# Should/can Canon keep making its own sensors?



## ScottyP (Jul 16, 2012)

I see Nikon using Sony sensors, and Sony itself is using its new sensors in its new well-received bodies, and I read people discussing how the Canon sensors seem to be falling behind. 

I wonder if Canon will reach a kind of "Apple Moment",  like when Apple quit spending its R&D money trying to beat Intel on a component (CPU's) and started just using Intel chips like everyone else. They freed up the resources and focus to start beating the competition by doing what they did best, which was making superior products, innovating and making customers happier with them than with the competition. And now Apple went from almost disappearing to being bigger than ExxonMobil?

Canon makes better lenses than Nikon, and could focus on staying ahead on that. They could/should take a page from the perfectionist Steve Jobs, and focus on addressing all the 1000 little niggling customer gripes and wishes about cameras, and making Canons just work better and smoother than Nikon (or Sony). Outclass the competition by thinking of everything, and including it; and by not withholding simple little crap in hardware and firmware that they could instead make standard in all their cameras for very little cost. Little stuff like firmware improvements (auto ISO), or simple features like AFMA, or including more external controls, or simpler cleaner menus. 

I think I am right on the little user-experience enhancements as a powerful & underutilized competitive opportunity. I may be foolishly throwing the baby out with the bathwater here on the sensor question; I don't know. I do wonder if the current "sensor gap" will or can continue. If things are no better, or worse, in a year or two maybe that is something they should think about?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 16, 2012)

ScottyP said:


> I wonder if Canon will reach a kind of "Apple Moment",  like when Apple quit spending its R&D money trying to beat Intel on a component (CPU's) and started just using Intel chips like everyone else.



When did Apple have that "Apple Moment"? Before they bought CPUs from Intel, they bought them from IBM (the PowerPC series), and before that, they bought CPUs from Motorola (the 68xxx series).


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 16, 2012)

ScottyP said:


> I see Nikon using Sony sensors, and Sony itself is using its new sensors in its new well-received bodies, and I read people discussing how the Canon sensors seem to be falling behind.


First you need to get your facts straight.
1. Canon uses sensors from Sony, and they make sensors as well

2. Nikon designs and subcontracts sensors (not by Sony). They also buy sensors from Sony.

Should Canon and Nikon stop making sensors and eliminate all competition that Sony has and remove any reason for improving products?

I believe competition is good.


----------



## marekjoz (Jul 16, 2012)

There was a poll made by me three months ago, asking: "What will be next Canon move in the area of their sensor department?". If nothing changed in people's perception, then almost nobody here things, that Canon should take sensors from Sony. There were 156 votes submitted (117 members voted) and only 2 votes went for answer "They will try to get next sensors from Sony as Nikon did".
Poll and replies can be found here: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=5907.0


----------



## aznable (Jul 16, 2012)

so sony and nikon 7 years ago would stop making sensor and buy them from canon? lol...

apple moment? do you think canon is lagging behing nikon and sony in marketing?


----------



## ScottyP (Jul 16, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> ScottyP said:
> 
> 
> > I see Nikon using Sony sensors, and Sony itself is using its new sensors in its new well-received bodies, and I read people discussing how the Canon sensors seem to be falling behind.
> ...



I agree that competition is good, and I'd much rather Canon fired back at Nikon/Sony with a new killer sensor. If Sony or anyone else had a near monopoly on DSLR or high-end sensors that would create stagnation in design and probably an increase in prices. I just was wondering if Canon is going to be able to dig out of the hole, real or percieved, in which it is sitting sensor-wise. I was just wondering if this killer sensor is likely to come, or if Canon will step back from the sensor production.


----------



## pdirestajr (Jul 16, 2012)

What is wrong with Canon's sensors? To be honest, I never really think about the sensors in my digital cameras anymore- they are all good. I care more about the user experience of the camera, and to me, Canon cameras feel better. Nikons have a ton of weird buttons & dials and other things I don't care for. Oh & I like Canon glass.

But I do love my Nikon F3 and AI-s primes!


----------



## elflord (Jul 17, 2012)

ScottyP said:


> I see Nikon using Sony sensors, and Sony itself is using its new sensors in its new well-received bodies, and I read people discussing how the Canon sensors seem to be falling behind.
> 
> I wonder if Canon will reach a kind of "Apple Moment",  like when Apple quit spending its R&D money trying to beat Intel on a component (CPU's) and started just using Intel chips like everyone else.



As was pointed out earlier, Apple never built their own chips. Also, Intel aren't the only company who manufactures x86 chips. 

Apple made a number of smart business decisions and released several very successful products (imac, ipod, OS X) after Jobs took the helm in 98 (and well before they adopted the intel architecture in 2005)

One of the problems with having Canon drop sensors is that most of the companies who build sensors are either their competition, or companies who would like to become their competition. 



> Canon makes better lenses than Nikon, and could focus on staying ahead on that. They could/should take a page from the perfectionist Steve Jobs, and focus on addressing all the 1000 little niggling customer gripes and wishes about cameras, and making Canons just work better and smoother than Nikon (or Sony). Outclass the competition by thinking of everything, and including it; and by not withholding simple little crap in hardware and firmware that they could instead make standard in all their cameras for very little cost.



Providing nicer products is always a worthy goal, but the Apple way is not to push high end functionality down to low end models so that users of said low end models may aspire to have high end functionality made available at the low end price. Rather it would be to simplify and clean their product lineup by simply eliminating those "tweener" product lines so that these users are left to choose between (for example) the Rebel and the 5D.

Another lesson from Apple, by the way, is that they have never been leaders from a pure price to performance standpoint. Instead, they always lived or died by the idea that users would pay a premium (in some cases a fairly hefty premium) for a well crafted product.

Canon have an analogous though not identical approach -- their plan is essentially to build a compelling system. A good system is not just about sensor performance. It is a comprehensive product line, which includes professional grade support, bodies, lenses, and even printers. The only other manufacturer who can play in the same ballpark at present is Nikon.


----------



## marekjoz (Jul 17, 2012)

Droping sensor production and, what's more important R&D may be a risky business in some time. Sony makes it's own line of cameras. What if in some time Nikon won't be able to afford higher price set by Sony? Who knows? Maybe it's better solid and less risky, than groundbreaking but with unsure future? Example with Apple is quite good: they had to rewrite "some" code when they decided to go Intel and drop Motorola. They successed, but such a transition is as expensive as risky.


----------



## kbmelb (Jul 17, 2012)

pdirestajr said:


> What is wrong with Canon's sensors? To be honest, I never really think about the sensors in my digital cameras anymore- they are all good. I care more about the user experience of the camera, and to me, Canon cameras feel better. Nikons have a ton of weird buttons & dials and other things I don't care for. Oh & I like Canon glass.



