1100 the might sell 10,000 bodies for a profit of $1,000,000. The same body at $1500 might only sell 5000 copies, but the profit would be $2,500,000. Canon has marketing people devoted to finding the best point for profit.


----------



## V8Beast (Nov 20, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Ok, then...but what are Nikon and Sony's "Answers" to the 5DIII, which has outsold the D800 and will vastly outsell the a7R? :



The Df? If you can't beat them, go retro ;D


----------



## KyleSTL (Nov 20, 2013)

Canon Rumors said:


> ... This camera will be Canon’s first foray into the high megapixel realm for a DSLR.


What is your definition of high megapixel? Back in 2002 when the 1Ds was announced, 11MP was a lot compared to most other DSLRs at 6 or less, and most P&S cameras less than 5MP. In 2005 16MP was considered 'high resolution' (1Ds Mark II). Same with 21MP in 2007 with the 1Ds Mark III.

I completely understand what you are saying, but it's not like Canon has never been competitive on the MP front, as they have definitely worn the megapixel crown a few times. Now in the modern era (since Sept 2009) they have constantly lagged behind Nikon and Sony with full frame cameras (21MP vs 24; 22 vs 36), but lead in the APS-C lines from Sept 2009 through August 2011 with the 18MP sensors, until being superceded by Sony's 24MP sensor in the A65 and A77.


----------



## AmbientLight (Nov 20, 2013)

On this matter I am highly optimistic that the upcoming high MP Canon 1Dsomething will be exactly what I want: A more modern form of 1Ds Mark III.

I don't want a 5D-style body nor do I care for lowering price and functionality. I simply want the best Canon can come up with. It is very interesting to read that supposedly this new camera is intended to outdo Nikon's upcoming D4x.

This will promise a very nice, highly optimized, feature rich product, where Canon will hopefully go all-out with what their technology can currently deliver. This will be nice to see and even nicer to use. 8)


----------



## Woody (Nov 20, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> You did not answer the question: do you have specific sales numbers for Nikon D800/E and 5D III?
> My personal guess is, that Nikon sold more D800/E.



If you had followed the sales trend for the D800 vs 5D3 on US Amazon charts, you'll notice D800 took the lead initially with 5D3 trailing just slightly behind. Now, the 5D3 is in the top 10 while the D800 is nowhere positioned in the top 30 DSLR. Give it another year. If you see the same pattern emerging in mid-2014, you can be quite certain the 5D3 has completely trounced the D800 in sales.

In case you wanna argue it's all about pricing, I can assure you that's not the important factor at play. Rather it's the poor factory QC that killed the D800 sales. Check out the customer reviews: (i) for 5D3 - out of 327 reviews, 278 were 5-stars and 31 were 4-stars (ii) for D800 - out of 309 reviews, 189 were 5-stars and 26 were 4-stars. Pretty big difference there. Remember the left side focus problems with a number of copies of the D800? That's just one example.

You'll see similar sales trends for 6D vs D600 (remember the Nikon factory debris issue), 5D2 vs D700 (well it's 21 vs 12 MP) etc.

The single biggest advantage that Canon has over Nikon etc is the massive success they achieved during the early DSLR years. Canon had such a commanding lead with the release of their sub-$1000 DRebel 300D (despite all the fanboy attacks on its poor AF capabilities, relatively smooth high ISO performance etc) that the competition has never been able to match, not even today.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 20, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> You did not answer the question: do you have specific sales numbers for Nikon D800/E and 5D III?
> My personal guess is, that Nikon sold more D800/E.



As you're well aware, neither company publishes model-specific sales numbers. Beyond looking at Amazon.com's rankings (which may differ from other regions of the world, but the US is the largest single market), consider the following, from the horses' mouths, so to speak:

In a recent Q&A document, Nikon revised their forecast for dSLR production downward, and stated that sales of entry-level dSLRs are 'skyrocketing'. If the latter is true, what market segment is not meeting sales expectations?

Meanwhile, Canon recently stated, "_Within the Imaging System Business Unit, sales of the EOS 5D Mark III, 6D and 70D advanced amateur model interchangeable lens digital cameras continued to grow._

From that, a reasonable inference is that Nikon's high-end consumer dSLR production is declining, and Canon's high-end consumer dSLR sales are growing. Thus, I infer that your personal guess is wrong.


----------



## Woody (Nov 20, 2013)

Ricku said:


> Like I said before. Canon's "Answer" to the Nikon D800 (and future D900, and the Sony A7R) will come as a big bulky elephant sized 1D-body, with a price tag that most people can't touch.
> 
> Oh Canon..



I don't particularly care if the high pixel sensor is stuffed in a 1D body or 5D body.

I'm more curious about the sensor performance, particularly its low ISO dynamic range. If Canon shows no improvement in this department, it's unlikely we'll see anything better coming out of Canon sensors in the next 4 to 5 years. Now, that will be really depressing. :'(


----------



## sanj (Nov 20, 2013)

TrabimanUK said:


> But will they be doing a white version?



The best comment EVER….


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 20, 2013)

Woody said:


> I'm more curious about the sensor performance, particularly its low ISO dynamic range. If Canon shows no improvement in this department, it's unlikely we'll see anything better coming out of Canon sensors in the next 4 to 5 years.



This is a good example of why we _should_ be oh so concerned about sales figures. Canon has been behind in low ISO dynamic range throughout their sensor lineup for a few years now, and it hasn't hurt their dSLR sales. 

If the roof on your house looks to be in excellent shape and doesn't leak, would you replace it? Unlikely…if it ain't broke, don't fix it. From Canon's perspective, their sensors 'ain't broke'.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Nov 20, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Woody said:
> 
> 
> > I'm more curious about the sensor performance, particularly its low ISO dynamic range. If Canon shows no improvement in this department, it's unlikely we'll see anything better coming out of Canon sensors in the next 4 to 5 years.
> ...



Exactly.

It consistently seems hard for people to wrap their minds around the fact that these companies exist for profit and not for consumer pleasure.


----------



## sanj (Nov 20, 2013)

mountain_drew said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Ricku said:
> ...



I agree. We need to look at more than 'numbers sold'. For example there are great movies that have not done super business at the box office. But they have been amazing.
To say Nikon 'lost' is perhaps harsh. As the IQ of the D800 is certainly better than 5d3. A photographer friend who switched from 5d2 to D800 showed me comparisons on his laptop and I cannot any longer defend the IQ of 5d3 vs D800. I do realize 'but but' of autofocus, responsiveness etc but am talking just about IQ.


----------



## Eldar (Nov 20, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> If the roof on your house looks to be in excellent shape and doesn't leak, would you replace it? Unlikely…if it ain't broke, don't fix it. From Canon's perspective, their sensors 'ain't broke'.


This is actually a concern of mine. I´ve been thinking through what I really really want. And higher resolution is not on top of the the list. DR (at any ISO) is. 

I love the fast fps of the 1DX. But it creates a lot of data to be processed. If we doubled/tripled resolution, well then I´d have to go looking for more computing power, which I am more than happy to do, by the way, but less happy if DR performance remained where it is.

As for price, I believe Canon has very good contact with the market. They have absolutely no interest in sending a new product on the market, only to satisfy an exclusive minority. I know I´m saying this after some really horrendous pricing examples, but still.


----------



## sanj (Nov 20, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Woody said:
> 
> 
> > I'm more curious about the sensor performance, particularly its low ISO dynamic range. If Canon shows no improvement in this department, it's unlikely we'll see anything better coming out of Canon sensors in the next 4 to 5 years.
> ...



This is an ostrich act of not facing reality by digging its face in sand. Canon sensor is certainly broke after comparing it with the D800 and Rx1. Like it or not.


----------



## Orangutan (Nov 20, 2013)

sanj said:


> I agree. We need to look at more than 'numbers sold'. For example there are great movies that have not done super business at the box office. But they have been amazing.
> To say Nikon 'lost' is perhaps harsh. As the IQ of the D800 is certainly better than 5d3. A photographer friend who switched from 5d2 to D800 showed me comparisons on his laptop and I cannot any longer defend the IQ of 5d3 vs D800. I do realize 'but but' of autofocus, responsiveness etc but am talking just about IQ.



Complaining about Canon cameras not being "amazing" is like complaining about a Toyota Camry that won't do 180mph, or which doesn't have walnut interiors. For-profit businesses (like Canon) do not want to make "amazing" products, they want to make amazing profits.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 20, 2013)

sanj said:


> We need to look at more than 'numbers sold'. For example there are great movies that have not done super business at the box office. But they have been amazing.



How many critically-acclaimed box office flops have sequels? Ok, there was Tron, but you get my point. Also, there's a world of difference between selling 'Art' and selling tools. 



sanj said:


> ...am talking just about IQ.



…IQ at low ISO, you mean. 



sanj said:


> This is an ostrich act of not facing reality by digging its face in sand. Canon sensor is certainly broke after comparing it with the D800 and Rx1. Like it or not.



The moment you buy a bare silicon sensor from Nikon or Sony, please tell us all about it. Until that day, keep in mind that people buy *cameras*, not sensors. You may not care about anything but the sensor, but the sales figures put you in the minority. Like it or not.


----------



## GmwDarkroom (Nov 20, 2013)

Eldar said:


> DR (at any ISO) is.


DR Kumite begins anew!

Canon Dojo?
Nikon/Sony Dojo?

FIGHT!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 20, 2013)

sanj said:


> mountain_drew said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



And the companies that mad those great movies went out of business or had to sell to someone else who knew how to run a business.

The point is that in order to stay in business, you have to make a profit. You can't do that if your product does not sell. It really has nothing to do with how good the product might be. One example that us old people remember is the Sony Beta Video Tape Recorder, superior to VHS quality wise, but good marketing pushed it out of the market. 

I bought a D800 after they first came out, and it is a nice camera body. It has buttons all over, and a poor menu system that makes it hard to find a function quickly, but that's a minor thing. I also purchased 10K of high end lenses. That's where I made the error, they were good, but the CA on the 24070 f/2.8G was so high that Lightroom could not remove it at the edges. Then, I read the reviews from testers and found that this was normal. Even though my Canon 24-105 has a lot of distortion, Lightroom quickly removes it.

The other issue was the amount of computing power it took to process the large files from high ISO shots, usually 50mb compressed and over 100MB when uncompressed. Running NR on those3 took forever, and, since I take up to 1500 shots at some low light events, it was a non starter to have to spend hundreds of hours editing them. I've tried again after replacing my computer last fall with the latest, and it cut the time down, but its no fun to sit there for 4 times as long.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 20, 2013)

Orangutan said:


> Complaining about Canon cameras not being "amazing" is like complaining about a Toyota Camry that won't do 180mph, or which doesn't have walnut interiors. For-profit businesses (like Canon) do not want to make "amazing" products, they want to make amazing profits.



Jaguar makes cars that go 180 mph _and_ have walnut interiors. What Jaguar doesn't make is a profit.


----------



## Eldar (Nov 20, 2013)

GmwDarkroom said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > DR (at any ISO) is.
> ...


Having spent most of my athletic career in martial art, I like your metaphor 

But I don´t see this as bringing "that" fight to the surface any more than stating that I would actually be happier buying a new 5DIV or 1DXI (or what they will call´em) if the massive improvement came in DR. I have previously stated that I want more resolution. I have the new Zeiss 55/1.4 ordered to confirm that. But I had a serious look through some raw-files the other day and I came to the conclusion that I´d rather have a 24MP sensor with significant DR improvement, than a 45MP sensor with the same DR.
PS! If I could buy both, I probably would


----------



## J.R. (Nov 20, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Complaining about Canon cameras not being "amazing" is like complaining about a Toyota Camry that won't do 180mph, or which doesn't have walnut interiors. For-profit businesses (like Canon) do not want to make "amazing" products, they want to make amazing profits.
> ...



Jaguar Land Rover made a profit of over £1bn in the first half this year.


----------



## Eldar (Nov 20, 2013)

J.R. said:


> Jaguar Land Rover made a profit of over £1bn in the first half this year.


He he, I waited for that 

PS! I´m in a Lufthansa lounge in Munich with a long stop-over and nothing better to do than write meaningless posts on CR. Please continue


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 20, 2013)

J.R. said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



Fair enough…thanks! I guess I was thinking of the Ford-owned years… I wonder what would happen if Sony bought Nikon?


----------



## J.R. (Nov 20, 2013)

Eldar said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > Jaguar Land Rover made a profit of over £1bn in the first half this year.
> ...


----------



## unfocused (Nov 20, 2013)

Woody said:


> In case you wanna argue it's all about pricing, I can assure you that's not the important factor at play. Rather it's the poor factory QC that killed the D800 sales...



Or, it could be that the 5DIII is simply a better camera.

I know them's fight'n words to many on this forum, but maybe some folks just have to accept that you can't go checking off an arbitrary list of "features" and decide that whomever has the best "sensor score" wins. 

The market has spoken and the undeniable fact is that many more buyers are choosing the 5DIII over the D800. Additionally, the market is consistently choosing Canon over any other brand regardless of the model.

Now, here's an inconvenient fact I've learned from a lifetime in my particular field. It's a well-documented fact that while individuals often make poor decisions, in the aggregate large groups of people tend to make very good decisions. If the marketplace is choosing the 5DIII over the D800 it's because it's a better camera. If the marketplace is consistently choosing Canon over other brands it's because they produce better cameras. 

I'm not saying that because I'm some sort of a blind fanboy, I'm saying that because that's what the best evidence available shows. 

(Now, I see that we've already fallen into the old car comparison saw. And, yes, the best selling cars may not always be the "best" cars. But, they may be the best car at a particular price point, which is what is relevant here.)


----------



## KyleSTL (Nov 20, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> mountain_drew said:
> 
> 
> > When someone attacks a Canon body, you always resort to raw sales. That'S not very interesting.
> ...


Exactly. Same reasoning that Nikon's currently weak profitability has caused them to announce consolidation of camera lines to offer fewer products (in point and shoot lines) and focus on entry-level equipment (interchangable formats) to stengthen their financial situation:

http://nikonrumors.com/2013/11/16/nikon-qa-low-inventory-high-profit-margins-cost-cutting-fewer-models.aspx/

Think the group of vocal Nikon enthusiasts asking for their D300s replacement will ever get it?


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 20, 2013)

unfocused said:


> If the marketplace is choosing the 5DIII over the D800 it's because it's a better camera. If the marketplace is consistently choosing Canon over other brands it's because they produce better cameras.



the old motto "eat shit, billions of flies cannot be wrong!" ;D


Or more tech-oriented ... "buy IBM computers", "buy Compaq notebooks", "buy Nokia cellphones", "buy Kodak film". Billions of units sold. To many millions or even billions of customers. Overwhelming market lead for some time ... UNTIL ... somebody else had better products and managed to spead the news. ;-)

Canon = has been sliding from 2009 onwards. Ever since Nikon managed to the D3/D300 double whammy. Then they lost it too. The slide has been accelerating over the last 2 years. Soon ... by bye .. down the toilet. Yesterdays market share will not save 'em.


----------



## Eldar (Nov 20, 2013)

In all this praise of Canon success and Nikon failure, we should be aware though that our interests are best served if we have healthy competition. So, Sony, Nikon, Olympus and all the rest of you, please make life tough for Canon, so they have to stretch to please us!


----------



## Orangutan (Nov 20, 2013)

J.R. said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



Which they sell at Jaguar/Land Rover prices, not at Camry prices. Sure, any of the manufacturers could make killer DSLR's, but not at prices most of us could afford.

You choose your compromises based on your needs.


----------



## Orangutan (Nov 20, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > If the marketplace is choosing the 5DIII over the D800 it's because it's a better camera. If the marketplace is consistently choosing Canon over other brands it's because they produce better cameras.
> ...


How have they been sliding? Apparently not in market share or profitability relative to other manufacturers. How then?



> Ever since Nikon managed to the D3/D300 double whammy. Then they lost it too.



Maybe they blew most of their R&D budget on those and didn't have the capital to keep up the pace. I'm sure the recession didn't help.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 20, 2013)

Orangutan said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



Good points Orangutan. You are one smart ape.

Looks like a struck I nerve here. 

As a matter of fact, to the flies it is the best meal. 

As for AvTvM's other examples, they prove the point as well. When IBM made the best computers, they dominated the market. When they quit making the best computers, they no longer dominated the market. 

At least we all agree that sales (more accurately overall profits and return on investment) are really the best assessment. The only point of disagreement seems to be an interpretation that somehow Canon is on a downward spiral. 

I doubt if any evidence to the contrary, no matter how overwhelming it might be, will convince some folks otherwise.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 20, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> Canon = has been sliding from 2009 onwards. Ever since Nikon managed to the D3/D300 double whammy. Then they lost it too. The slide has been accelerating over the last 2 years.



Your statements smell like that stuff those billions of flies eat.

You asked for hard numbers earlier. Now, about this there *are* hard numerical data. Those data show that you are totally wrong.

This was 2010:






This was 2011:





In 2013, Canon announced they have held the *#1 market share* worldwide in terms of volume within the interchangeable-lens digital camera market for the entire 10-year period *from 2003 to 2012*.

According to quarterly reports to date this year, Canon sales of dSLRs are dropping. But Nikon's sales of dSLRs are dropping _much faster_. 

Show me the slide… : : :


----------



## GuyF (Nov 20, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Fair enough…thanks! I guess I was thinking of the Ford-owned years… I wonder what would happen if Sony bought Nikon?



If Sony bought Nikon you'd be able to play Grand Theft Auto (or whatever the kids are into these days) on your camera's screen whilst waiting for the light to improve.


----------



## msm (Nov 20, 2013)

Sales figures and profit margins means nothing for us consumers in itself, unless the company is about to go bankrupt or something.

Do you really want a camera from the manufacturer with highest market share? Do you want a camera from the company with highest profit margins? Or do you want the camera with best performance for your needs?

Why is Canon market leader? Because they make the best cameras? Or maybe because they have the best marketing? Best support? Maybe salesmen in photo shops have the biggest margins from selling Canon cameras? Maybe more people already have Canon lenses and thus limit themselves to Canon cameras?

To me these market share figures alone means nothing. I do however expect that Canon doesn't offer a 5D class camera with high resolution and DR opens up a nice market for the A7R and metabones adapters until Canon can come up with a response.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 20, 2013)

msm said:


> I do however expect that Canon doesn't offer a 5D class camera with high resolution and DR opens up a nice market for the A7R and metabones adapters until Canon can come up with a response.



I think you left out a letter - the letter 'H'. 

"_I do however expect that Canon doesn't offer a 5D class camera with high resolution and DR opens up a nic*h*e market for the A7R and metabones adapters until Canon can come up with a response._"



msm said:


> Or do you want the camera with best performance for your needs?



I want a camera with the best performance for my needs. The thing is, my needs aren't centered around high MP count or low ISO DR. Of course, there are people for whom more MP and/or more low ISO DR are critical. It's just that those people are in the minority. Understanding that fact, and the impact that fact has on Canon's R&D proirities, might help people who's needs diverge from Canon's priorities to make a decision about whether to stick with Canon or choose another brand of camera. Then again, they might just choose to complain about Canon not meeting their needs.


----------



## Orangutan (Nov 20, 2013)

msm said:


> Sales figures and profit margins means nothing for us consumers in itself, unless the company is about to go bankrupt or something.


Profits affect long-term R&D budgets, which affects the capacity to maintain a rich line of products. See the post about 2014 being the year of the lens. If that proves true, that R&D is funded out of profits.



> Or do you want the camera with best performance for your needs?


Of course I want this; however, I realize that my needs are not exactly the same as everyone else's, and that the manufacturer will try to create a camera that will satisfy the most people. Of course I'd love Canon to make me a 5D3 with a D800 sensor at a 70D price, but they won't do it.


----------



## ewg963 (Nov 20, 2013)

I'll wait and see. Fingers crossed 8)


----------



## hgraf (Nov 20, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> This is a good example of why we _should_ be oh so concerned about sales figures. Canon has been behind in low ISO dynamic range throughout their sensor lineup for a few years now, and it hasn't hurt their dSLR sales.
> 
> If the roof on your house looks to be in excellent shape and doesn't leak, would you replace it? Unlikely…if it ain't broke, don't fix it. From Canon's perspective, their sensors 'ain't broke'.



I'm from Canada, and even though hockey isn't a favourite of mine I'll use a fact from that world: The Toronto Maple Leafs haven't won a Stanley Cup since 1967. They rarely get into the playoffs. They generally play decent to poorly. (I'm generalizing here, but on average, they are not that great a team).

Some would say, with this data, that the team needs a major overhaul. That alot of money should be spent on improving performance with the aim of bringing the cup back to Toronto.

But then you consider attendance: Leaf games are pretty much ALWAYS sold out. The moment tickets are available they are scooped up and the only tickets left are standing room. Add to this: Leaf tickets are among the most expensive tickets in the whole league.

So, what does this tell us? That despite piss poor performance, they are making a crap load of money. If tickets to their games are really expensive, and yet every game is sold out within minutes of going on sale, where does that leave things?

From their end, what is the motivation to improve? The team is making tons of money. Why should they spend more money to improve if it won't make them more money?

Canon is in a similar position IMHO. Their products mostly rule the market. Their products aren't bad, but they aren't leading edge, yet, they still make a ton of money.

Yes, if they went crazy with the spending and made every facet of their products better then anyone else they'd likely sell more. But if you add up the cost of doing that vs. the additional revenue do you think they'd be ahead?

Canon has a ton of really smart people, and that includes the money side. I GUARANTEE you that the money people have told the big wigs that it's not worth it. Why improve a product beyond the point where it'll make you more money?

Canon as a company isn't stupid. They've for the moment nailed the DSLR game perfectly. They introduce marginal improvements which are minimal in cost to them, just to keep going enough to fuel sales. They have the freedom to focus on areas that traditional DSLR users don't care too much about (live view focusing).

Personally I'm very happy with my Canon gear. While on paper the competition is "better", my personal experience is that it isn't better "enough" to warrant a switch. That's what Canon relies on. That's what Canon is successful with.

The market can change quickly, who's to say if this tactic will continue working much longer. I guess we'll see.

TTYL


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 20, 2013)

hgraf said:


> I'm from Canada, and even though hockey isn't a favourite of mine I'll use a fact from that world: The Toronto Maple Leafs haven't won a Stanley Cup since 1967.
> 
> The market can change quickly, who's to say if this tactic will continue working much longer. I guess we'll see.