Right! No one but pixel peeping tech sites/guys are complaining about the 5D3 sensor. Most photo mags are loving the 5D3 more than the D800.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 17, 2012)

Sure, why not? 8)


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jul 17, 2012)

kbmelb said:


> pdirestajr said:
> 
> 
> > What is wrong with Canon's sensors? To be honest, I never really think about the sensors in my digital cameras anymore- they are all good. I care more about the user experience of the camera, and to me, Canon cameras feel better. Nikons have a ton of weird buttons & dials and other things I don't care for. Oh & I like Canon glass.
> ...



Personally I wouldn't mind if they improved the DR somewhat, at least at low ISO. What I've seen on most detailed review sites shows Canon trailing, although at higher ISOs it's a wash or Canon is a bit better. 

Also I wouldn't mind if they improved on the High ISO banding even more, as in making further efforts to reduce/remove that effect from their sensor/read-out designs.

That being said, I don't really see Canon not doing the R&D and production of their own sensors. It gives them too great an edge and control over their product lines and where they want to go in the arena. Since they can control their entire ecosystem, they can optimize or simply provide more direction to the entire systems as a whole.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Jul 17, 2012)

As noted above, Apple never developed CPUs, it just switched CPU manufacturors.

As time progressed, it became harder & harder to design & manufacture competitive CPUs in commercial quantities, which led to a reduced competition. I'd rather this wouldn't repeat itself in the camera sensors market.

E.g. in the 80s most PCs had different processors, in the 90s every workstation manufacturor made it's own processor and slapped Unix on top of it, nowadays wintel rules both markets. My impression is that the lack of competition isn't doing anything food for the customers.

There are new developments in digital camera technology, such as Sigma Foveon sensors & light field cameras, and competition is good for that. Companies have a hard time being leading in electronics and optics and ergonomics and ..., but bottom line we - the customers - stand to benefit even if the camera brand we use is losing on one of those fronts.


----------



## psolberg (Jul 17, 2012)

I think so. Canon just has some competition now after a decade where they kept their position by mere inertia. This is good. Sony + Nikon now command a larger marketshare combined than canon, which is a strange position for canon to be in. But ultimately one that should yield better products.


----------



## Bennymiata (Jul 17, 2012)

Many Japanese companies truely believe that anything that is absolutely required for their products MUST either be made in-house, or made by a company that they own a large share of.

Take Toyota for example, they make their own shock absorbers, even the transmissions they use in their cars are mainly made by Jatco, of which Toyota have a large shareholding.
Same with Canon.
I believe they want to have not only ultimate control over the required sensor in the DSLR's, but also the secrecy that is only available if done in-house.
Japanese manufacturers are always worried about their new ideas getting out, and also the position they may be in if their supplier goes broke and can't supply them the neccessary components which could lead them to the position of not being able to do business.
Making their own sensors gives Canon ultimate control, and I doubt they would like to give that away.Nikon are a relatively small company in comparison to Canon, and therefore don't have the resources or money to make their own sensors, and for Nikon, it is far easier to get Sony or some other manufacturer to do it for them.
Don't forget that Canon's sensor business is not just for cameras, but for photocopiers and other electronic equipment that uses light sensors so they have a far greater use for various sensors than Nikon do.

It is also a sense of pride that Canon have that they make their own sensors.

Right now, Some of the Sony sensors MAY be superior to some of Canon's sensors, especially in purely technical terms, but the Canon sensors are still pretty good and in the real world, some of them are just superb.
Canon is a marketing lead company, and if they see their sales dwindling because someone else's sensor is creaming them in SALES, not just specs, THEN they will come up with an even better sensor.
At this time, Canon is still outselling Nikon and Sony overall in DSLR sales, so they must be doing something right.

A good camera is far more than just a sensor and in the side by side tests of the D800 -V- the 5D3, most of the testers say they can see little difference between them as far as picture quality goes, but most of them prefer to use the Canon rather than the Nikon for their everyday and professional use.

I guess it's a bit like choosing what car to buy and basing your decison purely on what its 0-60mph time is.
Just because one car does it 1/10th of a second faster does not make it a better car, as their are lots of variables in picking one make from another, like ride confort, handling, economy and so on - just like in cameras we also choose the lens system, lens cost and quality and the feel and ergonomics of the unit itself, and these can be more important than just the technical specs, especially when the end results are very similar.


----------



## marekjoz (Jul 17, 2012)

Bennymiata said:


> Many Japanese companies truely believe that anything that is absolutely required for their products MUST either be made in-house, or made by a company that they own a large share of.
> 
> Take Toyota for example, they make their own shock absorbers, even the transmissions they use in their cars are mainly made by Jatco, of which Toyota have a large shareholding.
> Same with Canon.
> ...



Does anybody take under consideration, that Nikon is a Mitsubishi's subsidiary?


----------



## aj1575 (Jul 17, 2012)

I also like to ask the question, what is wrong with the sensors from canon? It is true, that Sony's (and Nikon's) are better at the moment, but does it really matter? Up until a year ago, the EOS 5D II was the non plus ultra for outdoorphotographers. It was praised for its high IQ, now the mkIII is even better, so what should be wrong about it.
Sure, a better sensor always gives you more possibilities, but is it the limiting factor; and what is the limiting factor of the sensor? Sony (Nikon) sensors have the higher dynamic range at low ISO and the better color sensitivity, while Canon still performs better at high ISO. If you just take the DxOMark score as a measurement, then Sony (Nikon) is far better than Canon; but these marks say about the quality of a camera about as much as a 0-100 time for a car.

To be honest, I expected a bigger step in IQ from the 5d markII to the 5d markIII, but it was still an improvement from an already very high level.

So should Canon keep making its own sensors? definitly yes.


----------



## steliosk (Jul 17, 2012)

Canon sensors would be fine if there weren't suffering from banding.

Just make a simple test.

Take an underexposed shot with the same settings, ISO 100 with a 5d mark3 and a d800 (which is the megapixel monster and should suffer a lot from noise and banding issues)

apply +4 or 5 stops in lightroom.
see what happens.

detail in 5D mark3 will just collapse  and they want 3.600 euros for that? they won't gonna get it!

like someone said above, 5D 3 over 5D 2 is not as much as revolutionary as D800 over D700.


----------



## aj1575 (Jul 17, 2012)

steliosk said:


> Take an underexposed shot with the same settings, ISO 100 with a 5d mark3 and a d800 (which is the megapixel monster and should suffer a lot from noise and banding issues)
> 
> apply +4 or 5 stops in lightroom.
> see what happens.



And now do the same at ISO 6400 or even higher maybe at 51'000, oh sorry, the D800 doesn't go up there...

It always depends on what you like to do with the camera, and how do set it. To me adding many stops in PP is not important, I do it very seldom. On the other hand, I do a lot of shoots with available light, which means I need high ISO.
So even though the D800 has the better overal sensor, the 5D mkIII would still be the better choice for me, because of the better IQ at high ISO.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 17, 2012)

steliosk said:


> Canon sensors would be fine if there weren't suffering from banding.
> 
> Just make a simple test.
> 
> ...



If you miss your exposure by 5 stops, the camera is the least of your problems.


----------



## tron (Jul 17, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> If you miss your exposure by 5 stops, the camera is the least of your problems.


 ;D


----------



## 1982chris911 (Jul 17, 2012)

tron said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > If you miss your exposure by 5 stops, the camera is the least of your problems.
> ...



I can still remember times when dark shadows were an important part of image composition ... with the d800 this seems to be obsolete for some strange reason as everyone is now pushing them by +4-5 EV ... In Every Picture :


----------



## steliosk (Jul 17, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> If you miss your exposure by 5 stops, the camera is the least of your problems.



The photographic skills are irrelevant.
ok i might overreacted about 5 stops but i wanted to make a point 

The fact remains the same.. Canon sensor can't take it!!

Back to reality, try pushing a couple of stops in a wedding in a dark church and check the shadows at ANY iso!

Oh and check the RAW image,, not that stupid-filtered jpegs


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 17, 2012)

steliosk said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > If you miss your exposure by 5 stops, the camera is the least of your problems.
> ...



Meh, I've shot ISO 3200 on the 7D, pushed 2 stops in the blacks and cropped to my tastes w/o any worries. Noise? Sure. Loss of detail? Sure. So what? Some of the best photographs aren't technically perfect. 

Henri Cartier bressons documentary work was done with a limited DR but that didn't stop him right? He delivered some great work that many admire which I am one of. Being grounded in this, So what if nikons have a tiny edge in DR? Give me a camera and I'll get something out of it.

Now Lens selection has more weight to me than any body ever will. Canon has a better prime selection, so I shoot canon. Pretty straight forward.


----------



## steliosk (Jul 17, 2012)

I have a total different philosophy
I'm a canon user too and as far as i'm concerned Canon lenses are superiors.
however Canon bodies are not.

As a consumer i demand always the best in the competition.

and no, pushing a couple of stops in 7D in 3200iso looks awefull in 20x30cm print and if i'd want that i'd like to make it myself, and not made by hardware weakness.

I don't care what bresson did in his time, this is not the issue by the way, plus i'm not looking backwards, i'm looking forward.

otherwise, we wouldn't talk about sensor tech, and we all could rely on a cheap compact to make out something out of nothing.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 17, 2012)

steliosk said:


> I have a total different philosophy
> I'm a canon user too and as far as i'm concerned Canon lenses are superiors.
> however Canon bodies are not.
> 
> ...



I respect your opinion. Yes, I have pushed the 7D Hard. Its not an issue for me but you may not like the IQ and that's understandable.

As for sensor tech, I'd be shooting MF Film if DSLRs weren't around. If MF format wasnt around, I'd be shooting Large format. If Large format wasn't around, I'd be a painter. ;D


----------



## steliosk (Jul 17, 2012)

apparently you're right
but we humans are greedy! 

Give us a 100megapixel sensor with 1.000.000 ISO and we will probably say when will the 200mpxels come out? hahaha

You have a point though. Technology provides more than we could possibly need. 
But like i said we're greedy, and as far as i know myself, i won't stop nagging about banding and noise issues EVER


----------



## Aglet (Jul 17, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Meh, I've shot ISO 3200 on the 7D, pushed 2 stops in the blacks and cropped to my tastes w/o any worries. Noise? Sure. Loss of detail? Sure. So what? Some of the best photographs aren't technically perfect.



HAHA! sure, when the image is all noise at high ISO, you can't make much of a comparison.

Try this with your 7D; take a shot at ISO 100-400, push it 2 stops and see how much shadow banding you have now. With most copies of the 7D I've seen, it's worse than doing this at hi ISO.

I'm now using a D800 for landscape type shots; it blows away my 5D2 so bad it's pitiful. I've got D800 images where I can bring up the detail of charcoal, in the shade, in a shot taken in full sunlight while holding complete detail in clouds. An image like this MUST be post-processed to look "realistic" otherwise it's very dark. This requires lifting the shadows a LOT, even the midtones must be raised considerably. 

This is something no Canon I've used yet is capable of without prodigious banding and noise in the shadow areas rendering the image unusable for how I want to present it.

In photos covering extreme ranges of lighting, there's no substitute for superior sensor technology that, regrettably, Canon does not currently provide. I've yet to see what the 1DX can do but I'm not waiting for it, I'm getting fantastic images with the competitor's products where I could not get them before without having to resort to bracketing and laborious PP work for mediocre results.


----------



## marekjoz (Jul 17, 2012)

Aglet said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Meh, I've shot ISO 3200 on the 7D, pushed 2 stops in the blacks and cropped to my tastes w/o any worries. Noise? Sure. Loss of detail? Sure. So what? Some of the best photographs aren't technically perfect.
> ...



Lucky you. So what's your answer to the question in topic?


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 17, 2012)

Aglet said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Meh, I've shot ISO 3200 on the 7D, pushed 2 stops in the blacks and cropped to my tastes w/o any worries. Noise? Sure. Loss of detail? Sure. So what? Some of the best photographs aren't technically perfect.
> ...



I've already done it. Works fine for me. 8)


----------



## suburbia (Jul 17, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> ScottyP said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder if Canon will reach a kind of "Apple Moment",  like when Apple quit spending its R&D money trying to beat Intel on a component (CPU's) and started just using Intel chips like everyone else.
> ...



I think you will find Apples "moment" was enabled by the loose licensing and large manufacturing possibilities of the ARM processor family! But I digress.

There are certainly tales of caution in the home computer and entertainment world about throwing money at expensive hardware R&D but then the sale margins were always really tight and it was always quite a niche market driven by entire chipset functionality. 

Surely sensor design is relatively easy for a camera company with such a big market to focus on?


----------



## TTMartin (Jul 17, 2012)

Given that the main source of the 'Canon sensors are falling behind' documentation is from DxOMark, I don't think so.

I believe that DxOMark either can't fully decode the CR2 file using their own software, are nothing more than a Nikon marketing shill, or both.


----------



## poias (Jul 18, 2012)

TTMartin said:


> I believe that DxOMark either can't fully decode the CR2 file using their own software, are nothing more than a Nikon marketing shill, or both.



You don't need DxO to tell you that 5D3 has shitty shadow noise and banding. Its DR is sufficient if you can nail the exposure, shoot JPG, and post online, however.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 18, 2012)

poias said:


> TTMartin said:
> 
> 
> > I believe that DxOMark either can't fully decode the CR2 file using their own software, are nothing more than a Nikon marketing shill, or both.
> ...