The standings can change quickly, too. Who knows, maybe the Leafs will bring home Lord Stanley's Cup this season.



But then again, as I live in Boston I should point out that it's pretty darn unllikely… Go Bruins!


----------



## msm (Nov 20, 2013)

Orangutan said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > Sales figures and profit margins means nothing for us consumers in itself, unless the company is about to go bankrupt or something.
> ...



Or it makes the stockholders richer.


----------



## msm (Nov 20, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > I do however expect that Canon doesn't offer a 5D class camera with high resolution and DR opens up a nice market for the A7R and metabones adapters until Canon can come up with a response.
> ...



But as you like to point out, Canon's market share is much larger than Sony's, so stealing a niche market from Canon can be quite nice for Sony.


----------



## Orangutan (Nov 20, 2013)

msm said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > msm said:
> ...



That too. Is that a problem?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 20, 2013)

msm said:


> But as you like to point out, Canon's market share is much larger than Sony's, so stealing a niche market from Canon can be quite nice for Sony.



Very true. In absolute terms, what would be a small fractional loss for Canon or Nikon, Sony could report as a doubling of their market share...


----------



## Cali_PH (Nov 20, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> This was 2010:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks for posting those. I'm surprised by the fact that Nikon had a decent increase from 2010 to 2011...perhaps due to key model releases? 

I'm also surprised that Nikon was as close to canon, at least in 2011. The way some people talked I thought the gap was significantly larger. But from the sounds of if, the final 2013 numbers may be further apart.

I'm wondering how much the installed user base plays into the numbers. Canon supposedly has a much larger user base; some percentage of these are less likely to switch due to investments in glass/gear, without significant motivations to switch. Would also like to see actual numbers month by month compared to model releases. Doesn't matter much I suppose, I don't think there's any way to get those specific numbers unless you're inside Canon or Nikon


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 20, 2013)

That's a darn shame. I wouldn't like to use my BR strap on that body.  : : :


----------



## msm (Nov 20, 2013)

Orangutan said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



Nope but it doesn't give me better lenses or cameras, so I don't care. Do you know for a fact that Canon profits are put back in increased R&D? Pointless to discuss this without knowing the facts.


----------



## kbmelb (Nov 20, 2013)

Blah, blah, blah

I'm looking forward to a big price drop on the 1Dx.


----------



## Orangutan (Nov 20, 2013)

msm said:


> Nope but it doesn't benefit me. Do you know for a fact that Canon profits are put back in increased R&D? Pointless to discuss this without knowing the facts.



Yes, but only by process of elimination. The R&D money has to come from somewhere, and I can think of just a few possible sources: loans, Canon Corporate Headquarters, or Canon's photo business unit profits. Of these, the first two don't make business sense for a profitable company. Can you think of another source of R&D money?

Or perhaps you were asking the other question: how profits are divided between R&D, dividends and executive bonuses. No, we can't be sure of how this division occurs, in particular because their Photo profits are likely merged with all other revenue. But we can be sure that if Canon is making money, and Nikon is not making money (or much less) then Canon has more money available for R&D than Nikon.

(We could go down the rabbit hole to speculate that Nikon is 5x more efficient with R&D money than Canon, but let's not.)


----------



## msm (Nov 20, 2013)

Orangutan said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > Nope but it doesn't benefit me. Do you know for a fact that Canon profits are put back in increased R&D? Pointless to discuss this without knowing the facts.
> ...



I am not a economist nor do I know Canon well so I could be totally wrong here, but I would suspect R&D to be part of their budget costs and their profits are calculated after R&D. 

Nikon probably doesn't need to do much sensor R&D for instance, since they have others making their sensors. Sony's sensor division sells sensors to a lot of external clients which could help them possibly having a higher sensor R&D budget, kinda like how Intel manages to stay almost a generation ahead of their competitors' production process.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 20, 2013)

"31st We're told (thanks) that Canon wants to introduce a new top end 1 series (stills) camera body, with an announcement in Q2 next year. It will come in at similar relative price points to the 1Ds2/3, and will see a modest reduction in the 1Dx price beforehand. It will not ship until well into 2014 though."

Hmm so a $7000 brick to get 36-40MP (and MAYBE more low ISO DR) while we have the A7R for $2499 with 36MP and more low ISO DR.

Now maybe the new 1DsX will have 10fps and all sorts of performance goodies and be a hell of a camera and the best one out there (if it also brings the DR), but that would still be a rough going at $7000. I'm sure most landscape shooters would just nab the A7R, although the very serious action and wildlife guys with enough money the 1DsX. Anyway it's not a bad thing in itself if it is some 10fps, high MP, high DR, high performance, RAW 4k video beast that does everything, it might be the greatest camera ever (outside of the bulk) and truly quite something. But it seems to me they dearly need to get a smaller, intermediate level body out too, like a 5D3 only with more MP and more DR and ML RAW built-in and a high quality 4k compressed. Now that would be a heck of a pair, the 5D4 would be awesome and the 1DsX simply ridiculous.


----------



## 9VIII (Nov 20, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > If the marketplace is choosing the 5DIII over the D800 it's because it's a better camera. If the marketplace is consistently choosing Canon over other brands it's because they produce better cameras.
> ...



Canon has been playing it safe, gliding a bit, not stalling into an inescapable spiral. Pretty much every other industry is in the same condition right now.
If Canon were going out of business we'd be seeing much more drastic indicators. Rather the opposite, Canon has weathered the recession quite well (much better than Sony).

When I first started looking for high end cameras last year my gut reaction was that I wanted a D800. Over the last year though, looking at various aspects of the system it became clear that I would rather have a Canon, even if it has a worse sensor. Sensors are like processors anyway, the one you have today is going to look like garbage tomorrow no matter how great it is. Adding up all the things Canon still does better it's hard to justify the purchase of a system just for the sake of a few temporary benefits.




LetTheRightLensIn said:


> "31st We're told (thanks) that Canon wants to introduce a new top end 1 series (stills) camera body, with an announcement in Q2 next year. It will come in at similar relative price points to the 1Ds2/3, and will see a modest reduction in the 1Dx price beforehand. It will not ship until well into 2014 though."
> 
> Hmm so a $7000 brick to get 36-40MP (and MAYBE more low ISO DR) while we have the A7R for $2499 with 36MP and more low ISO DR.
> 
> Now maybe the new 1DsX will have 10fps and all sorts of performance goodies and be a hell of a camera and the best one out there (if it also brings the DR), but that would still be a rough going at $7000. I'm sure most landscape shooters would just nab the A7R, although the very serious action and wildlife guys with enough money the 1DsX. Anyway it's not a bad thing in itself if it is some 10fps, high MP, high DR, high performance, RAW 4k video beast that does everything, it might be the greatest camera ever (outside of the bulk) and truly quite something. But it seems to me they dearly need to get a smaller, intermediate level body out too, like a 5D3 only with more MP and more DR and ML RAW built-in and a high quality 4k compressed. Now that would be a heck of a pair, the 5D4 would be awesome and the 1DsX simply ridiculous.



Given that the 1Ds2 and 3 were immediately followed by a 5D the next year, I'm counting on a 5D4 in 2015 using the 1DsX sensor.


----------



## Orangutan (Nov 20, 2013)

msm said:


> Nikon probably doesn't need to do much sensor R&D for instance, since they have others making their sensors.



Agreed, but buying sensors from Sony presumably (?) makes the sensors more expensive for Nikon, putting cost pressure on the other aspects of their product.


----------



## msm (Nov 20, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> ...
> 
> Now maybe the new 1DsX will have 10fps and all sorts of performance goodies and be a hell of a camera and the best one out there (if it also brings the DR), but that would still be a rough going at $7000. I'm sure most landscape shooters would just nab the A7R, although the very serious action and wildlife guys with enough money the 1DsX. Anyway it's not a bad thing in itself if it is some 10fps, high MP, high DR, high performance, RAW 4k video beast that does everything, it might be the greatest camera ever (outside of the bulk) and truly quite something. But it seems to me they dearly need to get a smaller, intermediate level body out too, like a 5D3 only with more MP and more DR and ML RAW built-in and a high quality 4k compressed. Now that would be a heck of a pair, the 5D4 would be awesome and the 1DsX simply ridiculous.



I would be surprised to have that high FPS in a high MP camera, as more pixels means more data to transfer off the sensor and this is probably a bottleneck. This is probably the reason D800 has low FPS and noisy, moire ridden video for instance, the more pixels the less of the sensor surface can be read during each frame of video.


----------



## msm (Nov 20, 2013)

Orangutan said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon probably doesn't need to do much sensor R&D for instance, since they have others making their sensors.
> ...



Or it could be that Sony's higher sensor volume makes them much cheaper to produce and maybe even cheaper for Nikon too. There are probably good reasons behind Nikon's choice to buy sensors.


----------



## DarkKnightNine (Nov 20, 2013)

sanj said:


> mountain_drew said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...






I double down on that. Sales figures has Canon being complacement in the innovation Dept.


----------



## Gino (Nov 20, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Woody said:
> 
> 
> > I'm more curious about the sensor performance, particularly its low ISO dynamic range. If Canon shows no improvement in this department, it's unlikely we'll see anything better coming out of Canon sensors in the next 4 to 5 years.
> ...



Hi Neuro,

I respect your opinion, but I have to disagree with the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality. Canon is basically a tech company, and if a tech company is being innovative, then sooner or later they are going to be out of business. I also don’t think you can look at current sales to determine if a company will be successful, or profitable, in the future.

For example, take a look at Blackberry or Nokia, these two companies not too long ago were the 800 lb. gorillas in mobile phones. They had solid sales numbers, and now they are struggling to survive. I’ll bet when those companies were on top, their management was saying, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”, and now look at the situation they are in.

If Canon, Nikon, Sony and the other players don’t continue to deliver innovative products, then sooner or later they are going to be the next Blackberry/Nokia. 

Just my two cents.
Thanks


----------



## tiger82 (Nov 20, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> The standings can change quickly, too. Who knows, maybe the Leafs will bring home Lord Stanley's Cup this season.
> 
> 
> 
> But then again, as I live in Boston I should point out that it's pretty darn unllikely… Go Bruins!




Are you smoking Toronto crack?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 20, 2013)

DarkKnightNine said:


> Sales figures has Canon being complacement in the innovation Dept.



Dual pixel AF uses 80% of the pixels on the imaging sensor for phase detect AF. The fact that a novel technology apparently does not benefit _you_ personally doesn't mean it's not innovation.



Gino said:


> I respect your opinion, but I have to disagree with the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality.
> 
> If Canon, Nikon, Sony and the other players don’t continue to deliver innovative products, then sooner or later they are going to be the next Blackberry/Nokia.



Agreed. But it seems that the only type of improvement that a certain group of individuals would consider "innovative" would be improved low ISO dynamic range, and all other innovations need not apply.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 20, 2013)

Gino said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Woody said:
> ...


Innovation is alive and well at Canon..... Look at dual pixel technology.... It's improbably going to be in every new camera from here on.... Look at the continuous improvement with the lenses, with diffractive optics, with IS, focusing, integrated teleconverters, and the use of coatings and new glasses (fluorite).... And then we have touch screens and wifi making their way into the mix.... These are not the signs of a stagnant company.


----------



## Orangutan (Nov 20, 2013)

Gino said:


> Canon is basically a tech company, and if a tech company is being innovative, then sooner or later they are going to be out of business. I also don’t think you can look at current sales to determine if a company will be successful, or profitable, in the future.
> 
> If Canon, Nikon, Sony and the other players don’t continue to deliver innovative products, then sooner or later they are going to be the next Blackberry/Nokia.



I'm sure we've got a bunch of engineers around who can comment with more authority than I can, but I believe there are several places where R&D investments are applied. There's basic research (stuff that generates patents), product development (turning basic research into a desirable and cost-effective product), tooling, etc.

It's entirely possible that Canon's basic research is on par with Sony / Nikon / Pentax, or even better. My understanding is that it's often cheaper to turn older tech into products than newer tech, so they won't do it until they have to. We won't know what Canon is capable of doing until the market forces them.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 20, 2013)

hgraf said:


> ...The Toronto Maple Leafs haven't won a Stanley Cup since 1967. They rarely get into the playoffs. They generally play decent to poorly. (I'm generalizing here, but on average, they are not that great a team).
> 
> ...But then you consider attendance: Leaf games are pretty much ALWAYS sold out. The moment tickets are available they are scooped up and the only tickets left are standing room. Add to this: Leaf tickets are among the most expensive tickets in the whole league.
> 
> ...



The key difference is between a monopoly market and a competitive market. If you could walk into the rink and have the choice of picking a winning team or a losing team for the same price and exact same seats, etc., then I believe there would be a stronger incentive for the team to improve.

In the case of Cameras, every time a customer walks into a store (or shops online) they can choose any brand they want. Yet, the brand that gets chosen the most is Canon.

Assuming consumers try to make rational decisions based on what they consider the most important characteristics of the product, those consumers are looking at the entire product and not just one aspect (sensor, dynamic range, frame rate, megapixels, lens system, etc. etc.) and making a choice of which one best meets their needs. 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with an individual deciding that Canon does not meet their particular needs. What is wrong is when people project those needs onto all other consumers and make wild statements about any company failing, going broke, etc. etc., simply because the product has not been custom designed to their individual specifications.


----------



## Jim O (Nov 20, 2013)

hgraf said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > This is a good example of why we _should_ be oh so concerned about sales figures. Canon has been behind in low ISO dynamic range throughout their sensor lineup for a few years now, and it hasn't hurt their dSLR sales.
> ...



I could make a joke about the people of Toronto and the fact that they still support their drunkard, drug addled mayor, but I won't. 8)

To compare cameras that are marketed worldwide to teams whose fan base is mostly local is not exactly "apples to apples". Team rooting and loyalty are emotional and often location based. While camera "brand loyalty" is also partially emotional for many people, give me a tool that's twice as good at half the price and my head trumps my heart *every* time. It doesn't even need to be that dramatic a difference.

On the other hand, if Toronto area residents want to see live NHL hockey in person, they can see the Leafs or they can travel a long distance. I don't know the details of who actually are the season ticket subscribers, but many may be corporately owned, and those subscribers don't care. They just want to grease their customers with tickets when they're in town.

For years, the NY (Football) Giants absolutely sucked. They had only two winning seasons from 1964 to 1978, which corresponded to much of my childhood in NYC. Despite that, they were also sold out every game (even when they played in New Haven, Connecticut) and had a decades long waiting list for season tickets. Giants season tickets were often the subject of litigation in divorces and estates. This was all despite the fact that there was another NFL team in town (the NY Jets) who won a Super Bowl in that period and were competitive during other parts of it. Yet Jets season tickets could, at that time, be bought at any time. Of course now you can't get tickets for either team, but that's another story.

I can buy a Nikon or a Canon product from Amazon and have it delivered next day for $3.99 or two day for free with Amazon Prime.

Changing camera lines is a lot easier than changing season tickets for the Boston Bruins into season tickets for the Leafs, or _vice versa_.


----------



## pwp (Nov 21, 2013)

Jackson_Bill said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > The 1D X marked its 25th month and I am sorely looking forward to its replacement next year.
> ...


You're not kidding. FYI, check this chart to see that the 7D is the longest running Cannon DSLR.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Canon_EOS_digital_cameras
Though you can be sure this is not a replacement for the 1DX which should continue unchanged for some time yet.

-pw


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Nov 21, 2013)

This thread sucks.


----------



## Jeffrey (Nov 21, 2013)

Having bought nearly every camera body issued since the 40D, I'm not sure I will purchase the new camera body unless there is very good progress in the focusing area. I don't typically shoot at low light and don't shoot sporting events, so those aspects don't much interest me.

I just purchased a used Mamiya 7 II film camera, yes that's right, a film camera, and am going off to shoot lots and lots of landscapes. I'm going to concentrate on shooting photos and less on expressing my opinions.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Nov 21, 2013)

Gino said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > This is a good example of why we _should_ be oh so concerned about sales figures. Canon has been behind in low ISO dynamic range throughout their sensor lineup for a few years now, and it hasn't hurt their dSLR sales.
> ...



+1. I am sure that even though high DR might not be on the top of their priority list, they must be having a team working on it, and will bring it out when they are ready. Innovation is also about envisioning what the next big popular demand will be, and often involves manipulation of the vox populi.



> Ugh...what isn't interesting is debating two excellent camera bodies......



+1. We say harsh things just for the sake of argument (even though they are only against camera bodies in this case). I am sure D800 wasn't just an answer to the megapixel war- it's a fantastic camera and creates beautiful images suitable for cropping and enlargements. No need to "diss" it.

Having said that, I think 5DIII is all I want/need except for the price, and I'd welcome anything (1Dxs, 5Dx, 5DIV, A7r, Thanksgiving sales) that will help bring down the price.
Oh, and I wouldn't mind if the APS-C lens prices (and consequently, the resale value) go up too


----------



## mwellsphoto (Nov 21, 2013)

_In the case of Cameras, every time a customer walks into a store (or shops online) they can choose any brand they want. Yet, the brand that gets chosen the most is Canon._

I know what your saying but thats not entirely how it is with a DSLR. Im not saying consumers are locked in but most people going in to buy a multi thousand dollar camera most likely have at least that much invested in lenses with one brand or another.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 21, 2013)

msm said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



That is true, but how the heck else could they justify the similar to 1Ds3 price??? They think an $8000 4fps D800/A7R clone will sell??? It's gotta have some sort of uber special stuff going for it if they expect to sell both a brick and get $8000. I don't they can be so foolish to think a brick-sized D800 clone would sell so I think it's got to have some crazy fast fps for the MP and some astonishing video. If not, it seems hard to see it being anything other than an epic failure.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Nov 21, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Gino said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



In their OWN speech they were bragging about being stagant and babbling that the king had no need to do anything (a few years back at a show in Europe). And look at the games they play with video features and usability across the line, dribbling out autoiso over a decade, playing games with MFA for the xxD series (cutting it out of 40D firmware last second, then it's back in for 50D, then it's out again for 60D so they can re-use it as a sales pitch for the 70D and then it's now a 'new' 70D feature. Look at even the way they phrase some user surveys all the questions about how locked in by your lens collection do you feel, etc.

For lenses they are pushing forwards, for bodies only here and there when everyone users and competition both realllly get on their case.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 21, 2013)

mwellsphoto said:


> _In the case of Cameras, every time a customer walks into a store (or shops online) they can choose any brand they want. Yet, the brand that gets chosen the most is Canon._
> 
> I know what your saying but thats not entirely how it is with a DSLR. Im not saying consumers are locked in but most people going in to buy a multi thousand dollar camera most likely have at least that much invested in lenses with one brand or another.



Yes. I know I'm overstating the flexibility we have once we have bought into a system. But, at some point, serious amateurs and professionals do make a conscious decision to buy into one system or another and presumably, most are educated, sophisticated consumers. 

As I've tried to say many times: I really don't care what brand anyone uses. And, I really don't care if people like or dislike Canon's products. What bothers me is when people cannot accept fundamental principles of economics and instead ascribe ulterior motives to completely rational and normal behavior.

Canon has the dominant position in the market because it consistently sells more of its products than its competitors and makes a profit doing so. They don't hold a gun to anyone's head. If their products were inferior, they wouldn't be selling as well as they do.


----------



## sanj (Nov 21, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > We need to look at more than 'numbers sold'. For example there are great movies that have not done super business at the box office. But they have been amazing.
> ...



Of course I care about the camera as a whole but that does not take away from the FACT that that Canon sensors are lagging behind. Perhaps other brands do not have things that are going for Canon but this does not change the fact that Canon sensors need and a bit of a fix. How can anyone argue with that? I use 5d3 and will use it but how am I wrong in wishing it's sensor gets better?


----------



## sanj (Nov 21, 2013)

Sale figures generally reflect:
1. Great legacy of a brand
2. Aggressive advertising
3. Consumer's 'herd' mentality. "It is a Canon man, it is good."

I am not putting down Canon at all. Saying this to say that because Canon sells more, it is NOT by default the better camera.


----------



## sanj (Nov 21, 2013)

Defending Canon sensor by saying that the competition camera has flaws in it's working does not go down well with me. No sir.


----------



## sanj (Nov 21, 2013)

Gino said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Woody said:
> ...



No one can argue with this!


----------



## V8Beast (Nov 21, 2013)

sanj said:


> I use 5d3 and will use it but how am I wrong in wishing it's sensor gets better?



Your portfolio is stunning. It appears your Canon gear is serving you very well


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 21, 2013)

sanj said:


> Of course I care about the camera as a whole but that does not take away from the FACT that that Canon sensors are lagging behind. Perhaps other brands do not have things that are going for Canon but this does not change the fact that Canon sensors need and a bit of a fix. How can anyone argue with that? I use 5d3 and will use it but how am I wrong in wishing it's sensor gets better?



Sure, Canon could improve their sensors. Nikon could improve their lenses, their ergonomics, etc. Both of them could lower prices, too. There's no such thing as a perfect system - you pick your compromises and make your choice. Maybe you use both. Maybe you get a Fuji. There's no right or wrong answer for an individual. 

Earlier, Canon was referred to as a tech company. How many tech companies have held the top spot in their market for 10 years? Not that you're doing this, Sanj, but some are crying doom for Canon because they don't see Canon addressing their specific, individual needs. Those folks aren't seeing the forest for the trees...Canon continues to meet the needs of a majority of customers.


----------



## 9VIII (Nov 21, 2013)

sanj said:


> Gino said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I accept your challenge!

The only reason Blackberry and Nokia died (are dying) was their failure to adapt to changes in their own market. The camera industry went through that transformation in the late 90's to early 2000's, Kodak died, Canon and Nikon came out better than ever. In fact I think it's safe to say that Canon is better off now selling digital cameras than they ever would have been in a strictly film market.
Point and shoot cameras are going out of style, because of smartphones, great, but until they start putting 35mm sensors on smartphones the mid-high end camera market isn't going anywhere. Better yet, with all these people exploring photography now, we may well see a resurgence in that market. I wouldn't doubt that sales of lenses is just going to go up. Cutting out the P&S market will hurt, but for such diverse companies like Canon that's hardly going to spell doom.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Nov 21, 2013)

I would like to see replacement to old and unsuccesful Canon cameras. 7D2 is scheduled for 2014 but the current 7D, which was the APS-C King, is still a good camera althouhg it lags behind others in terms of latest technology and resources (e.g. sensor, AF, Wifi, GPS, HDR). 
EOS-M Camera Mark 2 is expected to be released next year as well due it was unsuccesful in many aspects.
Improvements in these two cameras are very welcomed.
All others are much more recently updated.