Interesting. I've been shooting with the 5D Mark III since April and I have not noticed those issues with RAW files and printing. Hmmm, guess I got the only good copy.


----------



## poias (Jul 18, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> poias said:
> 
> 
> > TTMartin said:
> ...



5D3's IQ is same as 5D2's. Good photographers can take any equipment and make them look good. But 5D3 itself has no IQ improvement over its 4 year old predecessor. Fact.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 18, 2012)

poias said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > poias said:
> ...



Not sure I claimed it did?? I bought the 5D Mark III after having a 5D Mark II for a long time due to the myriad of improvements over the Mark II. IQ wasn't one of them. I'm not getting your point?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 18, 2012)

poias said:


> 5D3's IQ is same as 5D2's. Good photographers can take any equipment and make them look good. But 5D3 itself has no IQ improvement over its 4 year old predecessor. Fact.



But...if true (big if), is that because they can do no better, or by choice? 

The 1D X is very noticeably better than the 5DII in terms of IQ. That suggests that Canon _could_ have made improvements to the 5-series IQ, but chose to improve pretty much everything else (since the IQ was already excellent), instead (again, IF the 5DIII has no better IQ).


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 18, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> poias said:
> 
> 
> > 5D3's IQ is same as 5D2's. Good photographers can take any equipment and make them look good. But 5D3 itself has no IQ improvement over its 4 year old predecessor. Fact.
> ...



Since I qualify to say it, and I wasn't going to go there but you MADE me , my RAW images out of the 5D Mark III seem to have better IQ than my 5D Mark II RAW's. The shadows are much better. JPEGS even better. IQ of JPEGS is actually noticeable to a non-photographer. Not at all saying 5D Mark II had bad IQ, we all know it is excellent. This is a subjective comparison.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jul 18, 2012)

poias said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > poias said:
> ...



actually not fact as you state, at iso 100 there is next to no difference between the 2 correct, however as the iso is increased the mk3 starts to lead the 5Dmk2 in IQ and over iso 1600 the 5dmk3 blows the doors off the mk2

FACT (well at least on my copies anyway)


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jul 18, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > poias said:
> ...



Owning the 5d2 and now the 5d3, I'd say I notice some IQ improvement (mostly in the higher ISOs, haven't looked carefully enough at low ISOs), but not too significant. But for me, it wasn't about the IQ since I was pretty happy to begin with. Although I do agree, the banding in underexposed blacks could certainly use even more help.

Also, having better IQ in the 1DX makes some sense. After all, it's the flagship camera, right? Shouldn't it have better IQ? Now lets see what Canon does with the rumored high MPx camera, and see what that sensor is like.


----------



## poias (Jul 18, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> poias said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



It looks like you are content with 5D2's IQ. Others like myself are not. My point is that people are showing their denial and even blaming DxO for not giving their 5D3 a good IQ score. The fact remains, IQ wise(which I personally consider the HEART of a camera), 5D3 has no improvement, thus a failure in my opinion. That is not to say that good photographers cannot take awesome shots. They have and will continue to do so.


----------



## TTMartin (Jul 18, 2012)

poias said:


> TTMartin said:
> 
> 
> > I believe that DxOMark either can't fully decode the CR2 file using their own software, are nothing more than a Nikon marketing shill, or both.
> ...



You mean the banding that has been in every Canon camera since 2005? 
The banding that has just gotten worse instead of the dynamic range of the sensors increasing?
The banding that only shows up in third party RAW converters, and not DPP?
That banding?


----------



## poias (Jul 18, 2012)

TTMartin said:


> poias said:
> 
> 
> > TTMartin said:
> ...



We are not comparing 5D3 to powershots and coolpixes. The benchmark is now D800/E. 5D3's DR is blown out and away by D800/E in IQ department. Even NEXes blow Canon sensors away. Interesting seeing the denial.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 18, 2012)

poias said:


> TTMartin said:
> 
> 
> > poias said:
> ...



Do you own a 5D Mark II or III? Have you ever? Do you own a D800/E? Have you ever? If so, thanks for your valuable opinions. If not, at least we know you can read reviews.


----------



## papa-razzi (Jul 18, 2012)

CR Forum Logic.
1. 5D2 IQ = Praiseworthy, even today. (general agreement)
2. 5D3 IQ > 5D2 IQ (general agreement)
3. 5D3 IQ = unsatisfactory

Prior to the 5D3 and 1Dx, we had lots of forum posts/threads of how Canon shouldn't chase high MP sensors any longer - who needs more MP! Canon should focus on better high ISO performance. Nikon is winning in high ISO performance we say. Then Canon do exactly that by keeping the MP down and improving high ISO performance in the 5D3 and 1Dx, but Nikon releases a MP monster. Now we complain about not having a high MP camera.

Most of you seem to feel that if Canon doesn't provide you with exactly what you want, then they don't know what they are doing. Markets do not equal 1 person. Canon is building products for markets, and you may or may not fall into the target market for a product. And, at any point in time, Canon may not offer exactly what you want in any product. But, that does not mean Canon is stupid and Nikon is brilliant. You (what you want in a camera system) may not be part of a very sizable or profitable market. Not a happy place to be.

For me, the 36MP sensor with poor ISO performance at the high end is useless - I don't care how good the dark shadow detail is or how many stops I can push it in lightroom. Others feel the opposite is true (for them).

Objectivity is not a strong point in CR Forum logic.... :


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 18, 2012)

poias said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > poias said:
> ...



I wonder what you did back in the 2001-2002 era when these sensors and cameras were unheard of. Photography I suppose was just all crap?


----------



## wickidwombat (Jul 18, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> poias said:
> 
> 
> > TTMartin said:
> ...



nice, but your forgot to add 
"you do know the iso setting goes above 100 don't you?"


----------



## TTMartin (Jul 18, 2012)

TTMartin said:


> poias said:
> 
> 
> > TTMartin said:
> ...



Did you ever stop to think that the banding is actually additional data stored in the CR2 file?

That the CR2 file provides easy decoding of an approximately 12 EV image, in the normal exposure range.
When you push the CR2 file more than a couple of stops in 3rd party RAW decoders, the banding you expose is actually additional data stored in the CR2 file that contains the full dynamic range capability of the camera.
That additional data is decoded by Canon’s DPP software, but, not 3rd party RAW decoders like the one that DxOMark uses in their tests. I think it's more than just possible.
Nope, never mind that Canon camera’s real world output matches any camera out there. We’ll just believe DxOMark.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 18, 2012)

I wonder why Canon sales are much, much higher than Nikon's?


----------



## ScottyP (Jul 18, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> I wonder why Canon sales are much, much higher than Nikon's?



Not sure I'd put 2 "_much-es_" in that statement.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 18, 2012)

ScottyP said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder why Canon sales are much, much higher than Nikon's?
> ...



You're ruining my bait . I'm waiting on a lecture of how the D800 sales blasted the 5D Mark III sales (whether true or not, I'm waiting for the lecture nonetheless).


----------



## 4thchicken (Jul 18, 2012)

Stepping back form the canon v nikon debate,

What are people's thoughts on the fuji xpro1 x-trans CMOS sensor? From what I've read it does an outstanding job and I would think potentially licensing such a sensor on a FF might provide canon with something very competitive?

Any one want to try commenting on the DR, high iso capabilities etc of a potential FF x-trans CMOS sensor?


----------



## David Hull (Jul 18, 2012)

poias said:


> TTMartin said:
> 
> 
> > poias said:
> ...



It continues to amuse me that all of this so called "state of the art" sensor technology has as yet made no impact on the state of the "art" produced by the devices that incorporate it.

As for the banding, if you actually work in some images from the 5DIII which exhibit the phenomenon you will immediately notice that there is a significant improvement over the 5DII and that what remains can easily be removed using just about any of the available NR programs. At this point it is essentially irrelevant.


----------



## aj1575 (Jul 18, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> The fact remains the same.. Canon sensor can't take it!!
> 
> Back to reality, try pushing a couple of stops in a wedding in a dark church and check the shadows at ANY iso!
> 
> Oh and check the RAW image,, not that stupid-filtered jpegs



I really doubt that the D800 will do better at high ISO (and the shots will most likely be at high ISO, since it is dark). I've never tested it on my own, maybe somebody with both cameras available could do the test. But from what I can read out of the DxOMark measurements, the advantage of a higher dynamic range (which enables you to push the shadows) the D800 has, is neglectable at ISO 1600 and definitly gone at 6400.


----------



## thebowtie (Jul 18, 2012)

It may have been said before, however the incredibly obvious needs to be said IMO...
[list type=decimal]
[*]Should Canon do/make/(insert your pet peeve here...)? - that's what they pay their business executives to make decisions about.
[*]If you want to influence that decision, you have simple and easy choices by voting with your wallet.
[/list]

Either buy the stuff they make that fits your situation and needs, or
Buy the stuff someone else makes that fits your situation and needs

Canon would get that message much more effectively than *any *amount of speculation or ranting from this community about what they should do.

There's no point speculating / pontificating on what Canon should / could do - unless you work for Canon, and then that forum should not be visible here.

I'm quite sure Canon have good methods for gathering market intelligence about what the market requires - how they execute that strategy is their business, not ours.

Just saying... (I don't work for Canon or any affiliate)


----------



## aj1575 (Jul 18, 2012)

poias said:


> The benchmark is now D800/E. 5D3's DR is blown out and away by D800/E in IQ department. Even NEXes blow Canon sensors away. Interesting seeing the denial.


What leads you to the claim, that a NEX blows away Canon (and which Canon sensor do you mean? do you compare the NEX to a coolpix?
And the 5D3 is not blown out by the D800. This is only the case if you take the strange overall score from DxO, which lacks any logic, like, why does the D800 score so much better in the ISO department, when measurments are so close together and while the Canon goes to higher ISO than the Nikon?
Don't get me wrong, the dynamic range of the Nikon is amazing at low ISO, also color sensitivity is good, both better than Canon. But at high ISO the picture changes, and Nikon only has better colorsensitivity up there, while it lacks behind in dynamic range. And this is only taken from synthetic measurments by DxO, I think in the reall world the difference will even be smaller (sure, you can always find a certain type of shoot, that shows the weakness of one camera compared to another one.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 18, 2012)

TTMartin said:


> The banding that only shows up in third party RAW converters, and not DPP?
> That banding?



Banding shows up in DPP too, it's where I first found it and then when to 3rd party software to help reduce the problem.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 18, 2012)

4thchicken said:


> Any one want to try commenting on the DR, high iso capabilities etc of a potential FF x-trans CMOS sensor?



I still haven't had my hands on the latest one to test but even Fuji's previous generation X cam sensor was outperforming Canon in some areas of eliminating noise.
Non-Nayer CFA is also an interesting concept, not yet sure how well it works.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 18, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> I've already done it. Works fine for me. 8)



Maybe you got lucky and selected a clean 7D, they do exist.
Run of the mill ones aren't so good. 

But also, lets' not see a high contrast B&W shot which can reduce the effect of (primarily) red channel noise. I use B&W to hide a noisy shot too. 




marekjoz said:


> Lucky you. So what's your answer to the question in topic?



My answer is to buy what works and my advice to Canon is to develop better sensor tech on their own or license it from the competition. And start supplying it to us FAST! 
I'd love to be able to use my Canon glass and bodies instead of carrying a "mixed bag" of gear but I've been disappointed by banding noise on all of my Canon bodies since I went digital with a 40D. At the time it was a hair better than the comparable but upscale D300. 40D is still my preferred camera in some ways but I quickly discovered its limits and have been repeatedly disappointed with low ISO performance of every subsequent Canon body I've bought since (about 15 of them). 

Biggest letdowns were my 5D2 and 7D. For that kind of money, those cameras should not have more banding than a darn Rebel or a compact like the G11 or G12. They're no longer image quality leaders at the low ISO end of the spectrum. 

I was just about to spring for some T&S glass from Canon but now I'm hesitant. Those lenses on the 5D would compose some stuff for me just how I want it. But when I crank the file I won't be happy with the results, and, after seeing what my D800 and D5100 can do, I really can't bring myself to drop nearly $5k on a pair of lenses only to be compromised by mediocre sensor performance. I want either Canon to improve their bodies or Nikon (or some 3rd party) to make better wide T&S glass.

Fortunately I might be able to afford to hold off dumping much of my Canon kit for a while and see what happens over the next year.


As an alternate gripe, I still find myself, let's say 'amused,' at those whose opinion of DxOmark's results are disparaging to DxO or the Nikon cameras which attained the high marks they doubt.
Some of us are actually using camera systems from both manufacturers, and pushing the raw files to their limits at times to create the images we want. The differences noted by DxOmark ARE REAL and they CAN show up in everyday shooting. It seems many people don't know where to look for the flaws or don't care if they see them.
When these same image files are pushed the difference becomes quickly apparent which sensor technology is superior for low ISO dynamic range.

I don't shoot weddings, nightclubs or motorsports after sunset, so high ISO performance, as impressive as its recent improvements in the 5D3 and 1Dx may be, are only one side of the argument.

Many of us shoot in SUNLIGHT. Harsh, contrasty and uncontrollable for all but intimate settings. Under these circumstances, the extremes of shadow and light are captured, compressed and presented as a final image far better, IMO, by sensors in recent Nikon cameras than by sensors in any Canon DSLR.

As such, Canon has an option to listen to the complaints of consumers of their products. Should they try to satisfy these demands for better low ISO performance, their engineering branch is going to have to work very hard to catch up to the competition in this aspect.