----------



## tat3406 (Nov 21, 2013)

For those who want better sensor from Nikon and Sony, Please go and buy Nikon/Sony. Then the sales for Canon will going down and force them to produce better camera.


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Nov 21, 2013)

When did this turn into a marketing thread? 

Everything that Canon is doing right now leads me to believe that this big MP is going to be one bad-ass camera ;D New lenses to support it, CFast, big MP, competing with the Nikon D4X. Amazing camera!

I can't even think about this camera until 2015... But the best is worth waiting for ;D


----------



## sanj (Nov 21, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Of course I care about the camera as a whole but that does not take away from the FACT that that Canon sensors are lagging behind. Perhaps other brands do not have things that are going for Canon but this does not change the fact that Canon sensors need and a bit of a fix. How can anyone argue with that? I use 5d3 and will use it but how am I wrong in wishing it's sensor gets better?
> ...



Yes Neuro, even mine! My needs are completely taken care of especially by the 1dx. 
My one and only point: We Canon users cannot hide behind the great things that Canon has and the flaws that others have and refuse to admit that Canon sensors need fixing. Thats all.


----------



## sanj (Nov 21, 2013)

tat3406 said:


> For those who want better sensor from Nikon and Sony, Please go and buy Nikon/Sony. Then the sales for Canon will going down and force them to produce better camera.



Yes, people are doing this already. I have spent last few weeks doing EXTENSIVE research for my next camera which is small, has high IQ at high ISO and zeroed down to Fuji XE2 with a 1.4 lens. There is nothing from Canon or Nikon which comes c l o s e. Sad but true.


----------



## sanj (Nov 21, 2013)

V8Beast said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > I use 5d3 and will use it but how am I wrong in wishing it's sensor gets better?
> ...



Hahahaha. Thx! Yes it sure does! I love my 1dx for speed and responsiveness. 5d3 is great too but I do not get to use it much as it is perpetually rented out.


----------



## DaveMiko (Nov 21, 2013)

Good! I just bought a 1DX. Next year I'm gonna sell it and, then, get the new flagship model.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 21, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Those folks aren't seeing the forest for the trees...Canon continues to meet the needs of a majority of customers.



Don't worry, Neuro. I see the forest: it's called "classical duopoly". And to make things worse, a classical duopoly of two japanese comanis. CaNikon combined hold around 75% of the global interchangeable lens camera market [feel free to post exact numbers ]. 

This is "the forest" ... the sole reason for the blatant lack of innovation. 

Unless one really believes it is "a mere coincidence", that Canikon both have not brought the 7D and D300/s successors to market after 4+ years. Both have brought D4 / 1Dx at the same time and will bring 1D Xs / D4s only later ... but again around the same time ... both have 3 levels of consumer-crop bodies in the market ... and 3 levels of FF-cameras ... both only have zoom lenses with at best f/2.8 ... and no, this is NOT because we, the custtomers want it that way.  

The most obvious and likely explanation is ... "collusion". Anti-competitive market manipulation. 

Occasional "accidents" may cause "unplanned for innovation" like 5D2 video capabilitis [see recent interview with Mr. Onda of Canon!] but other than that, innovation is only allowed to trickle .. .and is only dished out in very small and carefully controlled doses. 

Real innovation cames independent sources, whose life is made as bloody difficult as possible by th 2 duopolists. Magic Lantern. Independent thirs-party lens makers. 

Why is it that Sigma brings the first 1.8 zoom-lens to market? Why not Canon or Nikon with their vastly superior R&D resources and much better access to market due to huge installed base of camera bodies? Exactly, because Canon wants to continue to sell their cr*ppy 16-35 "L" II ... at nearly twice the price of a Sigma 18-35/1.8. And once Canon decides to come up with a 16-35/2.0 L it will cost a nifty USD/Euro 4500 or so ... and Nikon's future 14-35/2.8 will then as well ... give me a break! 

And next you know, Nikon - as Canon has done before many times - clandestinely changes their lens mount protocol [starting with D5300], so Sigma lenses stop functioning properly on that camera, but not Nikon lenses. 
You may call it a mere coincidence. I call it ... just another tree in the huge forest of anti-competitive behaviour, collusion and market manipulation.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Nov 21, 2013)

The perception that Canon's sensors lacking in DR (I would challenge the ISO noise comments though) hasn't effected their sales. The 1Dx is selling astonishingly well considering it's high ticket price. The 5DIII is also selling extreamly well. So one has to wonder about the high DR arguments in the commercial context. 
While I'm sure Canon are working hard to improve their sensor tech to bring it in line with the competition...the rest of the camera (1DX and 5DIII models) are more advanced than anything else in their sector and I personally this is the reason they are selling so well. 
The other side to it is that the Nikon D4, their version of the 1Dx, has been pagued with lockups and issues from it's launch. I know of a number of pro wildlife guys who jumped into the Nikon D3 / D700 combo only to be really dissapointed with the D4 issues. The D800 isn't really a replacement for the D700 and many felt abandonded by Nikon when the D800 came out. While this has been addressed with the D600, it's been a long time coming and it's still not a direct D700 replacement.
Canon's full frame line up is so strong it's hard to compete with it. The 1Dx is the best there is, the 5DIII is so versatile and offers so much, the 6D is very effective while being cost / feature conscious. It's no wonder it's all selling so well. Add to one of the finest pro lens portfolios currently available...it's no wonder Canon are number 1. I have a number of unique to Canon lenses in my collection (8-15L fish eye, TS-e17L) and a number of top/excellent performers (35mm f1.4, 85mm f1.2, 135mm f2, 70-200 f2.8 LIS II, 400mm f2.8 LIS).
When I look at other brands, their camera bodies or lens porfolio don't come close to what Canon offers.


----------



## Synkka (Nov 21, 2013)

A common misconception with tech companies is that the first to the market with a new technology is the one who benefits most. This is actually rarely true it's normal the first company to use a new technology well.

This is where I believe canon is with the higher megapixel body they won't release until they have a solution that will sell well without large amounts of negative press. Further more I think canon is a company that plays it very safe, whether this stifles creativity is another question but it tends to please shareholders.

Sanj I have an x100s which I believe is a similar sensor or same to the xe2 it's a very good sensor.

Is there a good source to compare DR between cameras on actual shots rather than charts, I haven't found an easy source to compare.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Nov 21, 2013)

sanj said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > sanj said:
> ...



The 1Dx is a great camera and very versatile. I feel the same about my 5DIII...it serves all my needs and I don't have much need for 12fps! I enjoy the 5DIII's slightly higher resolution (although that's not a deal breaker), enjoy the lighter weight and near silent shutter (a serious plus for me).


----------



## CarlTN (Nov 21, 2013)

I very much look forward to the 2014 camera, and suspect the DR issue will finally equal if not exceed the competition. Wasn't one of the rumors, that it would (or could) record 16 bit RAW files? Why do that if the sensor can only record 14 bits...or as Nikon lovers claim (of Canon)...only 9 or 10 bits of DR?

I hope they go for the lowest MP possible. Nobody really needs over 40 MP. Especially not 60. The only way to make use of an uncropped image that large, is to make sure most of the image's subject matter is in very sharp focus (a deep focus, wide angle landscape), and then do a very large print of it. How often do most of us do this? Do many of you make prints larger than 20x30 on a weekly basis, let alone 40x60? I've gotten decent 20x30 prints from only a 15MP camera (I knew how to shoot a sharp image, and scale it). My 6D could surely do 30x40 without flinching...

Alas I won't be able to afford 9 to $10,000, though...

I fiddled with a D7100 in Best Buy last night...my GOSHHHHH...what horrible ergonomics...menus...grip feel...I mean I would rather go Fuji rangefinder or something, than a Nikon DSLR. How can anyone use those things? Obviously they just set everything one time, and always shoot on that setting from then on. If you want to change something, look out!


----------



## Woody (Nov 21, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> The most obvious and likely explanation is ... "collusion". Anti-competitive market manipulation.



I've been pondering that too and I suspect you may be right.



AvTvM said:


> Why is it that Sigma brings the first 1.8 zoom-lens to market? Why not Canon or Nikon with their vastly superior R&D resources and much better access to market due to huge installed base of camera bodies? Exactly, because Canon wants to continue to sell their cr*ppy 16-35 "L" II ... at nearly twice the price of a Sigma 18-35/1.8.



This is incorrect for many reasons: (a) Olympus produced the world's first f/2 zoom lenses for interchangeable lens cameras with their 14-35 f/2 and 35-100 f/2 (b) Canon 16-35 f/2.8 is for FF sensor while Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 is for crop sensor


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 21, 2013)

Woody said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Why is it that Sigma brings the first 1.8 zoom-lens to market? Why not Canon or Nikon with their vastly superior R&D resources and much better access to market due to huge installed base of camera bodies? Exactly, because Canon wants to continue to sell their cr*ppy 16-35 "L" II ... at nearly twice the price of a Sigma 18-35/1.8.
> ...



It is not incorrect. The Sigma is the first f/1.8 zoom lens. I did not say it was an FF lens. All I'm saying, is Canon should be more innovative and charge less for products that are not neither innovative nor even fully competitive in all aspects ... if they want me to buy it.


----------



## J.R. (Nov 21, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> All I'm saying, is Canon should be more innovative and charge less for products that are not even fully competitive in all aspects.



That's the whole issue isn't it ... Canon is more loyal to its shareholders than its customers, which is exactly the same way all successful business corporations are run. 

Customers aren't loyal to Canon either and buy products other than Canon because such products meet their needs better. 

It's just business at the end of the day, Canon makes a product, you pay, it's that simple. If you don't like Canon's offerings, take your money elsewhere, get the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8, get a Sony A7 or whatever else you find best. What is the point in continuously moaning?


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 21, 2013)

J.R. said:


> If you don't like Canon's offerings, take your money elsewhere, get the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8, get a Sony A7 or whatever else you find best. What is the point in continuously moaning?



Don't worry, I'll do just that, as soon as "my next camera system" becomes available. 
Until then I am not moaning, but just stating my opinion. Like you and everybody else.


----------



## Woody (Nov 21, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> All I'm saying, is Canon should be more innovative and charge less for products that are not neither innovative nor even fully competitive in all aspects ... if they want me to buy it.



To each his own. I will never touch Sigma f/1.8 zoom lens for APS-C for the following reasons: (a) too heavy and big (b) inprecise AF (personal experience with multiple Sigma lenses incl. their recent releases... supported by DPReview's review of said lens). I'm sure there are many folks like me, and that's why Canikon never bother to release such a lens even if they can.

Incidentally, the Olympus f/2 zoom lenses were major flops too... optically fantastic, but very very few buyers. On the other hand, f/2 zoom lenses designed for FF cameras and sold at monster prices will probably attract enough buyers to offset the R&D expenditure. Sigma should have thought through their plan more carefully before releasing the APS-C f/1.8 zoom lens. If they are really good, they would have released a f/2 zoom lens for FF...


----------



## J.R. (Nov 21, 2013)

Woody said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > All I'm saying, is Canon should be more innovative and charge less for products that are not neither innovative nor even fully competitive in all aspects ... if they want me to buy it.
> ...



I would agree with the AF struggles on the Sigma lenses having tried many when I was using the APS-C format. Finally, I sent the lenses for repair and rather unsurprisingly, found the Sigma's customer support to be terrible. The lens has to be shipped back 3000 miles away (they have only a single service center in India as far as I know) and the lenses came back with the "within spec" response. 

No such trouble with Canon except for the 135L. I sent in the bodies with the 135L and Canon calibrated the lens perfectly - A 0 on the AFMA on both bodies.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 21, 2013)

Woody said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > All I'm saying, is Canon should be more innovative and charge less for products that are not neither innovative nor even fully competitive in all aspects ... if they want me to buy it.
> ...



I agree with you in not buying third-party lenses too. However, I consider it mainly CaNikon's fault, since they make it as difficult as possible for third party makers to produce fully functional lenses by changing their proprietary lens mounts all the time. This should really be open standards, then we would really see who makes the best lesnes at the bst price and would have full lens choice from any maker. that would bring an incredible amount of innovation, since it would attraact a lot of R&D efforts if the resukting products could be used on the entire installed base of CaNikon cameras without issues. 

I also consider it "too late" by Sigma to come up with a 1k f/1.8 APS-C zoom. Majority of potentially interested users have or are moving towards FF since they have been neglected by CaNikon. But who knows, maybe Sigma comes out with an FF version of a f/2.0 or F/1.8 WA zoom any time soon? 

Oly 2.0 Zooms flopped for other reasons. Way too big, heavy and expensive considering the small sensor size. Anybody willing to lug those around and able to afford them was not shooting FT but FF-sensored cameras. No target group really for those zooms. 

BUT ... for FF ... a 16-35/2.0 L or a 24-70/2.0 L IS ... enough people would pay the 4.5k Canon (or Nikon) would undoubtedly charge for such a lens. But CaNikon are not able to make one. Or have agreed to not make one for the time being.


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 21, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > If you don't like Canon's offerings, take your money elsewhere, get the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8, get a Sony A7 or whatever else you find best. What is the point in continuously moaning?
> ...



That'd be the best thing because I noticed you haven't actually posted photos on CR.


----------



## docsmith (Nov 21, 2013)

I upgraded from the 7D to the 5DIII last February. I had spent most of the previous 9 months considering the upgrade to FF and comparing the D800 to the 5DIII. A switch over to Nikon wouldn't have been that big a deal as I was selling all my EFS glass. I read every article I could find, and I watched more videos than I care to remember. 

At the end of the day, I concluded that the 5DIII was a better camera for my needs. I have a general understanding of the pros and cons of each system and am very happy with my choice.

I've always assumed other people made similar evaluations. But a couple of threads like this are beginning to make me think otherwise.....

Back to the topic of the thread, a potential new EOS-1 body, and potentially Canon's first foray into the "high Megapixel bodies" I wonder how high? I view high megapixel bodies as a pretty limited niche. Theoretically, it is great, but in practice, I think the market will be more of a niche. Landscape photographers, those shooting billboards, some select studio work and enthusiast that _just have to have it_. ;D But if Canon is going to do it, I bet they go pretty high. I am going to guess more MP than the D800...Right now I'd guess 48 MP. That should sufficiently cement Canon as a "high megapixel" leader and provide room for a 1Dx II to come out in 2015 at ~24 MP. If true, looks like the 1D line is going to be split again.

Regarding the rumor of lenses with the release...those are something I might actually buy (I won't be buying the high megapixel body). As landscape and billboard type studio work could go hand in hand with a high MP body, I could see the long awaited 12-24 f/2.8 and 35 f/1.4 II. Lenses like that with superb optics would well compliment a high MP body.


----------



## J.R. (Nov 21, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > If you don't like Canon's offerings, take your money elsewhere, get the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8, get a Sony A7 or whatever else you find best. What is the point in continuously moaning?
> ...



Given that Canon is still the best system out there, maybe you will wait long. As a consequence, your moaning opinions will continue for some considerable time...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 21, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> I consider it mainly CaNikon's fault, since they make it as difficult as possible for third party makers to produce fully functional lenses by *changing their proprietary lens mounts all the time*.



Let's see…the Canon EF mount replaced the FD mount in 1987 - it hasn't changed in more than 25 years. The FL/FD/NewFD (interchangeable) mounts were in use for nearly 25 years before that. Now…the R mount was only used for ~5 years, in the early 1960s. So, in over 50 years, Canon has had 3 main types of lens mounts, and in the last 49 years, only two. During those same >50 years, Nikon has used *one* mount type, the F-mount. 

So…what in the H-E-double-hockey-sticks are you talking about?


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 21, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > I consider it mainly CaNikon's fault, since they make it as difficult as possible for third party makers to produce fully functional lenses by *changing their proprietary lens mounts all the time*.
> ...



Sorry, my wording was not clear enough ... it should read "lens mount PROTOCOL"

I was referring to the news item 2 days ago http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/11/19/sigma-issues-advisory-on-lens-compatibility-with-nikon-d5300 ... may have escaped your attention, since it is Nikon this time playing games on Sigma ... and possibly other third party lens manufacturers too - although no reports have surfaced yet from Tamron or Tokina. 

Even while the physics of the Canon EF- and Nikon F-mount have remained (largely or totally) unchanged for a long time, every so often Canon and now also Nikon have changed something in their proprietary lens-camera-communications protocol. These changes may have had functional reasons too - e.g. in order to enable some more advanced AF, IS or ETTL or whatever functions. But sometimes - like in this latest incidence now - these changes left third-party lenses - most notably Sigma lenses - not (fully) functional any longer, while all "camera manufacturer's lenses [Nikon this time, Canon before] retained their full functionality. 

Of course CaNikon may change the lens mount protocol if and as needed. But from a "competitive market" and especially from our CUSTOMERS point of view, it would be preferrable, if the protocols were open standard and any changes would come announced and fully documented beforehand, so third party lens makers would have a better chance to adjust their products.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 21, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> But sometimes - like in this latest incidence now - these changes left third-party lenses - most notably Sigma lenses - not (fully) functional any longer, while all "camera manufacturer's lenses [Nikon this time, Canon before] retained their full functionality.
> 
> Of course CaNikon may change the lens mount protocol if and as needed. But from a "competitive market" and especially from our CUSTOMERS point of view, it would be preferrable, if the protocols were open standard and any changes would come announced and fully documented beforehand, so third party lens makers would have a better chance to adjust their products.



Gotcha. Yes, I read about the issue with Sigma lenses on the D5300. 

If you read the reviews on TDP, you'lll notice that the review of 3rd party lenses contain statements like, "_Since <Sigma/Tamron/Tokina/etc.> reverse engineers (vs. licenses) manufacturer AF algorithms, there is always the possibility that a DSLR body might not support a (likely older) third party lens. Sometimes a lens can be made compatible by the manufacturer, sometimes not._" The current issue with the D5300 and Sigma lenses is not the first one, and won't be the last. 

It's worth noting that sometimes these communication protocol updates affect OEM lenses as well, for example, the issue that affected functioning of the peripheral AF points on the 40D/50D/60D/7D with some older Canon lenses. But then, that issue came to light mainly because people using Tamron lenses were affected by it, since some Tamron lenses 'borrowed' the lens codes of those older Canon lenses. 

Of course, Canon and Nikon are under no obligation to do things that are beneficial from the customers' point of view, or things that benefit their competition. Did Macy's tell Gimbels? Sure, the m4/3 community came to an agreement to standardize the mount and communication protocols, but I suspect that was to avoid being like hyenas fighting over scraps on the carcass after the lions are done - they recoginzed that they had an uphill climb to compete with dSLRs, and decided that competing with Canon and Nikon on that front was more important than competing with each other.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 21, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Of course, Canon and Nikon are under no obligation to do things that are beneficial from the customers' point of view, or things that benefit their competition. Did Macy's tell Gimbels? Sure, the m4/3 community came to an agreement to standardize the mount and communication protocols, but I suspect that was to avoid being like hyenas fighting over scraps on the carcass after the lions are done - they recoginzed that they had an uphill climb to compete with dSLRs, and decided that competing with Canon and Nikon on that front was more important than competing with each other.



exactly. Unfortunately the FT consortium decided on a sensor size that turned out to be too small. Had they chose 36x24mm "FF" or rather "Kleinbild" ... things might be much better for us ... as customers.


----------



## sdsr (Nov 21, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, Canon and Nikon are under no obligation to do things that are beneficial from the customers' point of view, or things that benefit their competition. Did Macy's tell Gimbels? Sure, the m4/3 community came to an agreement to standardize the mount and communication protocols, but I suspect that was to avoid being like hyenas fighting over scraps on the carcass after the lions are done - they recoginzed that they had an uphill climb to compete with dSLRs, and decided that competing with Canon and Nikon on that front was more important than competing with each other.
> ...



But the selling point (small though it may be) of M43 is the M bit - a good, small, light system. Had they chosen to go FF they might be able to continue to make small bodies, but the lenses would have to be the same size as those of everyone else who makes FF lenses - so they would no longer have a small, light system. I guess we'll find out whether they made the wrong decision when the mirrorless Sonys have been around for a while.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 21, 2013)

sdsr said:


> ...when the mirrorless Sonys have been around for a while.



*IF* the mirrorless Sonys stay around for a while.


----------



## sdsr (Nov 21, 2013)

sanj said:


> To say Nikon 'lost' is perhaps harsh. As the IQ of the D800 is certainly better than 5d3. A photographer friend who switched from 5d2 to D800 showed me comparisons on his laptop and I cannot any longer defend the IQ of 5d3 vs D800. I do realize 'but but' of autofocus, responsiveness etc but am talking just about IQ.



Yes, it's better if you need the extra DR at low ISOs, and it's better if you need the extra resolution and have the know-how to make the most of it, but I wonder how many people need or want either. When I rented a D800E to see what all the fuss was about, aside from those two aspects of sensor performance I didn't notice any difference between the photos I took with it and my 5DIII aside from slight differences in color (I preferred the Canon colors, but presumably the differences could have been edited away). So I think the statement that the IQ of the D800 "is certainly better" needs some modification. And once the caveats are noted, and once we remember that photos are made with cameras and lenses, the fact that the 5DIII outsells the D800/800e is perhaps not the mystery in need of explanation that some seem to think it is. 

(I hadn't planned to jump ship; rather, I was wondering whether I wanted a FF Nikon as well - but as those two areas of sensor superiority don't matter that much to me, and since I don't like Nikon's ergonomics and don't know of many Nikon lenses that are as good as Canon's in the focal lengths that matter to me, I decided I didn't want one. Others, of course, may well have reacted differently.)


----------



## Diko (Nov 21, 2013)

msm said:


> Nope but it doesn't give me better lenses or cameras, so I don't care. Do you know for a fact that Canon profits are put back in increased R&D? Pointless to discuss this without knowing the facts.



Can anyone really give me any source on that since I don't really believe it as well.


----------



## mkabi (Nov 21, 2013)

Into the foray of high megapixels, if I have learned anything from medium format cameras (not that I own one, but you don't need to own one to learn about medium format, check out youtube videos). Amazing IQ, but terrible ISO performance, I think the Hasselblads the 40 and 50 MP ones function well up to 400 or was it 800 before the IQ started to deteriorate.

So, you have to shine tonnes of light to get those amazing images you want...


----------



## Diko (Nov 21, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > Of course I care about the camera as a whole but that does not take away from the FACT that that Canon sensors are lagging behind. Perhaps other brands do not have things that are going for Canon but this does not change the fact that Canon sensors need and a bit of a fix. How can anyone argue with that? I use 5d3 and will use it but how am I wrong in wishing it's sensor gets better?
> ...



ОК. Now my turn:

As knowledgeable as Neuro is I still find it quite pointless to discuss something as obvious as Canon's RD in the last few years.

EVERYONE KNOWS that:

1/ 2010 - the year of Canon 5D MII
2/ 2011 - the year of Canon 7D
3/ 2012 - Did I miss the market-share numbers?!?
4/ 2013 - Still to come....

IF you are still following me - total respect to CANON and their RD performance until 2010... Followed by 3 full years of NO... I say NO innovation... 

Finally the first great one which was an OBVIOUS REQUEST by everyone was the "dual pixel" technology...

And it is about time that the JP house should come up with something unless they want to loose the leadership race in their 11th year.... Although having in mind all the Canon glass users... it would be really hard for anyone to achieve it these days.

Interesting is NIKON who first went into the battle not with CANON but with MF cameras in general. Now Canon lost a competition and no one can't ever tell me that they don't have the MEGA pixels since 2002....

But NIKON won that battle as CANON won the video battle before that. 

And BTW 800D actually is quite popular again thanks to (Carl Zeiss) Otus 1.4/55.

So 1Dx was ONLY 18 MP for nothing else but profit (even if all the technology was already available).... They sold it for $6k a piece, so now they WILL sell the new MEGA pixel 1DXs for $8k, $10k or even $12k. 

So the PROFIT is always the most important... and no one can tell me that CANON invested THAT much in RD... 

NO way!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 21, 2013)

Diko said:


> ОК. Now my turn:
> 
> As knowledgeable as Neuro is I still find it quite pointless to discuss something as obvious as Canon's RD in the last few years.
> 
> ...



Sorry, but I don't follow you. The 5D Mark II came out in 2008, and the 7D came out in 2009. Availability was limited at first, but you are at least one year off your "year of the" timing. Canon's greater marketshare is most likely because in the categories listed, as well as entry-level cameras, Canon simply outsold Nikon.

No innovation, and very little spent on R&D? Canon was awarded over 3000 US patents in 2012. Each year for over 25 years, Canon has ranked in the top five companies worldwide in terms of numbers of US patents awarded. Granted, that means they spend a lot of yen on lawyers. But patent attorneys need research-based claims to file on, so clearly Canon is spending a lot of money on R&D.

But since NO ONE CAN TELL YOU anything about anything, apparently, you're right about it being pointless.


----------



## 9VIII (Nov 21, 2013)

It's weird that it seems like the only people who hold Nikon in high regard are posting on a Canon forum, and all your hear on Nikon forums is how badly they fail at everything they try.

Maybe we should all just switch forums?


----------



## Rick (Nov 21, 2013)

*Re: Huge Mistake Dear Canon*



Orangutan said:


> Rick said:
> 
> 
> > A 1 series body with the traditonal 1 series size, weight & price tag will sell like cold hotcakes.
> ...



It is my unsubstaniated opinion based upon observtion at the DPR Nikon forum and elsewhere on the internet plus the fact that I bought a D800E to complement my Canon rig. That D800E could have been a Canon something or another if Canon had acted like Canon instead of the old Nikon.

You cite sales figures. Do you have any segregated numbers for the 1 Series bodies. Canon and Nikon discontinued their profit-bloated 1Ds 3 and D3x for a reason. Nikon smartly replaced their D3x with the D800E. Let's see how smart Canon is.


----------



## jeremypark (Nov 21, 2013)

_"Landscape photographers, those shooting billboards, some select studio work and enthusiast that just have to have it."_

wrong. Not sure why landscape photographers need any more detail than anyone else? Do you assume detail in grass and clouds are more important than detail in skin, clothes, product photography, art reproduction? Also billboards need relatively low resolution due to the massive viewing distance and low dpi they are printed at. You print something on a crappy home printer and then stand back 50 meters and see if you are worried about noise or grain. And lastly you will find a high megapixel camera ( like the 5d3 is for them now) will sell very well, not just for the enthusiast. More for any photographer who needs flexibility in how the images, ability to shoot RAW video and general better ergonomics compared to the bulkier less flexible medium format system. If I were at Phase, Hasselblad, Mamiya etc I'd be worried... very worried by what Canon will likely come out with. A game changer like the 5D3 was.


----------



## wockawocka (Nov 21, 2013)

Based on sensor tech we've already seen in different brands Canon 'could' do a lot. Foveon sensor based on the 1DX, 6x6 pixel sensor like the Fuji but FF, Pixel doubling like with the Phase one backs.

Lots they could do. But whatever they do it'll be to suit a bottom line as there's less people 'up there' than the general consumer 'down there'.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 21, 2013)

[quote author=AvTvM]
And next you know, Nikon - as Canon has done before many times - clandestinely changes their lens mount protocol [starting with D5300], so Sigma lenses stop functioning properly on that camera, but not Nikon lenses.
You may call it a mere coincidence. I call it ... just another tree in the huge forest of anti-competitive behaviour, collusion and market manipulation. [/quote]

At last, one point I can partially agree with. (Out of a whole forest, BTW)

I do think it is poor business policy and poor customer service for companies to purposely disable third party accessories. (Unless, of course, those components could potentially damage the product). 

As many know, I've long complained that when Canon introduced the 600 RT, they refused to offer a receiver that would allow their own product, the 580EXII to function on radio control. In my view it was shortsighted and contemptuous of their customers, since they could easily produce a receiver or transceiver for probably less than $50 and charge users $200 or more for it. (I base those prices on the excellent Yongnuo 622 transceiver.)

More to the point though is the case of Canon crippling the 5DIII so that it cannot function using the Yongnuo ST-E2, but can use the Canon ST-E2. That was a clearly anti-competitive action on their part and is particularly frustrating because the Yongnuo product is so superior to the Canon (three flash groups instead of two, greater range, rotating head).

The irony, though, is that when companies stoop to these types of behavior, it usually backfires on them. They punish their customers, while the competitor simply works overtime to improve their products. I'm sure Canon's actions provided an incentive for Yongnuo to offer the 622 and to now develop a 600-RT competitor. 

Similarly, there is no doubt that Sigma produced its lens dock precisely so that they can thwart attempts by Nikon and Canon to change lens protocols. Additionally, I believe Sigma's new policy of offering lens mount conversions will further discourage this practice.

So, while I share Mr. Aperture Value Time Value Manual's frustration with these anti-competitive behaviors, I note that they are seldom successful for very long. These kinds of bad behavior tend to also be bad business decisions in the long run – they feed into customer dissatisfaction at the same time they spur innovation among competitors – two things that the companies should not be encouraging.


----------



## KyleSTL (Nov 21, 2013)

Diko said:


> Interesting is NIKON who first went into the battle not with CANON but with MF cameras in general. Now Canon lost a competition and no one can't ever tell me that they don't have the MEGA pixels since 2002....


Are you saying Canon has never had the megapixel crown since 2002 (excluding MF competition)? Because that is an outright lie.

1994 - Kodak DCS420 - 2MP
1995 - Kodak DCS460 - 6MP
2002 - Kodak DCS Pro 14n - 14MP (released just prior to Canon 1Ds, 11MP; Nikon's 12MP D2X came in 2004)
2004 - Canon 1Ds Mark II - 16MP
2007 - Canon 1Ds Mark III - 21MP (followed by Canon 5D Mark II in 2008)
2008 - Sony A900 - 24MP (followed by 24MP Nikon D3X in late 2008, and Sony A850 in 2009)
2012 - Nikon D800/D800E - 36MP (followed by Sony A7R in 2013)
2013 - Nokia Lumia 1020 - 41MP (I know, rediculous inclusion - facts remain)

Canon had the highest resolution sensor for a solid 4 years until Sony came out with it's 24MP FF sensor. 

Leaderboard (for those keeping score):
Kodak - 10 years
Nikon - 6 years and counting (4 shared jointly with Sony, Nokia excluded)
Canon - 4 years
Sony - 4 years and counting


----------



## Woody (Nov 21, 2013)

Diko said:


> 3/ 2012 - Did I miss the market-share numbers?!?
> 4/ 2013 - Still to come....



2012: 
Canon sold 8.21 million interchangeable lens cameras
Nikon sold 7 million interchangeable lens cameras

2013:
Canon projects to sell 8 million interchangeable lens cameras
Nikon projects to sell 6.2 million interchangeable lens cameras


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 21, 2013)

Woody said:


> Diko said:
> 
> 
> > 3/ 2012 - Did I miss the market-share numbers?!?
> ...



I recall one of the forum doomsayers stating Canon was starting to 'hemorrhage market share'. If the above decrease (which is the first in years) constitutes 'hemorrhaging' then Nikon has pretty much bled out.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 21, 2013)

KyleSTL said:


> Diko said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting is NIKON who first went into the battle not with CANON but with MF cameras in general. Now Canon lost a competition and no one can't ever tell me that they don't have the MEGA pixels since 2002....
> ...



In fairness, I think you misread Diko's point. I think he means that Canon has had the ability to have the most megapixels since 2002 (and in fact did have the most megapixels for most of those years).

That's certainly true, since Canon introduced an industry-leading 18 mp APS-C in 2009, which means they could have produced a 46 mp full frame sensor at any point during the past four years. 

But, I'm not sure what "battle" they "lost." Clearly, since Canon could produce at least a 46 mp full frame camera but has not, there is a reason for that. Perhaps one reason is the legions of customers on this and other forums who, prior to the release of the 1Dx and the 5DIII were demanding fewer, larger pixels, higher ISO performance and better autofocus (in the case of the 5D).

Canon delivered exactly what the customers said they wanted. Customers responded by making the 5DIII (at least) a consistent top seller, basically crushing the competition in the marketplace. Yet, now we have a handful of people who insist that Canon is a failure because they have yet to release a high megapixel camera to compete with a competitor's high megapixel camera that doesn't seem to be doing all that well in the marketplace.

Perhaps Canon has "lost" the high-megapixel "battle" but they certainly seem to be winning the war.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Nov 22, 2013)

*Re: Huge Mistake Dear Canon*



Rick said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Rick said:
> ...



Rick - I was contemplating using both systems for a little while and realized that it didn't make sense at all for my uses. I was just curious how it has worked out for you thus far? Positives, negatives, how often you use one over the other, etc.

Also interested to see some of your images.


----------



## jrista (Nov 22, 2013)

Maui5150 said:


> So high megapixel? For Canon that means what? 24MP Might be pushing it... Prob closer to 23.8MP



From past rumors about Canon high-mp cameras in testing, probably 40mp+.


----------



## garyknrd (Nov 22, 2013)

jrista said:


> Maui5150 said:
> 
> 
> > So high megapixel? For Canon that means what? 24MP Might be pushing it... Prob closer to 23.8MP
> ...



If full frame. Would that be a good camera for birding?


----------



## CarlTN (Nov 22, 2013)

jeremypark said:


> _"Landscape photographers, those shooting billboards, some select studio work and enthusiast that just have to have it."_
> 
> wrong. Not sure why landscape photographers need any more detail than anyone else? Do you assume detail in grass and clouds are more important than detail in skin, clothes, product photography, art reproduction? Also billboards need relatively low resolution due to the massive viewing distance and low dpi they are printed at. You print something on a crappy home printer and then stand back 50 meters and see if you are worried about noise or grain. And lastly you will find a high megapixel camera ( like the 5d3 is for them now) will sell very well, not just for the enthusiast. More for any photographer who needs flexibility in how the images, ability to shoot RAW video and general better ergonomics compared to the bulkier less flexible medium format system. If I were at Phase, Hasselblad, Mamiya etc I'd be worried... very worried by what Canon will likely come out with. A game changer like the 5D3 was.



Why was the 5D3 a game-changer?


----------



## jrista (Nov 22, 2013)

sanj said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Woody said:
> ...



"Broke" would indicate a malfunction, as in "broken." This is certainly NOT the case...Canon's sensors are not broken. The function perfectly fine, they produce photos of superb quality, and they meet the needs of the majority of photographers. I think the term your looking for is "not the best". Canon sensors are certainly "not the best" after comparing with the D800 and Rx1. But they certainly are not "broke."


----------



## jrista (Nov 22, 2013)

msm said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > msm said:
> ...



Stockholders are made richer by an expanding company. Developing a whole bunch of new lenses that people will need to spend money upgrading to is a way of expanding the company, increasing revenues, which tends to result in increased profits (of which a fairly significant amount are usually paid out in dividends, for dividends paying companies.)


----------



## jrista (Nov 22, 2013)

Cali_PH said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > This was 2010:
> ...



There is also the camp that doesn't really "switch"...instead they expand their kit to include multiple brands. I may eventually fall into this camp. 

Given that Canon's focus is largely on the sports/bif/action segment...their best lenses are long, their best cameras are fast framerates, etc. and due to the fact that it sounds like their BigMP camera is going to probably be a 1-series, I may very likely add a D800E to my kit, along with the 14-24mm lens. I don't have plans to expand Nikon gear much beyond that, however when it comes to landscapes, Nikon currently offers better glass and a better sensor. Since the camers will spend the vast majority of it's time on a tripod, I won't have to deal with its menu system or ergonomics much, so my two primary complaints against the brand aren't really a huge reason not to buy.

I suspect there is a certain percentage of photographers who do similar things...move into the multi-brand segment rather than actually switch entirely by dumping an otherwise perfectly good kit that they would have to replace.


----------



## jrista (Nov 22, 2013)

msm said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > msm said:
> ...



How much money do you think it takes to redesign the majority of an entire lens lineup like Canon has been doing the last few years? Keep in mind, the funds for that R&D had to be appropriated and spent starting years ago, in order for these new lenses to have been released over the last few years, and on into the next few years. 

Personally, I suspect a fairly significant amount of Canon's photography profits are fed back into their R&D machine. Certainly not all of it...first and foremost profits tend to go into salary bonuses and dividends, but the sum to redesign so many lenses in such a short flurry of time cannot be small.


----------



## jrista (Nov 22, 2013)

Orangutan said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon probably doesn't need to do much sensor R&D for instance, since they have others making their sensors.
> ...



I was under the impression Nikon had a direct hand in the design of the D800 sensor. At the very least, they had to pay the salaries of whichever employees of theirs collaborated on the project with Sony. So the R&D cost for sensors can't be zero.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 22, 2013)

jrista said:


> ...however when it comes to landscapes, Nikon currently offers better glass...



Yes, if you must use an ultrawide zoom. I'd say the TS-E 17L + TS-E 24L II would be better than the 14-24/2.8, by a significant margin. For me, if 12 stops of DR aren't enough, usually 14 stops aren't enough, either (meaning grad NDs and/or HDR shooting). Stitched panos give me higher than 36 MP resolution. If 2 stops more DR and/or more MP in a single shot (moving elements in the scene, etc.) would be a big benefit, and sharpness is critical, I'd suggest the two wide Canon TS-E lenses mounted on an a7R would give you better results than the D800 + 14-24 combo.


----------



## jrista (Nov 22, 2013)

Gino said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Woody said:
> ...



I don't disagree with your statements. And it definitely feels as though Canon has been neglecting their sensor segment. I do believe, however, that there is a bit of tunnel vision with regards to Canon's progress in the photography market. Everything in these arguments is so focused on one single component of the whole...the sensor. 

Canon has been doing a LOT of research and development on the lens side of things, and their small form factor sensors, AF and metering sensors, and other camera components have shown considerable progress over past models. Their small form factor sensor fabrication technology is still rather competitive with the rest of that market...with the exception that Canon doesn't sell their sensors for use in other devices by third parties (where as much of their competition DOES.) The only area where Canon has not yet moved into the "modern era" of sensor design is their APS-C and FF sensors.

So, I don't think it is entirely fair to say that, because Canon APS-C and FF sensors aren't remaining competitive, then they are at risk of failing like Blackberry. There really isn't a true parallel to be drawn there. Blackberry had ONE thing, did that one thing exceptionally WELL, had a die-hard cult following of ADDICTS using their product, and they did indeed become complacent. Canon has a broad range of products, they are expanding into new markets in response to competitive expansion by their competitors, and they are continuing to R&D new products. Canon is focused on different things. Instead of low ISO perf and megapixels, they LISTENED TO THEIR CUSTOMERS and improved high ISO and AF at the same megapixels. (Don't forget, there was a long term and BIG outcry from Canon owners prior to the D800 launch for fewer megapixels, better high ISO, better AF.) Canon provided what their customers asked for. 

Responding to the competitions change in direction, and responding to the NEW outcry (which didn't start until after the D800 and 5D III were released) takes time, planning and resources to achieve. It has only been a couple years, so it is not surprising that Canon does not have a competitive high megapixel part yet. I suspect it will be at least another year before we see anything concrete, if not another year and a half to two years, before a product finally lands on the shelves. And even then...Canon has never really competed directly, model for model, with Nikon...so what ends up on the shelf is unlikely to be a direct competitor, in terms of features or price. I suspect the result will be another outcry, both in response to whatever Canon releases not perfectly fitting the preconceived notions of some of their customers, and whatever the competition decides to release at the same time. 

Canon also has a far more difficult competitive front these days than it used to. Instead of primarily competing against Nikon, and primarily in the DSLR arena...they are competing against Nikon and Sony juggernaut of an alliance, against Nikon cameras, against Sony cameras, in not only the DSLR arena but also the mirrorless arena, and on specific feature fronts like image sensors, AF sensors, phase detection AF, mirrorless lenses, etc. I do think Canon was caught off guard a little by the shifts in the market and in their competition. I also believe that Canon is a shrewed and competitive company, and that as far as their investors are concerned, keeping the company alive is a more profitable endeavor over the long term than letting it die due to non-competitive behavior. So I believe that Canon will continue to remain a viable, high quality photography company throughout the long term. They may not be able to regain the supreme crown on all fronts against the larger SoNikon alliance, but I don't think it is even remotely fair to call them a future Blackberry either.


----------



## jrista (Nov 22, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > ...however when it comes to landscapes, Nikon currently offers better glass...
> ...



Ok, a few counterpoints. First, I agree the Canon TS-E lenses are better. But that does nothing for DR. On the DR front, 14 stops is better than 12 stops, no matter how you slice it. The fewer filters you stack in front of a camera, especially a high resolution one, the better for your IQ. I can get away with using fewer filters, and less dense filters, with 14 stops of DR than 12 stops, so yes while I'd probably still need to use them, I could avoid unsightly artifacts like black mountain peaks (which often plague photos that had to use heavy GND filtration.) Keep in mind, 14 stops means it is two orders of magnitude more capable than a camera with 12 stops, which is pretty significant. In many cases, you could get away with deepening your blacks and losing some detail there to preserve highlight information, and not use a filter at all (which, as it stands, is usually not really even an option with 14mm lenses or the TS-E 17 anyway due to their front element.)

Your comment about adapting Canon lenses to the A7r is actually pretty intriguing. I've never been a fan of Sony technology. It's always been a big electronics name, but I've usually found better quality in other brands (for example, I prefer Samsung and Sharp TVs over Sony TVs, Pioneer instead of Sony for my car sterio, etc.) I know the sensor in the A7r is damn good...but is the camera as a whole good? I KNOW you know this argument. I've stuck with Canon because they make a damn good camera, despite not having the best sensors. I know Nikon makes a pretty good camera too, and while ergonomically they don't fit for me, I guess I'd prefer a Nikon camera over a Sony camera. But, maybe the A7r is different, and brings about a new era for Sony...I dunno...


----------



## jrista (Nov 22, 2013)

9VIII said:


> It's weird that it seems like the only people who hold Nikon in high regard are posting on a Canon forum, and all your hear on Nikon forums is how badly they fail at everything they try.
> 
> Maybe we should all just switch forums?



LOL. 

I woldn't say it's all bad on the Nikon forums, though. I sneak around over at Nikon rumors a bit, and I frequently see entire threads where, when a new camera comes out from Nikon, they are drooling all over it, and happily bashing the Canon camp. In some cases, like the D800 and D7100, they certainly had a point. In other cases, the D800 and D600 certainly had their share of major issues, and issues that plagued owners for months before Nikon even acknowledged them, then months further before Nikon was willing/able to fix them. If I were a Nikon owner, I'd be bitching too.


----------



## jrista (Nov 22, 2013)

garyknrd said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Maui5150 said:
> ...



If it comes with a high frame rate, absolutely!


----------



## sanj (Nov 22, 2013)

jrista said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Agree. 'Broke' was just a term being used to indicate it requiring improvement.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 22, 2013)

jrista said:


> 14 stops is better than 12 stops, no matter how you slice it.
> 
> I know the sensor in the A7r is damn good...but is the camera as a whole good? I KNOW you know this argument. I've stuck with Canon because they make a damn good camera, despite not having the best sensors. I know Nikon makes a pretty good camera too, and while ergonomically they don't fit for me, I guess I'd prefer a Nikon camera over a Sony camera. But, maybe the A7r is different, and brings about a new era for Sony...I dunno...



Yes, 14 stops is better. But for me it's often still insufficient, and the strategies used to overcome the limitation of 12 stops would still need to be applied. 

While I agree that a camera is more than the sensor (and I might even have said that once or twice before  ), I was thinking specifically of your use case - supplementing your Canon system, not supplanting it, for use in landscape photography, primarily tripod mounted. Frame rate is largely irrelevant, AF performance is unimportant (and irrelevant if using a tilt shift lens), the small body that might be hard to hold or unwieldy with a large lens is held by the tripod not your hands, you usually have time to fiddle with a kludgy menu system, etc.


----------



## jrista (Nov 22, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > 14 stops is better than 12 stops, no matter how you slice it.
> ...



Yeah. Like I said, I'm intrigued by the idea. I also prefer the idea of adapting Canon lenses, as then I wouldn't have any Nikon lenses hanging around that couldn't ever be used on future Canon gear. Still...its Sony... Bleh. Well, I don't have the funds for it now anyway. The EF 600mm f/4 II cleaned me out for at least another year, so we'll see whats available when the time comes.