Call or email Canon and let them know your opinion on this if it matters enough.
I have.


----------



## bycostello (Jul 18, 2012)

nowt wrong with cannon sensors..


----------



## marekjoz (Jul 18, 2012)

Aglet said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I've already done it. Works fine for me. 8)
> ...



So the best option for you would be a camera with ISO 50-800. It could be a niche market anyway.


----------



## archangelrichard (Jul 18, 2012)

*EPIC FAIL*

Let's start with the logic: "I wonder if Canon will reach a kind of "Apple Moment", like when Apple quit spending its R&D money trying to beat Intel on a component (CPU's) and started just using Intel chips like everyone else."

Apple has *NEVER* made the *CPU*, The Apple I, II, III used Rockwell 6502's as the base, the Mac's used standard 68000 family (68008, 68016 et al) until the Power series used IBM power PC chips (which have so much power that they were illegal to export - remember those commercials with a mac surrounded by tanks because it was too powerful to export>); the switch to Intel chips lobotomized the Mac's to an extent (there are several things you just can't do with an Intel chip because of it's architecture so Apple has to ignore / block those instructions when using the chip in apple os modes

The OP has NO idea what they are talking about so the logic is an epic fail

The question, rather, is how important is the sensor to the camera - is the camera (now that we left film for digital) no more than an extension of the sensor? At that point the sensor becomes key to product development and - yes - it is best (if you can afford it) to keep it in-house

Going back to computers; IBM set a standard in 1981 with the PC - but by 1985 IBM was number 5 in the PC-compatibles market; the problem was that the only thing IBM actually made on the PC was the l;abel; everything else was stardard parts that anyone else could piece together (some better than others) and most cheaper than IBM; Apple had many non-standard parts (for example Steve Wozniak had developed a way to go from 20 chips to run a disk drive as found on standard S-100 computers to 4 chips, one being called the "Integrated Woz Machine" chip, or proprietary and better architecture).

This is what sensor design is to cameras - you can do much better when using your own technologies if they are better technologies; make your own "woz" devices and Canon has, which is why Nikon had to outosurce - they just can'y afford to keep up with Canon on this.

Here is where your analogy falls apart - IBM went to they PS-2 because they lost their market and were trying to get it back not by making better 6technology but by making proprietary technology. Back in the mainframe days IBM had figured out a way to make money by taking their standards and creating paper :Institutes" as they wrote off the costs of development a second time by "charitable donation". The names of these "institutes" are ANSI (American National Standards Institute) and ASCII (American Standards Conference for Information Interchange). A Company called Control Data joined these and began making IBM-Compatible terminals at a lower price undercutting IBM. IBM sued and lost - once CD had joined these tax dodges they had tjhe right to build terminals with these standards -- so IBM set a NEW standard that was thoroughly incompatible (3270 and EBCDIC) which are NOT better hut different - and a large part of the market migrated, when they needed to upgrade, to smaller but compatible manufacturers - Digital Equipment (DEC PDP computers which were not originally called computers in fear of IBM, Control Data moved into computers, HP, and many others

This is where Nikon is - to a certain extent they can't be the Canon alternative without simply being a different lens mount, they need to offer something significantly different -- but they haven't the money for it. The issue with Nikon is that Canon is 60% of the market, Nikon is only 25% so a much smaller company; sony is in many more markets, essentially dominating video, so sensor technology is necessary to their operations; and (here is where outsourcing works) it is a much more trivial matter to incorporate some of the concept that they developed for video into still camera sensors (for their own (minolta - remember) use as well as for Nikon's with Nikon supplying some of their expertise on their versions but manufacturing exclusively by sony)

In other words the economics of the situation is that Nikon simply can not afford to make it's own sensors AND keep pace with Canon; this is a Nikon issue and has nothing to do with sensor technology - and that is the OP's epic fail, not understanding the problem. You don't understand the computer industry demonstrating a fanboy mentality and then carry that misunderstanding to Cameras like a bad program gone wild Nikon's adopting a more generic way of getting sensors will be their death - it becomes no more than a (industry standard) sensor in a non-canon lens mount; Nikon is now in a death spiral they may not come out of, necessitated by financials; they simply can not compete on the same turf as Canon. Look for Sony to put money into Nikon, then buy the rest of the company and make Nikon the high end of the Sony cameras

While Canon keeps on in their 60% of the market


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 18, 2012)

archangelrichard said:


> *EPIC FAIL*
> 
> Let's start with the logic: "I wonder if Canon will reach a kind of "Apple Moment", like when Apple quit spending its R&D money trying to beat Intel on a component (CPU's) and started just using Intel chips like everyone else."
> 
> ...



Yeah! what this guy said. ;D


----------



## marekjoz (Jul 19, 2012)

archangelrichard said:


> *EPIC FAIL*
> 
> Let's start with the logic: "I wonder if Canon will reach a kind of "Apple Moment", like when Apple quit spending its R&D money trying to beat Intel on a component (CPU's) and started just using Intel chips like everyone else."
> (...)



Eric - I think i understand what OP tried to say - let them focus on what they do best like Apple did. You would admit, that Apple was involved with IBM and Motorola in designing CPUs. Apple didn't design it from scratch, nor did it alone, but was involved and some of their resources were spent on it. Later they decided to adapt to "ready to use" Intel processors. I think that was what OP wanted to say - maybe also Canon could abandon it's sensors production as there are others who might do it better. One of the questions is whether this would be smart, as from strategic as well from operational points of view. As far this is one of many differentiating factors between Canon and others. The other question is if Canon could make a better camera using ie Sony sensors than Nikon itself. The other question is what in a longer time horizon would it mean for Canon itself: it's future market share and what their publicity would be after this. 
True is, that Apple focused on setting a product vision, using fully outsourced hardware assembly and delivering "apple-centric" software solution. The advantage there is not a CPU itself, but let's say Retina in example. Apple doesn't care how the specification set by them, would be achieved in production - they just order it to be designed, manufactured and delivered for use in a final product. Putting this idea on Canon DSLRs it would be a camera visioned by Canon, with specification set by Canon. If we say that sensor is essential here, then Canon sets the specification of the sensor, orders it and prepares for use in their final product. And I would not be so sure, that this is not possible. There are a lot of electronic circuits in a DSLR and I could agree, that it's build around the sensor, but I'm not sure it's not possible to achieve a better product the same way as Apple successfuly did. There is of course an assumption, that Canon sensors are bad, what a lot of people don't agree. There is also another assumption, that there is a company in the world, that Canon would trust as a sensor deliver. 
There are similarities but also differences in what the Apple's product is in comparison to Canon's product. Here we focused on Apple PCs and Canon DSLRs. But there are more hardware differences between DSLRs of different manufacturers, as it is in PCs world. Maybe one of the reasons Canon holds it's own sensors production is that they see it rather as an advantage and not a problem. 
Many assumptions here, many "ifs" and "whens" but I don't see OP's idea as an epic fail, as you did.