----------



## Diko (Nov 22, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sorry, but I don't follow you. The 5D Mark II came out in 2008, and the 7D came out in 2009. Availability was limited at first, but you are at least one year off your "year of the" timing. Canon's greater marketshare is most likely because in the categories listed, as well as entry-level cameras, Canon simply outsold Nikon.


 GOSH! When DID that time passed by? ;D ;D ;D ;D My bad....

Never-the-less where I live all around me people are with the above mentioned bodies... What I am saying - 7D & 5D M2 saved the day when it comes to market leadership of CANON as long as we do NOT consider the CANON glass owners. They also are quite a reason why the CANON's leadership is difficult to be disputed.

So Neuero, nobody could persuade me that the new line of 1000Ds was the new star.... Nor the 1Dx - most Pro already committed to the 1D series just upgraded... Increase in the numbers on that serie....no. M series? Even CANON themselves admitted it that outside JP they failed.



neuroanatomist said:


> No innovation, and very little spent on R&D? Canon was awarded over 3000 US patents in 2012. Each year for over 25 years, Canon has ranked in the top five companies worldwide in terms of numbers of US patents awarded. Granted, that means they spend a lot of yen on lawyers. But patent attorneys need research-based claims to file on, so clearly Canon is spending a lot of money on R&D.


 And again: GOSH! 
You better than anyone else would know that I try to follow those patents and if CANON really DID what they patented we would be quite on another plane... ;-)



unfocused said:


> In fairness, I think you misread Diko's point.


 Yes, they did. My fault! :'(


unfocused said:


> I think he means that Canon has had the ability to have the most megapixels since 2002 (and in fact did have the most megapixels for most of those years).
> 
> That's certainly true, since Canon introduced an industry-leading 18 mp APS-C in 2009, which means they could have produced a 46 mp full frame sensor at any point during the past four years.
> 
> ...



Naturally the Canon's shareholders were always on the winning side. My point is that the user on the other hand was NOT since 2010. ;-)



neuroanatomist said:


> Woody said:
> 
> 
> > I'm more curious about the sensor performance, particularly its low ISO dynamic range. If Canon shows no improvement in this department, it's unlikely we'll see anything better coming out of Canon sensors in the next 4 to 5 years.
> ...



Excuse me if I have misquoted anyone... 
YES & NO!

Let me answer in a separated thread....


----------



## Diko (Nov 22, 2013)

Canon has officially, publicly announced the *technology*: August 31st, 2010 (actually quite before that, but I seem to be unable to find the info on the net now).

Let us calculate, Neuro feel free to correct me: if APS-H is 120 MPs then FF would go to about 150 or so.

Now putting into consideration *Dual Pixel Tech* we might need to divide them by *2* (_actually the DPAF is not like that but for the sake of simplicity..._ :-( ) that would make about 75 MPs.

Now we are talking about Emerging tech in 2010. And that *article in July 2013* if less than a real product I would call CANON total bunch of hypocrites looking ONLY for profit. 

That means 1DXs shouldn't be less than that! IF it is, it would be marketing's dep. fault that would claim that if they release 45 MPs now and 75 MPs in 2017 Canon would make way more money.

Without accident in 2010 CANON also showed off with *this* Leaving you on your own thoughts... ;-)

Now having new technologies like *Lytro* and *RH-1 "Ultra" Anamorphic Lens* I hardly believe that CANON would need the whole 9 yards... I mean 20 years.

ANY given company has its Business Plan ahead for 1,2,3,5, 10 & 20 years. Each one in its own paste and milestones. Each subject to some extend to modification. However all those patents that Neuro mentions are there ONLY to guarantee the company's leadership. What I mean is that we might be seeing technology developed as early as 2006.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 22, 2013)

Guesses as to just what a high-megapixel camera will be?

My bet is it will have dual pixel technology... probably every FF and APS-C camera from here on will have it....

Some say the frame rate will be slow.... but there is no reason to expect this. The latest variant of Compact Flash can write at 350Mbytes per second....and that is with the cards that are out now. It will get faster... Some say you can not read the sensor that quickly.... but if a 5D2 can read 18Mpixels 60 times per second or if my p/s camera can read 16Mpixels 240 times per second, there is nothing that says a new model of camera can not keep up with a paltry 15 frames per second... the limitation is now shutter and mirror, not reading the sensor...

None of us know what canon plans to bring out next.... we are guessing. How many of us predicted dual-pixel? Canon has thousands of patents, but for various reasons only a few of them make it to market... The dropped ideas are not from some complex conspiracy theory, they get dropped for practical reasons.. thinks like yes, we COULD make a 240Mpixel sensor, but the yields are so low as to be impractical and the rest of the hardware is not ready to keep up to it... A camera is a system, not a collection of parts. You get to see new technology when it can be integrated into the system at a reasonable cost.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 22, 2013)

Diko said:


> Canon has officially, publicly announced the *technology*: August 31st, 2010 ...
> ...ANY given company has its Business Plan ahead for 1,2,3,5, 10 & 20 years. Each one in its own pace and milestones. Each subject to some extend to modification. What I mean is that we might be seeing technology developed as early as 2006.


My problem with this general line of reasoning is that it assumes that Canon (or any other company) purposely withholds a new technology in order to boost profits.

First, I don't know that that is a particularly good strategy for any company. Especially for a technology company because there is no way to prevent competitors from releasing the same or better technology while you sit on it.

Second, while Canon's research with high resolution sensors is well documented, it is exactly that – research. 

Getting that technology ready for market, identifying and correcting problems that may crop up, and developing the necessary manufacturing base to mass produce the product all take time and don't constitute sitting on or withholding technology. A company like Canon or Nikon cannot afford to bring a product to market before it is perfected. They have too much riding on their reputation. So, a research announcement or a prototype built specifically for a trade show is a far cry from a product that is ready for market. 

Finally, what no one on this forum knows or can know is whether or not the market exists for a high megapixel DSLR. In fact, what evidence we have suggests that the one relatively high megapixel DSLR out there (Nikon's D800) has not been particularly successful. 

The D800 is positioned in Nikon's lineup as a competitor to the 5DIII. All available figures would indicate that the 5DIII is significantly outselling the D800. 

People accuse Canon of all sorts of ulterior motives, but their reluctance to release a high megapixel camera may simply be because they are not certain that a large enough target market exists. 

Many times people on this forum throw out the term "marketing" as though it is some kind of pejorative. But, marketing's primary goal is always to make sure that a product can sell. The first question that must be answered is: is there a market for this product?

If Canon does release a high megapixel body in the next year, we will have the answer to that question. If they do not, we will also have the answer to that question. They are not being "mean" and they are not "losing," they are doing their due diligence to determine if they can sell the product.

This isn't just about company profits for stockholders. If Canon, Nikon, Sony, Panasonic or anyone else releases a product that cannot sell and loses money for the company, that diminishes their ability to offer other products that can sell at a price point that we all benefit from. 

(By the way, a 120 APS-H sensor would actually scale out to about 203 megapixels – 120 x 1.3 x 1.3)


----------



## Orangutan (Nov 22, 2013)

unfocused said:


> First, I don't know that that is a particularly good strategy for any company. Especially for a technology company because there is no way to prevent competitors from releasing the same or better technology while you sit on it.



In general I agree with your post. However, I'm told by a "reliable source" that IBM made a lot of money doing exactly this in the '60s and '70s. Because they had a dedicated customer base, they could trickle out the technology advances and make profits on each fractional upgrade. Eventually this caught up with them, but not before they'd made a bunch of profit.

I'm told, again by a "reliable source," that it's cheaper to tweak old tech than to roll out truly new tech because newer tech invariably has hurdles to overcome, which cost money and time. Tweaking older tech is not free, but is more predictable in terms of schedule and money.

Take all this with the requisite half-ton of salt. It is conceivable that Canon is withholding tech. Even so, it's irrelevant due to the business reasoning behind it. Their job is to make money. When they believe it's in their interest to release new tech they will do so if they can.


----------



## jrista (Nov 22, 2013)

unfocused said:


> Diko said:
> 
> 
> > Canon has officially, publicly announced the *technology*: August 31st, 2010 ...
> ...



+1 Well said! Completely agree.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 22, 2013)

Diko said:


> Canon has officially, publicly announced the *technology*: August 31st, 2010 (actually quite before that, but I seem to be unable to find the info on the net now).
> 
> Let us calculate, Neuro feel free to correct me: if APS-H is 120 MPs then FF would go to about 150 or so.
> 
> ...



Your logic is flawed. You're assuming that something done once as a one-off R&D project can immediately be done at production scale in a profitable manner. Further, you're suggesting the only reason that technology isn't in consumers' hands is that the company is withholding it. 

So...we landed on the moon in 1969, and the only reason we haven't had colonies there with routine shuttle flights back and forth for 40 years is that the US Government is withholding the technology from the tax paying citizens of the country. Okay-dokey-fine-n-dandy, you go on believing that.


----------



## Eldar (Nov 22, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Diko said:
> 
> 
> > Canon has officially, publicly announced the *technology*: August 31st, 2010 (actually quite before that, but I seem to be unable to find the info on the net now).
> ...


Just to add to this. I was an IC designer from the early 80s, into the 90s (dinosaur) and I have worked in or managed electronics and IT companies ever since (and still do). I will be very surprised if Canon didn´t have working prototypes of all key technologies we will see in the next body in 2010 or even before that. It is in most cases a tremendous job to bring it from prototype to industrialized product, unless it is an iteration of an existing technology. With the geometries required to produce the next high resolution sensor chip (with improved DR), they will have significant yield issues. They will also face significant challenges in getting even performance from the chips over the entire wafer. 

On top of the pure sensor production issues, they have to improve all the surrounding electronics, the signal processing etc. etc. We may argue that a $7k body is expensive. But considering all the electronics, firmware, software, mechanics etc. we need, in a very compact and weather sealed package, they need to control every element of that chain to perfection in order to make money, even with that price tag. That is why they test their products to death before they are released for volume sales. 

A fair guess is that Nikon released their 800/800E too early, because they had to, but it showed up in the feedback from the customers thereafter. How many 5DIII and 1DX complaints have we seen that can be related to a poor industrialization process? I would say none. That is one of the reasons why Canon make more money than the others.

Consider also that a Phase One 80MP package has a price tag of +$40k. In principle it is a same same product, with a body, sensor, mirror, shutter, nobs, firmware, software etc. for shooting images. The price difference is primarily caused by obvious yield issues with the sensor, a less perfected production process and lower volume to carry the R&D expenses.


----------



## jrista (Nov 23, 2013)

Eldar said:


> ...from the early 80ties, into the 90ties (dinosaur)...



LOL. ;D

Sorry, just thought I'd point this out. As written, that reads:

_"...from the early *eightyties *to the *ninetyties *(dinosaur)..."_

I think you wanted:

_"...from the early 80s to the 90s (dinosaur)..." _

Although, technically, the correct thing would be to spell the words out (which is usually correct for numbers over ten):

_"...from the early eighties to the nineties (dinosaur)..." _

Again, sorry, don't mean to be rude, but that gave me a pretty good laugh.


----------



## Eldar (Nov 23, 2013)

Thanks Jrista, the only way to learn is to be corrected


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 23, 2013)

Developing, manufacturing and marketing innovative imaging gear may be a challenging task but it is still a fairly trivialenterptise compared to "rocket science", space ships and colonies on the moon. So i think, we should not use these as relevant comparisons.

The truth is much simpler. 2 japanes companies live in a cosy duopoly. Both managed by a team of old, conservative by nature management teams. Innovation is a bad word in their circles. Maintaining the status quo rules their thinking. Even the most modest improvements of old technologies and products [e.g. mirrorslapping DSLRs] is meted out only in tiny, fractional doses. Anything that even remotely smells of "disruptive technology" [e.g. Mirroless cameras, not to mention things like lightfield imaging or holographic Technologies or glassless optics to name just a few]senfs cold shivers down their spines. 

And the same is true for their ultra-conservative clientele well in their 50s, 60s and beyond, that is over-represented here and in many other similar forums. 

Rather than challenging the suppliers of our imaging gear to give us far better tools for our money, many of us here excuse these suppliers in advance for their failure to do so. And worry more about those suppliers profitsthan about the value of their products for our creative tasks and ambitions - whether they be professional or for pleasure.

Instead we shoul push canon far mire. On a daily basis. With words and with our wallets. To deliver far better, far more enabling tools than just delivering a digital "rebel" in white plastic or a new 1Dx that is only marginally better than the last one was or than nikons next d4s is.

That is "the forest" we are looking at.

Heck, why dont we push canon more to at least pursue the 2 outstanding USPs they currently have over all other competitors? Technologically easy, no disruptive technology neede, no lunar landingscrequired, but lots of value to many of us and lots of profits for canon to be made:

1. radio-controlled wireless flash
Why still no RT controller built into every single EOS camera? Why still no 430EX-RT? Why still no 49 usd transceiver allowing us to integrate at least 580/430 IIs into an RT controlled flash setup? Not to even think of studio szrobes. Why wait until yongnuo does it? Why not be proactive and completely zrash nikon, sony and everybody else in the field of small flash? 

2. eye control af
Nobody else has it. Canon easily could. Bring a working 21st century version of ECF. The single. Most intuitive way to control where in an image we want to position the focus plane, and which subject in a scene we want to have tracked. 
Will work in dslrs with ovf and in milcs with evf. Little investment. Huge gains. For us. And for canon.

So modest and little innovation which would really help canon to stay market leader for many more years by creating true value for their clients. Thats what we should be demanding of our preferred supplier of imaging gear. And of course thete are a few more examples of such easy wins. Like 14 EV of DR. But that seems to be tougher to get from canon than a lunar landing.


----------



## Orangutan (Nov 23, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> Developing, manufacturing and marketing innovative imaging gear may be a challenging task but it is still a fairly trivialenterptise compared to "rocket science", space ships and colonies on the moon. So i think, we should not use these as relevant comparisons.


"challenge" in terms of cost is relative. I.e., why can't I buy a new, top-of-the line Porsche for $3,000? It's not rocket science.



> The truth is much simpler.


And you know this how?



> 2 japanes companies live in a cosy duopoly.


Since it's not rocket science, we should have seen a bunch of upstart competitors jump into the marketplace. Are you proposing an international conspiracy to suppress 35mm digital camera innovation?



> Both managed by a team of old, conservative by nature management teams. Innovation is a bad word in their circles. Maintaining the status quo rules their thinking. Even the most modest improvements of old technologies and products [e.g. mirrorslapping DSLRs] is meted out only in tiny, fractional doses.


I can't address Nikon with this, but Canon's other business units push tech to market pretty fast, as does Sony's. Why do you think they'd make an exception for cameras?



> Anything that even remotely smells of "disruptive technology" [e.g. Mirroless cameras, not to mention things like lightfield imaging or holographic Technologies or glassless optics to name just a few]senfs cold shivers down their spines.


Other companies have tried to put out these devices and have not yet succeeded. Again, were they intimidated into silence by the DSLR Yakuza?



> And the same is true for their ultra-conservative clientele well in their 50s, 60s and beyond, that is over-represented here and in many other similar forums.


The same group that buys the latest smart phones by the container-ship load?



> Rather than challenging the suppliers of our imaging gear to give us far better tools for our money, many of us here excuse these suppliers in advance for their failure to do so. And worry more about those suppliers profitsthan about the value of their products for our creative tasks and ambitions - whether they be professional or for pleasure.
> 
> Instead we shoul push canon far mire. On a daily basis. With words and with our wallets. To deliver far better, far more enabling tools than just delivering a digital "rebel" in white plastic or a new 1Dx that is only marginally better than the last one was or than nikons next d4s is.


Ah, I see: you are Don Quixote. If all the posters on all the photo blogs all rose in rebellion, it would still account for a modest fraction of the sales.



> 1. radio-controlled wireless flash
> Why still no RT controller built into every single EOS camera?


This is a simple business decision. It's the same reason I couldn't get a trunk light in the mid-level Honda Civic I bought over a decade ago. They wanted me to buy the high-end model (oxymoron?) They want to up-sell you, and it's not unique to the camera industry.



> 2. eye control af
> Nobody else has it. Canon easily could. Bring a working 21st century version of ECF. The single. Most intuitive way to control where in an image we want to position the focus plane, and which subject in a scene we want to have tracked.


Is there really a market for it? Would customers pay the extra $$$? Dunno, but this one question has a sliver of legitimacy.



> Thats what we should be demanding of our preferred supplier of imaging gear.


It's now a mass-consumer market: aficionados are no longer driving demand for this market.

Since we're now fantasizing, here's what I DEMAND from Canon: I want a mirrorless FF, with 43mm. square sensor so I can capture the full light circle and crop later. AND, instead of disposing of the space where the mirror box used to be, I want them to put in a trichroic prism so we can have a 3-chip sensor package with separate sensors for RGB. That will allow us to get rid of the Bayer filter, and could buy us >= 1-stop of additional light capture. And I DEMAND that it cost no more than $2,000, with 2-year warranty.

The one type of external pressure that might have an effect is to compel the market participants to create a standard lens mount and interface, similar to micro four thirds, for APS-C, 35mm (and maybe MF). When we can freely mix lenses and bodies we will see more competition. We saw a bit of this in the US when cell phone carriers were required to let you keep your phone number when you changed plans.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 23, 2013)

Orangutan said:


> Since we're now fantasizing, here's what I DEMAND from Canon: I want a mirrorless FF, with 43mm. square sensor so I can capture the full light circle and crop later. AND, instead of disposing of the space where the mirror box used to be, I want them to put in a trichroic prism so we can have a 3-chip sensor package with separate sensors for RGB. That will allow us to get rid of the Bayer filter, and could buy us >= 1-stop of additional light capture. And I DEMAND that it cost no more than $2,000, with 2-year warranty.



I'd also love a MILC with a [smaller] square sensor, since a 48x48mm would result in a body the size of a 1D DSLR and would require new, huge lenses to go with it.  

Personally I don't care that much for the "prism+3-sensor" version ... but YES, that would be along the lines of true innovation that we should rightfully expect from Canon as well as other suppliers of 21st century imaging gear. 

And ... such innovative cameras might even be worth asking prices of up to 7000 USD/Euro that CaNikon today are charging for only marginally improved iterations of their age-old mirrorslappers. 



Orangutan said:


> The one type of external pressure that might have an effect is to compel the market participants to create a standard lens mount and interface, similar to micro four thirds, for APS-C, 35mm (and maybe MF). When we can freely mix lenses and bodies we will see more competition. We saw a bit of this in the US when cell phone carriers were required to let you keep your phone number when you changed plans.



+1. Yes, absolutely. Unified lens mount [in 3 sizes for (m)FT / APS-C [1.5x] / KB sensors] plus open standard, fully documented lens-camera protocol. However, this specific demand should not be directed so much at Canon and other suppliers of imaging gear, but more at our lawmakers.


----------



## jrista (Nov 23, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> The truth is much simpler. 2 japanes companies live in a cosy duopoly. Both managed by a team of old, conservative by nature management teams. Innovation is a bad word in their circles. Maintaining the status quo rules their thinking. Even the most modest improvements of old technologies and products [e.g. mirrorslapping DSLRs] is meted out only in tiny, fractional doses. Anything that even remotely smells of "disruptive technology" [e.g. Mirroless cameras, not to mention things like lightfield imaging or holographic Technologies or glassless optics to name just a few]senfs cold shivers down their spines.



Where does this utter CRAP come from??? It's a complete fabrication.

*Canon THRIVES on innovation:*
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/about_canon/innovation

Remember, they were the first with AF sensors and electronic AF lenses. They were pioneers with the ultrasonic motor, and were the first to use it for lens focus drives. They developed diffractive optics when the rest of the industry and even scientists laughed at them and said it was impossible. They were an early pioneer in using fluorite elements in lens designs, and were the first to use artificially grown fluorite in their lenses. They pioneered low dispersion (UD) optical glass shortly after that. They were first to market with FF DSLR CMOS sensors, and they were the first to use CMOS sensors in commercially successful digital cameras. They were the first to hit 20mp in an FF CMOS sensor. 

Canon has innovated like a bat out of hell for decades.

*Canon also received more patents in 2012 than even SONY!!* Sony, the juggernaut of the sensor and electronics industries, was outpaced by Canon when it came to innovating new technologies: 
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/about_canon/standard_display/abtcan_in_canonInnovation_misc/abtcan_in_patents_misc

This whole post by AvTvM is a complete fabrication, pulled strait out of the dark, smelly holes no one wishes to think about. It is one thing to be frustrated that Canon doesn't have a camera with the kind of sensor you want. It is an entirely different thing to make up a fake story about "ancient conservative management" that "fears innovation", when the actual FACTS spanning decades clearly prove the opposite.



The current FACTS are that Canon is, has been, and will continue to be an innovative company. The fact is that Canon is developing photographic equipment with different goals and plans in mind than SoNikon or any other competitor. The fact is that Canon does not and has not ever shown any interest in DIRECTLY competing with specific models from competing brands. The FACT is that Canon, with their latest equipment, listened very closely and clearly to the very loud outcry from THEIR customers, the outcry for bigger pixels, better high ISO performance, better AF on the 5D and 1D lines, and faster frame rates...and they delivered, quite exquisitely, the things their customers asked for. Given Canon's TRACK RECORD of *extensive innovation* AND *listening to their customers*, I have _great confidence_ Canon will deliver the things their customers are now currently asking for. 

There is no conservative management that fears innovation at Canon...quite the opposite, actually. A company that feared innovation wouldn't be a world leader in any of the technology that Canon excels at.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 23, 2013)

jrista said:


> Where does this utter CRAP come from??? It's a complete fabrication.



It comes from the fact that none of Canon's many recent innovations have directly addressed his specific desires. How dare Canon not respond to him?!? :


----------



## mkabi (Nov 24, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Where does this utter CRAP come from??? It's a complete fabrication.
> ...



lol... and he has a budget of $2000.
One man.... one dream.... and only $2000... Quick Canon, spend millions for that $2000.


----------



## eml58 (Nov 24, 2013)

Eldar said:


> the early 80s, into the 90s (dinosaur)



I don't for a moment disagree with Jrista, but I think all of us Dinosaurs write it up in a similar manner, by the time we get to become Dinosaurs we tend to be a little Lazy, 80s is just so much easier to write up than Eighties.

And if Eldar is from the Jurassic (80s & 90s), I'm from the Triassic (60s & 70s).

And I agree with your comments as well, it's a tough Game staying competitive in the Camera World, even more difficult keeping people on CR happy.


----------



## eml58 (Nov 24, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> And the same is true for their ultra-conservative clientele well in their 50s, 60s and beyond, that is over-represented here



I agree with this part only because I'm Guilty, the rest ?? I need some Panadol,


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 24, 2013)

mkabi said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Rejoice! Canon will happily take 7000 $ from you fot their next iteration big bulky heavy boring as hell mirror-slapper. 
Or more. ;-)


----------



## eml58 (Nov 24, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> Rejoice! Canon will happily take 7000 $ from you fot their next iteration big bulky heavy boring as hell mirror-slapper.
> Or more. ;-)



AvTvM, why do you bother with all this ?? Out of 605 Posts all that changes is which specific part of Canon you dislike, otherwise it's just one long + 12 month Agonised Rant against Everything Canon.

You need to lighten up Man, get a Hobby (Photography might work for you), Go out more, have a Beer, spend less time on CR, head over to SR or NR, get a girlfriend, get a friend, spread yourself around a bit.

But heck, this is just the opinion of an ultra conservative Chap in his 60s like those Chaps Managing so poorly at Canon.


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 24, 2013)

eml58 said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Rejoice! Canon will happily take 7000 $ from you fot their next iteration big bulky heavy boring as hell mirror-slapper.
> ...



I Concur. He hasn't posted any photography on a photography forum.


----------



## jrista (Nov 24, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> mkabi said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Canon will also happily take $5000, $3500, $2000, $1100, $500, $250 etc. for bodies that are smaller, some of which have no mirror to slap around at all, and a few of which have very innovative technology like DPAF. Grow up man, Canon has a product _*line*_...that means more than one, and therefor at least one to fit the majority of needs.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 24, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> I Concur. He hasn't posted any photography on a photography forum.



It isn't, primarily, a photography forum, it is, predominantly, a one photography (and video) manufacturer equipment _rumor_ forum. And there is nothing wrong with that, though like eml58 points out, if you are not a Canon aficionado there would seem to be several billion things better served with your time. 

I am a frequent illustrative image poster, but that is all I am interested in displaying at CR. All power to those that do propagate the various lens and body specific image galleries though, there are some truly superb images here.


----------



## sanj (Nov 24, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I Concur. He hasn't posted any photography on a photography forum.
> ...



Yes, I come here for the rumors first, gear talk second, humor 3rd, photos by the way and last but not the least the cynicism. Serious!


----------



## Eldar (Nov 24, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> Developing, manufacturing and marketing innovative imaging gear may be a challenging task but it is still a fairly trivialenterptise compared to "rocket science", space ships and colonies on the moon. So i think, we should not use these as relevant comparisons.


I know this grumping does not deserve more space on CR, but one last;

Your statement is actually wrong. Not to say that making a space ship is trivial, but in some areas it is a lot easier than producing a state of the art camera body.

To send a space ship to the moon takes 1, ONE, working space ship. For space shuttles they make a few. The market is as close to a monopoly as it gets. To succeed in the camera world, you have to produce thousands of equal quality and sell them in a very competitive market.

The majority of components in a space ship has been developed, qualified and industrialized for other applications. The use of electronics components and the electronics production methods applied in a space ship are actually very conservative, because of the environment it will operate, whereas a camera producer needs to use the latest state-of-the-art components and production methods available to be competitive.

A lot of the components in a space ship is handmade and verified as individuals, through lots of costly and energy consuming testing procedures. A challenge for a camera body producer is to bring it from a working pre production model to be produced in fully automated, high volume production lines with consistent quality and high yield.

A space ship is developed with very long lead times, on budgets of astronomical proportions, delivered by companies on cost-plus type contracts. A commercial enterprise has to develop their products within the R&D budgets available and all sub suppliers are on fixed price contracts. And the life span for a product generation is less than 3 years.

When I worked in Ericsson, making cell phones, we had the next generation models as fully working models long before we released the prior generation to the market. There is no reason to believe the situation is different for a camera producer.

Look at the car industry. If you go to a car shows you´ll see fully working stunning models that may become the next generation cars and we wonder when we can buy one. Only to learn that it may be a production volume car in 5 years time and when they finally become production models, they don´t look so gorgeous, because the model was handmade and did not have to take the limitations given by a volume production situation into consideration.

So, yes its is not the same challenge to make a new camera as making a space ship. In many ways it is actually tougher. Concluding that a company is slow and non-inventive because their off the shelf products does not include something you read in a 2-3 year old patent paper or a technology prototype you heard of, just shows ignorance.

I suggest you show us some of your images, so we can see how Canon´s crappy technology prevents you from producing acceptable images. Maybe some of the excellent photographers on this forum could help you improve.


----------



## Diko (Nov 24, 2013)

dilbert said:


> Given that the USPTO allowed RSA encryption (based on a mathematical formula) to be patented, it would be interesting to know what those patents covered and what the quality of them is. If Canon is anything like other companies then employees get a bonus for each patent, meaning that a lot of people focus on generating patents "just because." I know one guy that has the walls of his office covered in patent plaques, many of which are "just ideas" that never even got to prototype phase... would I say that he's a better innovator than someone with only one or two that have actually made it to products? Nope...


 +1 mate!

*INNOVATION is a MARKET GAMECHANGER*

So:

1/ *Jrista *- WTF? Getting PR statment out of the company's website is bigger CRAP than anything else.

2/ *Neuro* - I said it last time: CANON has 3000 patents and some of them quite interesting, actually but 95% never put into real world application. INNOVATION is NOT = number of patents.

For the other you are right that I don't put into account the time to put a technology on the shelves....
However from my perspective you are naive. ;-)

So I guess we are both right to some extends as long as we are both making assumptions.

And *NEURO*, really how on earth did you come up with that comparison between NASA (a non-profit organization) and CANON?

3/ As *AvTvM* put it: it's all about


> true innovation that we should rightfully expect from Canon as well as other suppliers of 21st century imaging gear.
> 
> And ... such innovative cameras might even be worth asking prices of up to 7000 USD/Euro that CaNikon today are charging for only marginally improved iterations of their age-old mirrorslappers.



4/ *ELDAR*... don't you remember 5D m3 Memory leaks issue and its perfected to death  *solution*?

5/ *Orangutan * - exactly that white kiss got me into this discussion. What now? Is Canon a subsidiary of Apple? And due to that *DSLR Yakuza* small companies such as *Lytro* might provide TRUE *INNOVATIONs* but might as well not be able to ;-)

5/ 1DX ONLY true huge innovation is the *FPS*. *ISO *may be an advancement, but is also a *trade off* for *DR*. Everything else is iteration of an existing technology.

6/


Eldar said:


> When I worked in Ericsson, making cell phones, we had the next generation models as fully working models long before we released the prior generation to the market. There is no reason to believe the situation is different for a camera producer.
> 
> Look at the car industry. If you go to a car shows you´ll see fully working stunning models that may become the next generation cars and we wonder when we can buy one. Only to learn that it may be a production volume car in 5 years time and when they finally become production models, they don´t look so gorgeous, because the model was handmade and did not have to take the limitations given by a volume production situation into consideration.


 Yeah as I said... NOW CANON maybe already has a 75 MP Dual Pix AF camera with at least 50K ISO... but most probably we will NOT see it before 2017 as a 1DX Mark 3.

7/ Of course it's business and it was the point all the time and NO: *1DX does NOT provide what I want... NIKON to some extends does. But all my glasses are CANON and I can't switch, because I will loose a good amount of money!* Since it's business I am being blackmailed by CANON. Get the picture now?


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 24, 2013)

he guys, relax. Don't worry ... not about me, my private life or my pictures ... they are fine. If there is something to be worried over, then it's the future of companies like Ericsson [ups, they're gone, Sony took over what was left of them], Nokia [ups, killed by Apple and Samsung; back to manufacturing finnish rubber boots again], Blackberry [ups, killed by Samsung and Apple] or for you older folk here SperryUnivac, Digital Equipment, Compaq and next up ... Canon and Nikon ... both not unlikely to end up as next takeover targets for some Chinese government fund, Russian oligarch or indian moneymaker ... like IBM/Lenovo, LandRover, Jaguar, Volvo and Saab. ;D 

But I agree, let's cheer up a little and look at some nice images together. 

So, what do ya think of these fellas here? They're the Sony A7/R development team. Do they look like it is "oh so difficult" to build a completely new camera? 







Or do they rather look like they are having great fun developing a truly innovative new camera? And does solving a lot of technical challenges using some "out of the box thinking" make 'em smile? I have not yet seen a similar picture of Canon (or Nikon) camera designers and engineers ... maybe because they are kept chained to their lab desks in a Tokyo basement dungeon. Not being allowed to innovate but rather having to think all day long about how to hold back functionality and how to best marketing-cripple each and every "new" Canon EOS? Not many smiles there, understandably. Not much pride either. Look at the interview video with that poor Canon cinema head-honcho Mr. Onda. Cringing with shame when asked why Magic Lantern can offer Canon customers so much value that Canon is trying to visciously and greedily withhold from them. http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/11/from-interbee-interview-with-the-head-of-cinema-eos/

These Sony fellas ... well, read a bit here what they think ... http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/interview-with-sony-a7-a7r-developers-faster-lenses-are-in-development

And have a look at their new camera. No mirrorslapping any more. Not big and bulky, but small and light but still very solidly built. "Full frame" 36x24mm sensor. Better than any sensor in any old Canon DSLR out there. 






Look at the size comparison ... unfortunately Canon 1D X is not available in this tool, but 5D III 




Sony A7/R complete with viewfinder and FF sensor is not so much larger than the sadly-crippled Canon EOS.




Feel free to compare yourself: http://camerasize.com/compare/#488,312

It may be challenging to stuff an FF sensor plus assorted mechanics and electronics into a a big fat 7000+ USD/Euro mirrorslapper. These Sony guys managed to do it in a much smaller box, eliminating the mirrorslapper ... and had fun doing so. Creating the "first of its kind" new flagship mirrorless camera. Not at 7000 USD/€ but at *launch* prices of € 2099 and € 1499 ... even inclusive of 20%+ European VAT. 

Actually, I fully expect to see the A7 body in some special offers at the "magical" € 999,- pricepoint any time soon. We are getting there already: http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/in-france-a7-for-eur-1-269-costs-less-than-high-end-aps-c-cameras/

And you know, to me at age 52 btw  ... this smells like the right spirit ... hell-raising ... all-out ... full-speed innovation ... maximum value for customer's money! It reminds me of something exactly 10 years ago ... you all remember it as well, don't ya ... THE DIGITAL REBEL ... Canon 2003 ... EOS 300D ... first digital mirrorslapper for less than a grand. Here we are again, 10 years later. 

Canon? Last wake-up call! I consider it a shame for Canon not being the ones in the lead this time round. And I consider it a shame they are not even giving their customers existing unique-to-Canon technology in their 7000 USD/€ flagship cameras. Small, cheap but incredibly useful things, like a built-in radio speedlite RT-trigger or a super-intuitive eye-controlled AF-system. 

So why should we be drooling over a 1D Xs sometime in 2014 which may have a sensor that finally catches up with what competitors have been offering for 2 years in terms of resolution and DR ... and little else, except maybe even more "video optimization"? Not very much compared to what Sony's got going at the moment, if you ask me. 

Of course, things are not all fine and dandy at Sony either . A7/R are remarkable cameras in many ways but still fall somewhat short in a number of critical areas. Battery charge is dismal, AF is not fast enough for action shots, shutter is noisy rather than completely silent and there are not many native lenses yet. BUT, they were innovative and they PIONEERED something. Those fellas in the pic above are most definitely already working long shifts on their next, even better camera. They will likely get access to Olympus' 5-axis in-body image-stabilizer technology and faster Contrast-AF implementation.  http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sony-and-olympus-will-share-mirrorless-distribution-and-tech/ 

But most importantly: they look like they are enjoying innovation and are allowed to live it! I'd love to see some of that spirit at work at CaNikon. It would be good for us .. and even better for them. Good photographers like us  can take pictures with almost any gear. For CaNikon however it is about ... survival. 


PS: I have started selling off some Canon gear. Yesterday Sony A7/R have arrived were I live. I'll check 'em out this week. So I may have a little less time to post here. Not to wake up Canon and many here can go back to celebrate Canon high mass.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 24, 2013)

@ AvTvM, Diko, and others who believe themselves more knowledgable than Canon on how Canon should conduct their business: Canon's goal, like all other publicly traded companies, is to attempt to provide value to shareholders (in some countries, it's more than a goal, it's a legal mandate). Which optical and industrial company have you led, that either prospered or failed under your leadership, and gave you the experience to know more than Canon?

As for patents vs. innovation, if you're not doing R&D, there's nothing to patent. At a fundamental level, the only things a business actually owns are its physical plant and its intellectual property. Is every patent the tungsten light bulb filament? Of course not. Is every patent intended to be a product? No. 

How about a patent for a ceramic lens barrel to reduce weight? Useless? Think it'll end up in an L-series lens someday soon? Unlikely...but it's already been used in the lens that Canon made for the Subaru Telescope (even with the lighter barrel, the lens still weighs ~1,900 lbs). The point is, not all of Canon's innovation is intended to be used in your next dSLR or lens. 

But you guys go right on blasting Canon for not making _your_ perfect camera (which I'm sure is different for each of you). I'm sure the views of half-a-dozen or so Internet complainers will shift the course of a diversified $37B company. :


----------



## Woody (Nov 24, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> But most importantly: they look like they are enjoying innovation and are allowed to live it! I'd love to see some of that spirit at work at CaNikon. It would be good for us .. and even better for them. Good photographers like us  can take pictures with almost any gear. For CaNikon however it is about ... survival.



Go ahead, enjoy your gear. I'm sure the A7R is a great camera.

But time will tell which company made the right choice. You know, Minolta came up with the first autofocus SLR camera... but where are they now? Conversely, Canon does not believe in 1" sensor, claiming 'once you go below APS-C the next logical size is 1/2.3 inch' - http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0336328811/cp-2013-interview-with-canons-masaya-maeda. And if you follow Amazon/BCN charts now, the RX100 is nowhere to be seen.

Canon and Nikon may not be at the forefront of technology, but they certainly instill more confidence in consumers than Sony, which is haemorrhaging financially.


----------



## Eldar (Nov 24, 2013)

Is it possible to filter out unwanted posts from unwanted CR members? AcTvM & Diko, you would be filtered out fairly fast. Ignorant "besserwissers" don´t add value to anything anywhere! And if the images you posted represents the quality you have to offer, please keep them to yourself.

PS! Ericsson is very much alive and doing well. They went through a long term planned exit of the cell phone business, to focus on what they do well and where they still are world leaders.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 24, 2013)

Eldar said:


> Is it possible to filter out unwanted posts from unwanted CR members?



Profile tab > Modify Profile sub-tab > Edit Buddies/Ignore list.


----------



## Eldar (Nov 24, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > Is it possible to filter out unwanted posts from unwanted CR members?
> ...


Thanks, much appreciated


----------



## jrista (Nov 24, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> he guys, relax. Don't worry ... not about me, my private life or my pictures ... they are fine.



Trust me, no one worries...




AvTvM said:


> And have a look at their new camera. No mirrorslapping any more. Not big and bulky, but small and light but still very solidly built. "Full frame" 36x24mm sensor. Better than any sensor in any old Canon DSLR out there.



You make the mistaken assumption that everyone wants Sony's small, ergonomically inferior body. I'll take a 5D III any day over the A7r body. Not everyone want's small. When it comes to ergonomic camera bodies, Canon is decades ahead of Sony, as they have had decades to respond to customer feedback and PERFECT their bodies. Light is not always a desirable trait, either...when using larger lenses, which is frequently the case with Canon users, a heavier body is critical to correctly counterbalancing the lens.





AvTvM said:


> It may be challenging to stuff an FF sensor plus assorted mechanics and electronics into a a big fat 7000+ USD/Euro mirrorslapper. These Sony guys managed to do it in a much smaller box, eliminating the mirrorslapper ... and had fun doing so. Creating the "first of its kind" new flagship mirrorless camera. Not at 7000 USD/€ but at *launch* prices of € 2099 and € 1499 ... even inclusive of 20%+ European VAT.



A challenge has nothing to do with it. Fitting all those electronics into a small body isn't the point. On the contrary, making the body size large IS THE ENTIRE POINT. People who buy the 1D X WANT that large, comfortably fitting body and extra vertical grip. A lot of people actually BUY AN ADD ON GRIP when lesser camera models don't have one. Again, you are making an incorrect assumption, the assumption that everyone wants a super tiny camera body. Not everyone does. 

In fact, for many photographers still today, a DSLR just isn't big enough. Many professional portrait photographers still use large format cameras for 4x5 and 8x10 film. Some famous architectural photographers still use large format 4x5 cameras. A LOT of phenomenally good landscape photographers still use large format cameras, usually 4x5, some even do 8x10. An increasing number of photographers are rediscovering relatively ancient forms of photography such as large wet plate collodion, which can be considerably larger than 8x10 in many cases, and some have even gone back to the original, daguerreotype. All of these forms of photography use cameras that are considerably larger and far more bulky than even the 1D X could ever aspire to. 

It isn't about the size of the camera, my friend. It isn't even about the quality of the sensor. A sensor may not even be relevant! It is about whether the form of photography appeals to you, and whether the results satisfy you or not. No one could ever say tht a daguerreotype or wet plate made with a custom pinhole wood box camera could ever compare to the quality of a Sony A7r...but again...that isn't the point. I'd offer that a light sensitive copper plate can be worlds more artistic, each one an entirely unique piece of literal art, than anything any modern digital camera is capable of producing.

So, so what if Sony managed to "ingeniously" stuff a bunch of electronic camera parts into a smaller box. What the hell doe the size of the box have to do with photography? Nothing! Nothing at all! Never has, never will.



AvTvM said:


> So why should we be drooling over a 1D Xs sometime in 2014 which may have a sensor that finally catches up with what competitors have been offering for 2 years in terms of resolution and DR ... and little else, except maybe even more "video optimization"? Not very much compared to what Sony's got going at the moment, if you ask me.



Oh, geeze...a whole TWO YEARS! My gosh, that is such a LONG time! You seem to forget that Sony spent tens of billions of dollars investing in their fabs, researching this "new" technology, and even more money to put it into production and sell all their sensors to...well, everyone. Sony's debt rating is junk. They consumed far too much debt in far too short a time period. Their electronics division, including their CIS division, is hemorrhaging money.

It took YEARS for Sony to develop the technology they are now selling. And, they aren't even benefiting from it yet...it will take many more YEARS for them to get out from under the billions in high interest debt they still have before they can even profit from all this advanced new sensor technology.

Canon, on the other hand? In 2012 (the last full fiscal year we have data for), Canon sold $18 billion from their imaging division alone (out of the $35 billion in total revenues...that means more than HALF Canon's revenue benefited from their photography sales.) Their imaging division (photography) grow by 7.2% in 2012 yoy. Their customer satisfaction increased. Sales of that gigantic 1D X? Beyond expectations (they of course don't offer any specific numbers), and it was the most widely used camera at the Olympics (just as telling as specific numbers).




AvTvM said:


> Of course, things are not all fine and dandy at Sony either . A7/R are remarkable cameras in many ways but still fall somewhat short in a number of critical areas. Battery charge is dismal, AF is not fast enough for action shots, shutter is noisy rather than completely silent and there are not many native lenses yet. BUT, they were innovative and they PIONEERED something. Those fellas in the pic above are most definitely already working long shifts on their next, even better camera. They will likely get access to Olympus' 5-axis in-body image-stabilizer technology and faster Contrast-AF implementation.  http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sony-and-olympus-will-share-mirrorless-distribution-and-tech/



As I mentioned before, Canon has been pioneering things for decades. Canon was the pioneer into full frame CMOS image sensors, in the last 10 years. You seem to think that pioneering something "new" in a world already saturated with knowledge about the field of photography is easy. I would also point out that Sony did not really pioneer anything new. They took existing knowledge, including knowledge that was originally discovered by Canon (i.e. FF CMOS image sensors), and repackaged it differently. That isn't really pioneering in the same way as Canon developing the USM AF motor, or developing diffractive optics in spite of an optical and photographic community that was literally saying diffractive optics were impossible. Sony just repackaged existing technology into a smaller package, and dropped another piece of existing technology: the viewfinder (and it's attached mirrorbox.) They didn't even pioneer mirrorless cameras...other companies did that. 



AvTvM said:


> But most importantly: they look like they are enjoying innovation and are allowed to live it! I'd love to see some of that spirit at work at CaNikon. It would be good for us .. and even better for them. Good photographers like us  can take pictures with almost any gear. For CaNikon however it is about ... survival.



First...there is no CaNikon. Canon and Nikon do not have any business alliance, they do not share technology. There IS a SoNikon...there is a literal alliance between Sony and Nikon where they share technology. Nikon is definitely in survival mode...which is WHY they created an alliance with Sony...Sony is their life raft (which is odd, as Sony needs a life raft of their own from a financial standpoint). Canon stands on it's own, and is quite profitable doing so. I am not sure why Nikon is in survival mode. They make a good camera...they just can't seem to maintain supply, which I think hurts their sales, which in turn certainly hurts their revenue...

Let's talk about Canon's recent innovations. Again, it is becoming increasingly difficult to truly pioneer something in this industry. Most of the critically important relevant discoveries have been made over the last 100 years or so. But there are a few things Canon did that are in line with Sony's A7r "innovation". For example, Canon's shutter on the 1D X is capable of moving at an incredible 14 frames per second with mirror lockup. The shutter and mirror assembly are capable of moving at an equally incredible 12 frames per second. That was a significant challenge, as multiple critical participants in the imaging pipeline had to be improved to support this high speed: The mirror assembly, the shutter, the AF and metering processes, sensor readout rate, image processing rate.

Oh, there is a nice little interview that demonstrates how excited the people at Canon who were involved in making these developments were: http://www.canon.com/technology/interview/eos/index.html. Further, they did it in the face of fairly considerable challenges posed by natural disasters which posed a lot of difficulties in getting the parts they required in order to build and test 1D X prototypes and deliver on time. 