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 19, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> I wonder what you did back in the 2001-2002 era when these sensors and cameras were unheard of. Photography I suppose was just all crap?



They moaned that the D60 was not much of an improvement over the D30 and that the 1Ds was too expensive


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 19, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder what you did back in the 2001-2002 era when these sensors and cameras were unheard of. Photography I suppose was just all crap?
> ...



And that the 1V was crap because it wasn't digital?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 19, 2012)

I would just like to say, that regarding the posts of D800 vs. 5D Mark III in this thread, I printed 3 posters out tonight on my Canon printer with images taken with a 5D Mark III and they looked absolutely fabulous, and sharp down to the last detail. What would 36mp gain me? That's all :.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jul 19, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...


and the 1Dmk1 used a 4MP kodak sensor and had too much shadow pattern noise


----------



## Woody (Jul 19, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> First you need to get your facts straight.
> 1. Canon uses sensors from Sony, and they make sensors as well



Canon buys Sony CCDs for their compact cameras, but all Canon DSLRs use Canon designed and manufactured CMOS sensors.

I too believe competition is good. But if they cannot match the performance of Sony sensors, they may as well buy Sony CMOS sensors until they are able to come up with more competitive sensor designs. The poor low ISO dynamic range of Canon sensors is hurting their reputation.


----------



## jrista (Jul 19, 2012)

archangelrichard said:


> *EPIC FAIL*
> 
> Let's start with the logic: "I wonder if Canon will reach a kind of "Apple Moment", like when Apple quit spending its R&D money trying to beat Intel on a component (CPU's) and started just using Intel chips like everyone else."
> 
> ...



+1 Awesome.

Not sure I entirely agree with the last paragraph...I don't think Nikon is in a "death spiral"...they have had a smaller market share for some time and seem to fit and survive quite well within that "niche" (its not really a niche...the market for DSLR's is monstrous, so 25% is an ungodly amount of "market" on a per-customer basis). I would say that this is Nikon's bid to expand their market share beyond 25% rather than simply sit happy and live with it. If they fail, well they remain at that comfortable but less than ideal 25%. They certainly seem to be succeeding from a marketing and minds standpoint as well...if I were to put some off-the-cuff ratios out there regarding overall customer sentiment and satisfaction (regardless of their current adherence to any given brand), I'd say 60% were more than happy to ecstatic about what Nikon is producing these days, and excited about what the future holds for new Nikon gear. On the flip side, I would say closer to 25% feel the same about what Canon is producing these days, or excited about what the future holds for new Canon gear. I could see the future becoming more balanced...35%+ market share for Nikon, and closer to 50% for Canon, and possibly a long-term shift in market share if Canon can't find ways to compete with Nikon on a level footing, and sustain that competition.

I'm a Canon user myself, but I'm NOT particularly excited about what Canon's been producing these days as far as DSLR tech goes, or what seems to be over the horizon. I AM actually intrigued and even excited about what Nikon is and has been doing. They are innovating, and even on the backs of Sony, innovation is particularly exciting for consumers, because it increases competition. Canon has sustained a mediocre level of competition with their latest cameras, however on all critical hardware aspects, including image sensor, AF sensor, etc. Canon is innovating less and "cheating" more, just to get by. They know the state they are in, they know they have increasingly inferior technology upon which to build their products. They know that bugs a growing percentage of their customers (however a small enough percentage that they haven't actually done anything about it yet.)

A bigger, better, more competitive Nikon, again even if it is on the backs of Sony, is a really good thing for this market. A useful shift in market share, even if it ultimately ends up being to a Sony-owned Nikon brand a few years down the road (still not sure thats going to happen), is probably the only thing that will really light the fire under the collective Canon arse and force them to REALLY compete in the areas where Nikon is currently excelling. Canon turned the tides back in the 80's with autofocus, and ushered in a new DSLR era. Perhaps now Nikon is turning the tides again with advanced image and f/8 AF sensor design, and will usher in the next DSLR era.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 19, 2012)

marekjoz said:


> So the best option for you would be a camera with ISO 50-800. It could be a niche market anyway.



yes, a real ISO *50* to 800 would be just ducky! 

Not so niche a market tho, mainstream product in the last year has MET my requirements in this area. I merely lament it's not by the mfr that I've supported almost exclusively with my purchases for the last 30-some years.

Whether Canon can catch up or surpass with their own in-house sensor tech, or whether they make like recent Apple and package leading edge tech from other component mfrs, wrapped in their own overall design and interface, does not matter to me.

I just want a camera that's as easy to use as Canon's have always been to me, and also supply the kind of image quality I've been craving for years and have only just now experienced by using competitors' products.

I'd rather sell my Nik gear and use Can equipment than the other way around, i still feel some brand loyalty. But it's fading fast; I'm getting too old to be patient enough to wait. I only wish I'd have payed more attention back when the D90 came out... The first DSLR I know of with a significant improvement in dark noise pattern reduction.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 19, 2012)

archangelrichard said:


> Going back to computers; IBM set a standard in 1981 with the PC -



a very poor simple-minded standard 

they didn't believe in the PC and dumped it off to some little team they didn't care about much and yeah they got junk




> Apple had many non-standard parts (for example Steve Wozniak had developed a way to go from 20 chips to run a disk drive as found on standard S-100 computers to 4 chips, one being called the "Integrated Woz Machine" chip, or proprietary and better architecture).



You really need to look, in that era, back to Atari and CBM if you want to talk about tons of proprietary custom chips. People like Jay Miner, not Woz, were the real hardware wizards in the home computing realm back then.




> While Canon keeps on in their 60% of the market



not necessarily if their sensors remain back of the pack for low ISO and they end up charging 30% more for everything


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 19, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder what you did back in the 2001-2002 era when these sensors and cameras were unheard of. Photography I suppose was just all crap?
> ...



Most of shot film is what we did.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 19, 2012)

Woody said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > First you need to get your facts straight.
> ...



The only tricky thing is that they are then potential stuck at the whims of whether sony wants to go low or high mp and with whether movie modes and liveview will work well or not. I'd rather see if they couldn't pay sony to be able to use exmor patents but stick with designing stuff themselves otherwise (although even here they do seem a bit behind since the non-exmor D4 has a lot more DR than 1DX/5D3, but exmor patents would give them enough). I don't know that sony would particularly be willing to sell canon rights to use exmor patents or maybe canon would not want to pay (eventually market may force them?). And perhaps Nikon has some deal where sony can't let anyone else use exmor??