You wondered if there were happy, excited, innovative teams at Canon? Certainly! Here's a counterphoto for your Sony team:






It is naive to think that Sony is now the only viable company in the photographic imaging sector. Canon received more patents than Sony last year, indicating they are MORE innovative. They have teams of researchers who are just as enthusiastic. Canon, unlike Sony (as indicated by your link about Sony sharing Olympus tech) develops 100% of its own technology...they own and develop the entire photographic stack, and that even extends beyond the camera into the realm of printing as well. Sony has taken the shortcut route...they create alliances and share technology, rather than developing it all by themselves (and alliances can be broken, so Sony's long term future is not guaranteed if their partner companies decide to break ties.) So, while Canon may be a whole whopping two years (yes, sarcasm) behind Sony, they are innovating in a much larger pool. Canon's goals are laudable, to create a consistent imaging pipeline where all the components, from camera to printed photo, are developed to produce consistent results. Canon's goals also certainly seem to be more profitable, and therefor more sustainable, over the long term. 

Between Canon, with a well defined top-to-bottom business plan fueled by more innovation than Sony, with no debt; and Sony, with a patchwork business plan fueled by acquiring technology through alliance (alliances which may be broken) and funded by excessive debt (which will be eating into Sony's profits for years to come)...I'd put my money on Canon as being the long term winner here.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 24, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> And have a look at their new camera. No mirrorslapping any more. Not big and bulky, but small and light but still very solidly built. "Full frame" 36x24mm sensor. Better than any sensor in any old Canon DSLR out there.



Small and light. Now, mount a 70-200/2.8 on it and you have a POS from an ergonomic standpoint. 

Better than any old Canon sensor? If I shoot at ISO 3200, does the Sony give me more DR and less noise? Did someone appoint you the universal arbiter of "better" when we weren't looking? :


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 24, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Small and light. Now, mount a 70-200/2.8 on it and you have a POS from an ergonomic standpoint.


What do you think is easier: to make a EOS 1D X small and light if you don't need a 70-200/2.8 for a certain shooting/task/trip? Or to use a small camera for all tasks where this is possible and desirable and make the camera bigger, if and when needed ... 

The Sony fellas have a solution. Granted, not very innovative ;D but nevertheless still quite effective: 




Anybody who thinks this is still not large enough or there's still not enough grip, chunk and beef to it ... it's no problem! A whole industry of "rig producers" is happy to deliver devices of all sorts and shapes to make that thing bigger, heavier and bulkier! It's easy! 

Aside from that, there are enough photographers who will never use a 70-200 or larger tele lens - not even on a 1 D Xs [the high megapixel version]. And many more would be happy to have a compact, silent, vibration-free FF MILC from Canon *in addition to* a big fat mirrorslapper. 

My point is not, that a Sony A7/R or any other compact FF MILC is "better at anything" than a large DSLR like a Canon EOS 1D X/s or "better for anybody". It is clearly not. My point is: Sony has come up with a really innovative camera. Canon has not in the last few years. Only marginally improved iterations of un-innovative cameras. I consider this to be a less than ideal state. And I know, I'm not the only one.


----------



## candc (Nov 24, 2013)

I don't recall reading that users of the 1dx needed or wanted more resolution? I reckon having a super high res option is good as long as you also have some good down sampling and maybe aps-c modes like the DX mode on the d800. 

Generally i think that the people that use the 1 series cameras take a lot of shots with them (1500 at an event) I read that the d800 cranks out 50mb+ files and burns through memory cards like popcorn.

I thought canon realized that they didn't need to win the mp war to win the market with the pros who the 1 series cameras are aimed at. Maybe they will continue with 2 high end pro bodies, the 1dx and this one?

PS i don't understand why people post complaints about the large size of the 1 series cameras. One thing canon knows how to do is design and build cameras for the people that need and use them, that's exactly why the 1dx is what it is


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 24, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> PS: I have started selling off some Canon gear. Yesterday Sony A7/R have arrived were I live. I'll check 'em out this week. So I may have a little less time to post here.



Feel free to stop altogether. Go harass the nice folks on the Sony Rumors forum. I have no doubt you'll become disillusioned about your new little toy camera soon enough.


----------



## jrista (Nov 24, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> My point is not, that a Sony A7/R or any other compact FF MILC is "better at anything" than a large DSLR like a Canon EOS 1D X/s or "better for anybody". It is clearly not. My point is: Sony has come up with a really innovative camera. Canon has not in the last few years. Only marginally improved iterations of un-innovative cameras. I consider this to be a less than ideal state. And I know, I'm not the only one.



Your notion that the 1D X is not as innovative as the A7r is flat out wrong. As I said before, the A7r is nothing revolutionary. It is, in it's entirety, an evolution on prior technologies. It's "novelty" (if you can even call it that) is that it is the first full frame sensor stuffed into a mirrorless camera body. That's it. Sure, that is _intriguing_, and there are some interesting innovations in the sensor (such as offset microlenses) that assist in maximizing IQ for such a large sensor with such a small flange distance (which is a problem that must be overcome *as a result of* using a full frame sensor in a camera with no space between the back of the lens and the sensor plane). There aren't any more particularly compelling innovations in the A7r than in the 1D X, however. Your completely ignoring the 14/12 fps frame rate, the 61 point AF system, the way the metering sensor is intimately tied into the AF system, the ISO 51200 native ISO setting, etc. These are all INNOVATIONS of the 1D X...innovations you are conveniently ignoring in order to support your infatuated arguments about the A7r.

You also seem to think that the original 1Ds DSLR was un-innovative. It was the first FF DSLR! How could that possibly be "un-innovative"?? Canon successively increased megapixel count in the 1D series well beyond anything anyone else was doing, quite innovatively, I might add. They broke the 10mp barrier then the 20mp barrier for FF cameras. You seem to be completely blind to the technological advancements that laid the foundation for Canon's current success, if not the foundation for the entirety of modern full frame digital photography. CANON innovated the technologies that are the ultimate basis for Sony's A7r. Prior to Canon, everyone was still using CCD sensors and off-die image processing.

Honestly, please tell us, what exactly is so specifically compelling about the A7r that it is a uniquely or particularly innovative product in todays world? Is it just that a FF sensor is in a mirrorless package? That is an evolution...and evolution on top of APS-C mirrorless cameras. Because it can use an add on camera grip? That's nothing unique nor innovative...I've been using grips on my cameras for years, from the lowly Rebel to the 7D and Canon 5D III. Because it's mirrorless? Olympus and Pentax were on the mirrorless ball LONG before Sony. You yourself said the A7r was inferior on many respects...terrible battery usage, lackluster AF performance, limited lenses, etc. So, please, what EXACTLY is so compellingly innovative about the A7r that makes it "pioneering new territory"? As far as I can tell, it's just more of the same evolutionary progress on prior technology that you are blaming Canon for...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 24, 2013)

jrista said:


> So, please, what EXACTLY is so compellingly innovative about the A7r that makes it "pioneering new territory"?



Isn't it obvious? There are two things that make the a7R compellingly innovative: AvTvM likes it, and Canon didn't make it.


----------



## jrista (Nov 24, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > So, please, what EXACTLY is so compellingly innovative about the A7r that makes it "pioneering new territory"?
> ...



That seems to be it!


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 24, 2013)

jrista said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Digital cameras are a mature industry.... The last "groundbreaking innovation" was the invention of the digital sensor, which was in reality a refinement of work done with photo-diodes... the only thing in the last 10 years that comes close to innovation was dual-pixel technology.... a new and wonderful way of doing live-view focusing that for some inexplicable reason was also invented by Olympus and is on the OM-D EM-1...


----------



## candc (Nov 24, 2013)

JanneN said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > I don't recall reading that users of the 1dx needed or wanted more resolution? I reckon having a super high res option is good as long as you also have some good down sampling and maybe aps-c modes like the DX mode on the d800.
> ...



True enough, if it can be made to have the same frame rates and resolution as the 1dx and also shoot in a high mp mode then its a winner all around.


----------



## jrista (Nov 24, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Actually, I believe it was Fujifilm who first implemented _"focal plane phase detection AF."_ The FPPDAF in the OM-D EM-1 is still based on that original Fuji design, from what I gathered. It isn't really "dual pixel" technology as Canon _innovated_ recently, in which every single pixel in the sensor is capable of performing AF functions.

I will happily hand the original innovation to Fujifilm, though, as they had the technology back in 2009 or 2010. Canon's dual pixel tech is an evolutionary innovation on top of that (although it is certainly compelling, evolutionary or not). As for being particularly ground breaking...I dunno. The underlying concept is the same as dedicated phase detect AF sensors...which was simply adapted into CMOS sensors. Still feels like a long term evolutionary process than a revolutionary one...but maybe that is just me. 

The "dual fast AF" of the OM-D EM-1 doesn't seem all that different than Canon's Hybrid AF. The EM-1's sounds better implemented, and certainly much faster (I really don't understand why Canon can't optimize their algorithms and achieve fast CDAF.) So, regarding the EM-1, I'm not really sure there is anything ground breakingly new there.


----------



## jrista (Nov 24, 2013)

JanneN said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > I don't recall reading that users of the 1dx needed or wanted more resolution? I reckon having a super high res option is good as long as you also have some good down sampling and maybe aps-c modes like the DX mode on the d800.
> ...



"High resolution" has fast become a relative term, though. It really wasn't that long ago that 21.1mp was considered VERY high resolution. The way you are using "high resolution" is entirely relative to the Exmor 36mp sensor. However if you slightly shift your perspective just a bit, the D800's 36mp sensor is compared, in relative terms, to 40, 50, 60, 80, 200mp medium format sensors, and it is considered "low" resolution when it comes to studio photography (one of the two primary areas where raw pixel count is of paramount importance.)

I am the first to admit, more megapixels is most certainly _*desired*_ for many applications, and I'm eagerly awaiting the release of Canon's "big megapixel" camera, whatever it is, for my landscape photography. I want, and can certainly use, an "even higher resolution" camera than the 5D III. It should be noted, however, that the 5D III is not, by any measure, a "low resolution" camera, and it is eminently capable of resolving and capturing very fine detail (just check out the bird photography forum here on CR if you want some examples of how well the 5D III can resolve very fine feather detail in birds.) The 5D II was the worlds most used digital landscape photography camera until the D800 came along as well, and there is a tremendous amount of truly amazing landscape photos out there taken with this old, "archaic" camera that clearly demonstrates it more than qualifies as a "high resolution" camera.


----------



## Diko (Nov 24, 2013)

I don't really understand why a bunch of people here are so fanatically trying to defend CANONs interests instead of their own? 

What I had to say I've said it. I am interested in my needs not in anyone else's needs. And I don't really need any basic knowledge in Economics.... I tend to understand CANON's steps (generally speaking). And I don't like them... That is my point of view. 

And as a good agent acting in the free market will be unhappy with CANON's current doings. But that's me. 

BTW my guesses are that *Neuro* is on that picture of CANONs 1D developers   

I am a fan of big and heavy (for both bodies & lenses) due to the steady factor and also can't wait for the new CANON 1D (megapixel) and would love to combine it with that awesome Carl Zeis Otus babe. ;-)


----------



## jeffa4444 (Nov 24, 2013)

Sony may have crammed a full sensor into a smaller body similar to Olympus size BUT many are missing the point. The most important at part when you take photographs or video is the LENS. Sony does not have the same range as Canon and regularly comes out behind Canon & Nikon in lens tests. 
Canon far from being a company that will not be around in a couple of years is innovating and pushing into new areas like its Cinema EOS range of cameras. 

The new EOS-1 will have a 45MP sensor.


----------



## Lawliet (Nov 24, 2013)

jrista said:


> (I really don't understand why Canon can't optimize their algorithms and achieve fast CDAF.)



Canon can't, or at least doesn't, read the sensor fast/often enough. The more updates you have the more aggressive can the lens be driven. I.E. CDAF always means babysteps, C is limited to 30, while others are in the three digit zone. No surprise they're faster.
Thats where Sonys RX10 gets interesting...they get all of its 20MP at at least 60fps and process full raw files into frames for video. I'd love to have the same tech doubled to ~40MP, in a body that takes Canon lenses (plus the flashy stuff, be it RT or Profoto TTL ) and offers a fast sync speed


----------



## eml58 (Nov 24, 2013)

Eldar said:


> Ignorant "besserwissers" don´t add value to anything anywhere!


Eldar, I don't even know what that means and I agree with you, too funny.


----------



## jrista (Nov 25, 2013)

Lawliet said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > (I really don't understand why Canon can't optimize their algorithms and achieve fast CDAF.)
> ...



The rate they read frames shouldn't be that big of a problem when it comes to Hybrid AF. They don't need to CDAF the whole entire movement, only the fine tuning after PDAF had done it's job. At 30fps, they should be more than capable of doing that at, well, 30fps (which should mean that the CDAF fine tuning should be very rapid after the initial PDAF moves the lens the majority of the way.) Now, I haven't used one of the EOS-M cameras with the updated firmware, maybe they already solved this problem...


----------



## mkabi (Nov 25, 2013)

Since people are coming into a Canon forum to diss and dismiss Canon... lets diss and dismiss Sony.
Look at how entirely STUPID sony is for releasing PlayStation 4 without either 4K or 3D support... I mean seriously, are they sleeping on the job over there?

They are releasing 4K TVs and 3D TVs, the least they can do is include it in the PlayStation 4.
Now we all _have_ to believe that 4K and 3D is a gimmick, if they dont' even believe in their own technology such that they don't even include in the next iteration of the PlayStation.

Now they are wasting their time with FF MILC... tsk... tsk... tsk...


----------



## eml58 (Nov 25, 2013)

jrista said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > jrista said:
> ...



Sad, but ultimately it does seem to be it.

But I do see some light here, AvTvM has clearly been over to at least SonyRumours, that's a positive step, I think ??.

And he has said he will likely spend less time now on CR once he has that a7r, another positive step, right ??.

Man I hope he gets a good price for all that Canon Crap he owns & buys the a7r, and is Happy with it.........

Not likely, damn, more Sad.


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 25, 2013)

eml58 said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



And Perhaps AvTvM will actually take photos with his new A7. : : :


----------



## KitsVancouver (Nov 25, 2013)

unfocused said:


> Diko said:
> 
> 
> > Canon has officially, publicly announced the *technology*: August 31st, 2010 ...
> ...



Whether you believe it or not, it happens. We saw a very recent real-life example in the world of video processors. NVIDIA announced their 780 ti video card just days after AMD announced their new R290X. It's widely known in the semi-conductor and PC world that NVIDIA was holding back releasing the full power of an existing chip design based on what the competition was.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Nov 25, 2013)

Regardless of what Canon is doing, there are other companies that most photogs have bought into that do the same thing or worse i.e. apple and most continue to buy in. Bleeding out tech, coming out with things later than others, charging 50-200% more than the competitors for the same or less hardware, disabling compatibilities unnecessarily, withholding bs features from one model only to help create product separation for the next model. To me, canon isn't even as guilty as they are (if they do happen to be guilty of any of those things). Bottom line, they are not alone if they are trying to make a profit through these measures. If you're going to blast canon for it, you might see if you can head over to all the other forums for the other companies you have purchased products from to do the same thing. 

Can we all please just recognize that none of these companies are non-profits with YOUR specific desires/needs at the forefront of their business decisions? Go out and take some pictures please.


----------



## sanj (Nov 25, 2013)

I am of the opinion that the new Sony full frame cameras are indeed innovative. I appreciate their efforts.


----------



## CarlTN (Nov 25, 2013)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> Regardless of what Canon is doing, there are other companies that most photogs have bought into that do the same thing or worse i.e. apple and most continue to buy in. Bleeding out tech, coming out with things later than others, charging 50-200% more than the competitors for the same or less hardware, disabling compatibilities unnecessarily, withholding bs features from one model only to help create product separation for the next model. To me, canon isn't even as guilty as they are (if they do happen to be guilty of any of those things). Bottom line, they are not alone if they are trying to make a profit through these measures. If you're going to blast canon for it, you might see if you can head over to all the other forums for the other companies you have purchased products from to do the same thing.
> 
> Can we all please just recognize that none of these companies are non-profits with YOUR specific desires/needs at the forefront of their business decisions? Go out and take some pictures please.



Interesting perspective you have. To compare Canon to Apple though, is rather silly, don't you think? And if your main complaint with Apple has to do with the products they make, or the lack of control you as a consumer have over their products, or them as a company in general...well that's amusing!


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Nov 25, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> JohnDizzo15 said:
> 
> 
> > Regardless of what Canon is doing, there are other companies that most photogs have bought into that do the same thing or worse i.e. apple and most continue to buy in. Bleeding out tech, coming out with things later than others, charging 50-200% more than the competitors for the same or less hardware, disabling compatibilities unnecessarily, withholding bs features from one model only to help create product separation for the next model. To me, canon isn't even as guilty as they are (if they do happen to be guilty of any of those things). Bottom line, they are not alone if they are trying to make a profit through these measures. If you're going to blast canon for it, you might see if you can head over to all the other forums for the other companies you have purchased products from to do the same thing.
> ...



I think you completely missed my point. 

I don't care whether these companies are doing it or not. What I was saying was that people should stop saying companies are horrible simply because they aren't tailoring their business decisions to that specific consumer's specific need as a consumer. 

You are right. It is silly which is exactly the view I thought I expressed.


----------



## Woody (Nov 25, 2013)

jrista said:


> I really don't understand why Canon can't optimize their algorithms and achieve fast CDAF.



I am sure the lenses play a part too. Canon's USM/STM lenses may have been optimized for PDAF. I suspect a well tuned CDAF algorithm may require certain mechanical response not possible with Canon lenses.


----------



## sanj (Nov 25, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > And have a look at their new camera. No mirrorslapping any more. Not big and bulky, but small and light but still very solidly built. "Full frame" 36x24mm sensor. Better than any sensor in any old Canon DSLR out there.
> ...



I do not think these cameras are designed for the long lens sports/wildlife shooters. It is meant for, I believe, compact lenses and for travel, candid type of work. And they seem brilliant for that.


----------



## Diko (Nov 25, 2013)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > JohnDizzo15 said:
> ...



Actually I don't find it silly. As absurd as it is (yes, I do acknowledge it's absurdity in a way) look at the new *iPhone 5c* & the "new" *EOS Rebel SL1/Kiss X7 in White*. I always thought that crippling just comes *as is* with a lower price tag... Now it comes, but with *style*! ;D ;D ;D

The last time I checked both companies were STILL quite everything else but NON-profit 8)
So then they have tailored the design according to the true needs of the majority of consumers.

[sarcasm] Now my dream will come true and I will probably get the *ORANGE 1DXs* for *Christmas 2014*.

I know - I am the *only *person on this forum to actually ask for better *ISO *& *DR *in the same body... I have to admit quite unnecessary features indeed. [/sarcasm]


----------



## Woody (Nov 25, 2013)

OK, coming back to the topic, I don't think we should take this CR1 rumor too seriously. Most rumors from NL are almost always wrong. So, let's not get too excited arguing about this vaporware.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 25, 2013)

Woody said:


> OK, coming back to the topic, I don't think we should take this CR1 rumor too seriously. Most rumors from NL are almost always wrong. So, let's not get too excited arguing about this vaporware.



But it wouldn't be Canon Rumors Forum if people didn't argue over insignificant differences in products that don't exist.


----------



## KyleSTL (Nov 25, 2013)

jrista said:


> You also seem to think that the original 1Ds DSLR was un-innovative. It was the first FF DSLR!


Unfortunately incorrect -

Contax N Digital - July 2000
Kodak DCS Pro 14n - Sept 2002
*Canon 1Ds - Sept 2002*
Kodak DCS Pro SLR/n - Feb 2004
Kodak DCS Pro SLR/c - Mar 2004
Canon 1Ds Mark II - Sept 2004
Canon 5D - August 2005
Canon 1Ds Mark III - Aug 2007
Nikon D3 - Aug 2007
Nikon D700 - Jul 2008
Sony DSLR-A900 - Sept 2008

If you were to say the first FF DSLR by a company that is still in business, or the first FF DSLR that was commerically viable then you would be correct (Contax was a total flop, and Kodak didn't survive long either, despite adopting cameras with both Nikon and Canon lens mounts).


----------



## jrista (Nov 25, 2013)

KyleSTL said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > You also seem to think that the original 1Ds DSLR was un-innovative. It was the first FF DSLR!
> ...



Well, the Contax was a CCD camera, and I wast talking about the first CMOS FF. As for the Kodak, seems it was released the same time as the 1Ds, so maybe it's a tie...except that Canon was wildly successful.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 25, 2013)

KyleSTL said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > You also seem to think that the original 1Ds DSLR was un-innovative. It was the first FF DSLR!
> ...



Try this: "The 1Ds was the first CMOS FF dSLR." 

I suppose you could say the Kodak DCS Pro 14n was the first, because it was announced before the 1Ds. But the 1Ds was available shortly after it was announced, whereas Kodak announced it early but it wasn't actually available until the middle of the following year. That sort of tactic - announcing a product, then a long delay, then some retailers start taking preorders, then another long delay - is a dirty trick that Canon would never play.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 25, 2013)

Did I forget my <sarcasm> tag again? :-X


----------



## jrista (Nov 25, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Did I forget my <sarcasm> tag again? :-X



You did indeed.


----------



## eml58 (Nov 26, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> That sort of tactic - announcing a product, then a long delay, then some retailers start taking preorders, then another long delay - is a dirty trick that Canon would never play.



Ha Ha Ha   No Never, at least not this month, yet.


----------



## CarlTN (Nov 26, 2013)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > JohnDizzo15 said:
> ...



I thought you were likening Canon to Apple, in a backhanded way. If that was incorrect, then I stand corrected.


----------



## CarlTN (Nov 26, 2013)

Diko said:


> JohnDizzo15 said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...



My point was, Canon is not comparable to Apple. They aren't remotely as big, bloated, touchy feely, or hypocritical. Canon makes serious products (mostly...ok not all of them are!) for serious enthusiasts and professionals. Apple makes overpriced crap for idiots, and became the world's largest company for a brief time, doing it. Last time I checked, Canon wasn't sitting on 150 billion dollars cash, because they like to hide it overseas to avoid paying taxes on it. Maybe Canon is hording a half billion in cash somewhere...but that's a far cry from 150 billion! And Canon don't farm out their production to Chinese companies employing the "work camp" methodology, approaching slave labor (while pretending everything is just fine and mostly somehow "assembled" in America). I'm sure Canon's plants (outside Japan) don't exactly pay high wages, but still it's not REMOTELY the same. And Canon don't inject themselves into politics in quite the way Apple does. That's where the hypocrisy comes in...Oh and Canon's founders probably weren't nearly as much of a complete ***hole as Steve Jobs was.


----------



## Roo (Nov 26, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> But patent attorneys need research-based claims to file on, so clearly Canon is spending a lot of money on R&D.



I was at a Canon presentation tonight and the video they showed said they spend 10% of global revenues on R&D. They also quoted global revenue at us$45.6 billion.


----------



## Eldar (Nov 26, 2013)

Roo said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > But patent attorneys need research-based claims to file on, so clearly Canon is spending a lot of money on R&D.
> ...


That is a Significant R&D budget, regardless of which company or business you compare it to!


----------



## Diko (Nov 26, 2013)

Eldar said:


> Roo said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



*Now someone's talkin' digits.*

I guess it could be true (trying to turn off that "_*everybody lies*_" mode for a brief moment). Than definitely I must agree with *Eldar*. 

Having in mind that *HP* back in the days invested about *14%* then they went down to *3-4%* (if I recall it correctly) and now after the crisis they turned it back to* 8%*.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 26, 2013)

Roo said:


> I was at a Canon presentation tonight and the video they showed said they spend 10% of global revenues on R&D. They also quoted global revenue at us$45.6 billion.



Interesting. Did they say, how much of it was spent on video and cinema stuff? 

1DC, C100, C300, C500 ... within a year or so, and a constant flow of cine lenses and video-optimization throughout the entire lineup of cameras and lenses ... must gobble up huge amounts of R&D spending. 
Leaving not enough for stills cameras and development of fully competitive, hi-res, high DR image sensors. 
Not to mention my desired "A7R killer" FF MILC.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 26, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> Roo said:
> 
> 
> > I was at a Canon presentation tonight and the video they showed said they spend 10% of global revenues on R&D. They also quoted global revenue at us$45.6 billion.
> ...


What you see entering the market place now is based on R+D decisions made 5 or more years ago. Some of those decisions will only impact video, some will only impact stills, but many will impact both. Look at Dual-pixel... the benefits for video are obvious with the first of the new cameras, but watch the impact that it has on stills when it gets rolling.... you jump from 63 (or less) focus points to millions.... that has to have an impact on ability to track objects! you can autofocus well beyonf F5.6..... and watch what happens to dynamic range.... This is the technology that your A7R killer will be based on and it was developed with video in mind


----------



## Roo (Nov 26, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> Roo said:
> 
> 
> > I was at a Canon presentation tonight and the video they showed said they spend 10% of global revenues on R&D. They also quoted global revenue at us$45.6 billion.
> ...



If you really think that's all they did with their R&D you need to get out more. : Video and cinema is just one part of the whole imaging business and it takes more than a year to bring much of that stuff to market. This year they have also brought out the 100D, 700D and 70D plus new or updated lenses. They have also brought out new printers and other imaging equipment... Sorry that you feel so badly that they don't work to your immediate wants and you have to spend so much time griping about it.

I saw a shortened an updated version of the vid below.

Canon's 70-Year Imaging History - A Tradition of Innovation


----------



## simonxu11 (Nov 27, 2013)

Roo said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Roo said:
> ...



The video's title--A Tradition of Innovation

What an innovation* THE 700D* ;D ;D


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 27, 2013)

simonxu11 said:


> The video's title--A Tradition of Innovation
> 
> What an innovation* THE 700D* ;D ;D



Yes! Very innovative, Canon! From its very innovative start 71 years ago as unlicensed copycat maker of german camera designs ... all the way to 2013 with their greatest innovative triumph ever ... the Canon Digital Kiss ... all in white! ;D

Canon does not need a long, boring video showing off their "tradition of innovation". One picture tells the story:





(c) Tom Fishburne (c) http://tomfishburne.com/2012/10/cannibalize.html


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 27, 2013)

Canon are not in business to keep you guys happy, they are in business to keep their shareholders happy. Start thinking like that.

The stand alone stills camera market is getting smaller every year, the bread and butter money makers for both Canon and Nikon are losing sales, the P&S market is in terminal decline and the traditional core money maker, entry level DSLR's, is getting reduced sales year on year. Nikon and Sony (who's camera division loses fortunes every year) are throwing out every conceivable combination of what forum fools say they want, but when a company makes it the forumistas find enough reasons to "wait for the MkII", or "I'd get it if it was half that price". 

Canon is taking a different approach and is repositioning in another camera market, Cine, a lot of time and effort has gone into the Cine range and that will be what supports our L addiction, be very thankful that the EF mount was used on the Cine cameras, without it I suspect "our" lens R&D would be a fraction of what it is. We are becoming the poor cousin, almost every lens release from here on out will be video orientated, STM not USM, slower but with IS etc etc, that is the new paradigm, get used to it or buy a Sony before they go bankrupt.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 27, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Canon are not in business to keep you guys happy, they are in business to keep their shareholders happy. Start thinking like that.



Actually it is exactly the other way round. At least for companies that want to be successful. 

IF Canon wants to stay in business with me, they better think about what I want and how they keep ME happy. Otherwise I won't continue to buy from them. And the same goes for all their other customers too .. each single one of them. If they don't make 'em happy, they won 't have anything to make their shareholders happy down the line. 

CUSTOMERS always come FIRST. 8)

http://imgc.allpostersimages.com/images/P-473-488-90/60/6004/IADB100Z/posters/david-sipress-i-have-just-one-more-question-will-it-make-me-happy-new-yorker-cartoon.jpg


----------



## Random Orbits (Nov 27, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> CUSTOMERS always come FIRST. 8)



That's right: CUSTOMER*S* come first. Customer does not.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 27, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Canon are not in business to keep you guys happy, they are in business to keep their shareholders happy. Start thinking like that.
> ...



Not exactly. Customer*S* come first. In aggregate. Canon needs to keep a _majority_ of the user base 'happy', or at least buying - that is one way to deliver value to shareholders. They've clearly demonstrated the ability to do that. If your particular wants/needs coincide with those of the majority, well and good. If not, as is clearly the case for you, then Canon doesn't really give a CRAP about YOU.


----------



## privatebydesign (Nov 27, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Canon are not in business to keep you guys happy, they are in business to keep their shareholders happy. Start thinking like that.
> ...



Oh you are so wrong, Canon don't care one jot about you or me as individuals, nor particularly for cameras in general, they only care about us as incidental individual contributors to market forces. If we, collectively, are not spending money on P&S's and entry level DSLR's, the cash cows from which all else is derived, then what are they to do, lament the good old days before cameras in phones and the film days when you needed a decent sized "sensor" to get any kind of image quality? Do the Sony thing of throwing any and everything out there with no consistency or system integrity at a huge loss? Go the Nikon route of trying to convince people they want something they clearly don't, stuff from which the consumer has clearly moved on. No, to protect their _shareholders_ they are maneuvering their profit income to different product streams. We, the declining stills orientated market, are fortunate that the ideas they are moving towards are somewhat complimentary to our own "needs" for still based equipment, so far.

The customer only comes first if the company can sell the stuff they make and give their shareholders a reasonable return. If they can't they will try to find other customers, not different shareholders.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 27, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> We, the declining stills orientated market, are fortunate that the ideas they are moving towards are somewhat complimentary to our own "needs" for still based equipment, so far.
> 
> The customer only comes first if the company can sell the stuff they make and give their shareholders a reasonable return. If they can't they will try to find other customers, not different shareholders.



hehehe! Quite funny. Next suggestion will probably be to kneel down and beg to Canon "please, please give me a new stills-oriented camera." :

no way!

In reality it is way easier for (almost all of) Canon's customers to turn around and find another supplier of excellent image capturing gear than it is for Canon to find "new customers" willing to pay inflated prices for fairly un-innovative products.


----------



## AmbientLight (Nov 27, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > We, the declining stills orientated market, are fortunate that the ideas they are moving towards are somewhat complimentary to our own "needs" for still based equipment, so far.
> ...



Say, do you exist in some sort of distorted reality field?

Sony is not doing well financially, but at least they are fighting for corporate survival, Nikon is facing decline for years, while Canon is far more successful than any other camera or lens vendor. 

Looks like you may want to morph yourself into a different customer, then.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 27, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> In reality it is way easier for (almost all of) Canon's customers to turn around and find another supplier of excellent image capturing gear than it is for Canon to find "new customers" willing to pay inflated prices for fairly un-innovative products.



...and yet, people keep buying Canon products...and you keep whining and complaining. I think you're clever enough to figure out which of the two of you is succeeding, and who is failing.


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 27, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > We, the declining stills orientated market, are fortunate that the ideas they are moving towards are somewhat complimentary to our own "needs" for still based equipment, so far.
> ...



It's probably time better spent taking photos than complain about how supposedly another brand takes better photos.


----------



## 9VIII (Nov 27, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> simonxu11 said:
> 
> 
> > The video's title--A Tradition of Innovation
> ...



While the 700D deserves everything it gets, don't forget everything Canon has done with glass in the last few years. Had I been shopping for a high end camera in 2009 I very well may have gone for the NIkon D700, Nikon glass was very competitive at the time. But that's not when I entered the market, from what I can see Canon has very little competition right now, their recent lenses mop the floor with the competition (at least on the long end, we'll see what happens with the short end next year).





AvTvM said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > We, the declining stills orientated market, are fortunate that the ideas they are moving towards are somewhat complimentary to our own "needs" for still based equipment, so far.
> ...



If you're looking for a nice walk-around camera, sure, switching to a different company might be easy. If you want anything more specific out of your camera the number of options falls quickly, pretty much right down to 2. Compact system manufacturers simply don't have the lenses, and as I pointed out above, the nearest competitor has some catching up to do. I'm confident Canon's lens line-up can carry them for quite a while when it comes to the high end market. The real problem is cell phones.


----------



## jrista (Nov 28, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > We, the declining stills orientated market, are fortunate that the ideas they are moving towards are somewhat complimentary to our own "needs" for still based equipment, so far.
> ...



AvTvM has just become a megatroll, people. He lost the battle in the last couple of threads, officially bailed out on Canon as he moved to his wonderful new Sony and the A7r. It's his time, now, to leave these shores in search of new lands. 

As with all trolls, _don't touch it_..._don't feed it_..._don't SPEAK to it_...and it will go away. Of course, *megatrolls* have an even greater appetite for touching and feeding and chitchat, so I understand it's that much harder to resist. BUT, if you want the troll to slither away to new feeding grounds, *stand your ground*!!  :


----------



## eml58 (Nov 28, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Not exactly. Customer*S* come first. In aggregate. Canon needs to keep a _majority_ of the user base 'happy', or at least buying - that is one way to deliver value to shareholders. They've clearly demonstrated the ability to do that. If your particular wants/needs coincide with those of the majority, well and good. If not, as is clearly the case for you, then Canon doesn't really give a CRAP about YOU.



Yes, it's a Sad truth, must be horrible for some to wake up with the realisation that one of the largest Corporates on the Planet just doesn't know who you are. Canon like many other Companies that sell a Product, sell to the Mass Market, it's very much a case of "You can't keep all of the People Happy all of the time, but we can keep most of the People Happy most of the Time".

Except AvTvM


----------



## jrista (Nov 28, 2013)

eml58 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Not exactly. Customer*S* come first. In aggregate. Canon needs to keep a _majority_ of the user base 'happy', or at least buying - that is one way to deliver value to shareholders. They've clearly demonstrated the ability to do that. If your particular wants/needs coincide with those of the majority, well and good. If not, as is clearly the case for you, then Canon doesn't really give a CRAP about YOU.
> ...



That's good business, though. Any business that tries to cater to each specific individual is ******* to fail. It isn't even something any company should ever strive to do (which is probably why so many governments are bloated and financially strapped these days, as that's exactly what they try to do, and are epically failing at it.) Good business is finding a sweet spot and exploiting it as long as you can. There isn't going to be some sudden, overnight, rapid shift to mirrorless, so Canon has plenty of time to figure out their plans for moving into the market and exploiting it the same way.

It's a harsh word, exploit, and we customers and consumers certainly don't like to be exploited. But if you think about it...look at what the likes of Canon and Nikon over the last 15 years have done for the photographic art. Look at how much image quality has skyrocketed, and how accessible that kind of image quality is now. I mean, while in the film days a camera might not have been as expensive initially, you had the perpetual cost of buying film, developing it, and getting photographic prints made. That ongoing cost kept high quality photography out of the hands of your average joe. Today is an entirely different world...thanks to companies like Canon and Nikon. 

While I don't necessarily have EXACTLY the camera I PERSONALLY want with all the specific features I need at the price point I can afford...the equipment Canon does offer gives me more than enough capability to produce good photographic art. If I didn't know better, I might actually feel sad for the person who is on a never-ending quest to find that 100% perfect camera, and is willing to dump brand after brand, kit after kit, in order to find it. And, once they have finally found it, will just have to give it up again once the next big competitor on the market develops something else new, and trounces their wonderfully new found "perfect" camera. I find such an endeavor to be naive and wasteful, and a very explicit choice, so I don't feel sad for such people.



eml58 said:


> Except AvTvM



Good thing he ain't a majority, then, eh?


----------



## Roo (Nov 28, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> IF Canon wants to stay in business with me, they better think about what I want and how they keep ME happy.



If Canon was a car company and only listened to you I'm sure this is what we would be inflicted with...






Thank god they know how to make cameras to suit the majority and run a business successfully. ;D


----------



## AmbientLight (Nov 28, 2013)

Roo said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > IF Canon wants to stay in business with me, they better think about what I want and how they keep ME happy.
> ...



;D ;D ;D

Oh, great. Is this a beer can holder on the outside of the driver's door or am I imagining things?


----------



## Eldar (Nov 28, 2013)

All businesses that succeed over time have a healthy balance between shareholders, employees and customers. Canon would not have been able to build the position they have without that. They have to make money to make the shareholders happy, they need to provide interesting and challenging workplaces to attract the best talent and they need to deliver products and services that tick the right motivation amongst the customer base.
There is always a danger that a company can fall asleep and be too complacent with what they have. DEC, Kodak, NCR, Nokia ... there are lots of examples of companies with a leading position being leap jumped by new technology and more aggressive competitors. Canon need to solve their sensor challenges, to keep us still photographers happy, which I’m sure they will. But apart from that, within this segment, I don’t see them having serious problems. 
I am currently sitting in front of a 130x90cm2 print of a landscape, shot with the 5DIII and the 24-70 f2.8L II, and wonder; What more do I need?


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 28, 2013)

AmbientLight said:


> Roo said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



Nope, that's a truck mirror.... but it does have cup holders that hold those giant sized drinks..... and 3 horn buttons because you can never find the horn when you are really angry


----------



## jrista (Nov 28, 2013)

Eldar said:


> I am currently sitting in front of a 130x90cm2 print of a landscape, shot with the 5DIII and the 24-70 f2.8L II, and wonder; What more do I need?



A 260x180cm print of a landscape! ;P


----------



## Diko (Nov 29, 2013)

9VIII said:


> While the 700D deserves everything it gets, don't forget everything Canon has done with glass in the last few years. Had I been shopping for a high end camera in 2009 I very well may have gone for the NIkon D700, Nikon glass was very competitive at the time. But that's not when I entered the market, from what I can see Canon has very little competition right now, their recent lenses mop the floor with the competition (at least on the long end, we'll see what happens with the short end next year).
> ...
> If you're looking for a nice walk-around camera, sure, switching to a different company might be easy. If you want anything more specific out of your camera the number of options falls quickly, pretty much right down to 2. Compact system manufacturers simply don't have the lenses, and as I pointed out above, the nearest competitor has some catching up to do. I'm confident Canon's lens line-up can carry them for quite a while when it comes to the high end market. The real problem is cell phones.


We are on the same line here. It is CANON's leverage to its leadership's position in its amateur/pro line.

The fact is that everyone here are kind of either trying to explain me what the obvious situation here is. Or the one with customer*S* & CANON's shareholders' happiness goals.

Does anyone realize that the majority of efforts here are on explaining to 2-3 individuals how we are wrong to want more and should accomodate our wish lists according to the majority of people? 

When one reads this whole topic, he/she would stay with the impression that everyone's happy with CANONs doings...

For GOD's sake, wake up people! This is a RUMOR site. NOT a final TECH SPECs listing place. Stop speaking obvious facts that we all know. 

*Better concentrate on what you WANT!*
Not on EXPLAINING Canon's reasoning. 

If I were from CANON's marketing dep. and read this here (and someone of you definitely is, even if as a guest) I would report that people around here *acknowledge *this and that issue... but are *pretty, pretty happy* - ergo could put the solution's R&D on this and that on a *lower priority* level for now.

It depends on us that CANON doesn't sleep )))





*And don't forget that you are*:





  


----
I am sorry for the pathos but got in the mood, because of that *MEGATROLL* pic, which is *hilarious*!    I laughed for a while quite a bit.

I have read a few quite good examples of trolling here, but alongside every once in a while maybe you are missing some good points. ;-)


----------



## eml58 (Dec 2, 2013)

Diko said:


> I have read a few quite good examples of trolling here, but alongside every once in a while maybe you are missing some good points. ;-)



Diko, you may well be right, but it's a two way street, it may just be that your the one missing the point.

There's nothing wrong with having a wish list, I have several, I just don't expect that a Company like Canon/Nikon/Sony is going to give much thought to it, but that doesn't stop me living in hope and believing that all these Companies sooner or later end up at the same point, some sooner, some later, but they all end up with very similar pieces of Tech & equipment for the same Market, it's called good business.

Just pick one, large choice, buy the gear, enjoy.

Don't keep looking over your shoulder at what everyone else is doing, just leads back to CR and Posts of discontent.

And if that Green Machine has an Option to install a Canon, I'm in faster than greased lightning.


----------



## scottkinfw (Dec 2, 2013)

Is there perhaps a Sony Rumors Site that is a happy place for you?



AvTvM said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > We, the declining stills orientated market, are fortunate that the ideas they are moving towards are somewhat complimentary to our own "needs" for still based equipment, so far.
> ...


----------



## globalphotobank (Dec 2, 2013)

Certain indications point to 40-45 MP with dual ISO. Upgrades to their Cinema line point to higher upgrades in hardware and firmware in new models. Dual sensors two sizes in one, two processors combining to cover 8K resolution and 3D with dual pixels, auto phase and contrast detect with dual ISO. Will be kind of hard to beat. Betting though everything in focus is their goal with a function to blur what you want around subject, and more creative filters. So everything is in focus, you could zoooooom way, way out and its perfect in focus like the Canon Wonder Cam. Next line of labeling Canon DC a1/ DUAL CAM advance 1. two sensors possible two different sizes. Sony is useing dual sensors and is Apple in their next phones. Dual lenses would be a heck of a killer a 12mm and a 100mm


----------



## jrista (Dec 2, 2013)

globalphotobank said:


> Certain indications point to 40-45 MP with dual ISO. Upgrades to their Cinema line point to higher upgrades in hardware and firmware in new models. Dual sensors two sizes in one, two processors combining to cover 8K resolution and 3D with dual pixels, auto phase and contrast detect with dual ISO. Will be kind of hard to beat. Betting though everything in focus is their goal with a function to blur what you want around subject, and more creative filters. So everything is in focus, you could zoooooom way, way out and its perfect in focus like the Canon Wonder Cam. Next line of labeling Canon DC a1/ DUAL CAM advance 1. two sensors possible two different sizes. Sony is useing dual sensors and is Apple in their next phones. Dual lenses would be a heck of a killer a 12mm and a 100mm



Assuming this post isn't some kind of joke...

Dual ISO won't happen. That is a ML discovery of a happy quirk in the design of Canon's readout system. There is no telling that Canon will use the same system in future bodies, and in fact, I personally hope they don't...the downstream amplifier and the use of a downstream, off-die ADC is a significant part of the reason why their low ISO read noise is so bad. Canon really needs to develop a modern sensor, with on-die ADC, and preferably digital readout...at which point, Dual ISO wouldn't even be an option, since there would be no need for the downstream amplifier.

I'd figure the chances of Canon actually employing MLs Dual ISO discovery are so vanishingly small, they barely qualify as a mathematic point.

I also don't see Canon employing any kind of light field technology any time soon. For one, Canon always develops their own technology, while light field technology is currently owned by someone else. Lytro's cameras have a LONG ways to go before light field even really becomes a generally viable technology as well, and I don't see them selling the technology any time soon.


----------



## CarlTN (Dec 7, 2013)

jrista said:


> globalphotobank said:
> 
> 
> > Certain indications point to 40-45 MP with dual ISO. Upgrades to their Cinema line point to higher upgrades in hardware and firmware in new models. Dual sensors two sizes in one, two processors combining to cover 8K resolution and 3D with dual pixels, auto phase and contrast detect with dual ISO. Will be kind of hard to beat. Betting though everything in focus is their goal with a function to blur what you want around subject, and more creative filters. So everything is in focus, you could zoooooom way, way out and its perfect in focus like the Canon Wonder Cam. Next line of labeling Canon DC a1/ DUAL CAM advance 1. two sensors possible two different sizes. Sony is useing dual sensors and is Apple in their next phones. Dual lenses would be a heck of a killer a 12mm and a 100mm
> ...



Hate to agree, but have to. Regarding Lytro...it's a gimmick designed by a college professor, and not much else. I wonder if his patent is even licensed to him, or is it licensed to his school? If the school owns the patent, where do the profits go? Also appreciate you pointing out that dual ISO is a bandaid that takes advantage of Canon's flawed (or at the very least, inferior) sensor design approach. 

This does put a lot of pressure on Canon for that 2014 1-series body to use sensor tech that starts to head back in the right direction.

*Globalphotobank, * in my opinion serious photographers don't often have a use for selective focus and artificially blurred backgrounds, especially around subject matter (and especially if it's applied like a vignette or a grad filter). Talk about bandaids, that's basically a cheap software trick that anyone can do on any digital photograph in post processing. The results are quite silly...again in my opinion of course! I suppose there's a good use for it, but I don't know of it.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Dec 12, 2013)

A pro intimated to me that has seen / used the camera that its a 45MP sensor. He put it in a way that didnt infringe his NDA.


----------



## KyleSTL (Dec 12, 2013)

jeffa4444 said:


> A pro intimated to me that has seen / used the camera that its a 45MP sensor. He put it in a way that didnt infringe his NDA.


That's a spicy little tidbit. Keep us posted.


----------