----------



## NormanBates (Jul 19, 2012)

Canon's business plan, as of late, seems to be: add a "I", charge $1000 more, then just do as if it's actually worth that much

but more seriously, check this:
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/07/is-sony-going-to-be-the-digital-kodak


----------



## tron (Jul 19, 2012)

NormanBates said:


> Canon's business plan, as of late, seems to be: add a "I", charge $1000 more, then just do as if it's actually worth that much


Although I am a Canon fan(atic?) I have to admit that the above statement is unfortunately correct


----------



## briansquibb (Jul 19, 2012)

tron said:


> NormanBates said:
> 
> 
> > Canon's business plan, as of late, seems to be: add a "I", charge $1000 more, then just do as if it's actually worth that much
> ...



Do you know that as a fact or is this just your opinion?


----------



## tron (Jul 20, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > NormanBates said:
> ...


Although I think this question is addressed to NormanBates let me mention: 

24-70 II: I understand that it will be better than version I but that better? They even increased the price of version I ...

300 f/2.8L IS II, 400 f/2.8L IS II, 500 f/4L IS II, 600 f/4L IS II: They are lighter and maybe a little better that their already very goof predecessors but the increase in price is huge!

5D Mark III: better in AF, fps and in noise (a little) but ... that better ? huge price increase...

28 2.8 IS, 24 2.8 IS prices are a joke. Let me add that in the (very) good old days my 28 2.8 costed around 100$ and my 24mm 2.8 costed around 190 euros (both new). However Canon may price these two new IS lenses as much as they like. I am not interested ;D

(I cannot say the same for some of the previous items I mentioned  )


----------



## applecider (Jul 20, 2012)

Price of canon gear....

I hope that we all realize that one of the reasons for price increases is that the dollar yen exchange rate has changed from about 110 in 2008 To about 80 now. That's about a thirty percent change, thus gear is more expensive for us.


----------



## tron (Jul 20, 2012)

The prices of the current products have already been increased by this amount. The problem is that the new ones are being priced disproportionate more.

Compare the prices of the new big white lenses to the old ones for example!


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Jul 20, 2012)

It depends on whether or not they want to stay in the camera business. I will predict that within ten years time
the largest camera manufacturers will be Panasonic, Fuji, Samsung, Canon and Sony - mainly because they make
their own sensors and can control the manufacturing and delivery of improvements. Companies that use OEM
chips, fabricators or modified "custom" chips from the above will always be behind the eight ball. Look at the
dilemma that Leica faces since Kodak gave up the chip business.


----------



## Robert Welch (Jul 20, 2012)

I love how people want to tell Canon (or Nikon, etc.) what they should do. Don't you think they spend a lot of money doing market research before they manufacture anything. And then after they do make something, they know how profitable it was and that will guide them going forward. I think Canon is doing well enough, unlike some other companies, like Olympus (which has had some scandal issues among management/board members recently), or Sony & Panasonic in the TV market.


----------



## TTMartin (Jul 20, 2012)

Robert Welch said:


> I love how people want to tell Canon (or Nikon, etc.) what they should do. Don't you think they spend a lot of money doing market research before they manufacture anything. And then after they do make something, they know how profitable it was and that will guide them going forward. I think Canon is doing well enough, unlike some other companies, like Olympus (which has had some scandal issues among management/board members recently), or Sony & Panasonic in the TV market.



Do you think that Canon ignores comments on internet sites and only spends a lot of money on market research? Even the smallest companies have employees who regularly monitor appropriate internet threads. Some have active representatives, others simply monitor passively.


----------



## marekjoz (Jul 20, 2012)

TTMartin said:


> Robert Welch said:
> 
> 
> > I love how people want to tell Canon (or Nikon, etc.) what they should do. Don't you think they spend a lot of money doing market research before they manufacture anything. And then after they do make something, they know how profitable it was and that will guide them going forward. I think Canon is doing well enough, unlike some other companies, like Olympus (which has had some scandal issues among management/board members recently), or Sony & Panasonic in the TV market.
> ...



If it would be true, with my briliant ideas I would already be offered some good position in their R&D team ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Kernuak (Jul 20, 2012)

tron said:


> The prices of the current products have already been increased by this amount. The problem is that the new ones are being priced disproportionate more.
> 
> Compare the prices of the new big white lenses to the old ones for example!


Most of the older big whites are 10-15 years old, so they're bound to have come down in price. It's the comparison to their release price, adjusted for inflation and exchange that should be made. However, I don't know how any of those factors compare.


----------



## ScottyP (Jul 20, 2012)

applecider said:


> Price of canon gear....
> 
> I hope that we all realize that one of the reasons for price increases is that the dollar yen exchange rate has changed from about 110 in 2008 To about 80 now. That's about a thirty percent change, thus gear is more expensive for us.



Exactly! That is why Honda Civics cost $135,000.00 errrr..... no... wait a sec......

Perhaps Japanese companies CAN find a work-around any exchange-rate issues any time they actually want/need to be competetive...


----------



## marekjoz (Jul 20, 2012)

Kernuak said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > The prices of the current products have already been increased by this amount. The problem is that the new ones are being priced disproportionate more.
> ...



Take also under consideration, that Canon when setting their prices, has also to predict the future inflation as the products will be selling for several years, and no customer expects seeing prices higher, no matter for what the reason.


----------



## tron (Jul 20, 2012)

marekjoz said:


> Take also under consideration, that Canon when setting their prices, has also to predict the future inflation as the products will be selling for several years, and no customer expects seeing prices higher, no matter for what the reason.


No they don't! The prices of the old lenses continue to rise no matter what!


----------



## marekjoz (Jul 20, 2012)

tron said:


> marekjoz said:
> 
> 
> > Take also under consideration, that Canon when setting their prices, has also to predict the future inflation as the products will be selling for several years, and no customer expects seeing prices higher, no matter for what the reason.
> ...



Then figure out how prices would rise up if Canon didn't consider inflation when setting the initial price ;D


----------



## tron (Jul 21, 2012)

They can figure instead how much less we will buy if they continue rising their prices ;D


----------



## tron (Jul 21, 2012)

Then, figure out too how much less we would pay if they didn't consider inflation. In the beginning the prices would be lower so many buyers would take advantage of this. By the way where did you get the information about Canon taking inflation into consideration in the first place?


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jul 21, 2012)

papa-razzi said:


> CR Forum Logic.
> 1. 5D2 IQ = Praiseworthy, even today. (general agreement)
> 2. 5D3 IQ > 5D2 IQ (general agreement)
> 3. 5D3 IQ = unsatisfactory



8) 8) 8) 8)  ;D 8) 8) ;D 

so very true....I asked it on another lets bash the mk3 thread, how many naysayers own either camera????


----------



## marekjoz (Jul 21, 2012)

tron said:


> Then, figure out too how much less we would pay if they didn't consider inflation. In the beginning the prices would be lower so many buyers would take advantage of this. By the way where did you get the information about Canon taking inflation into consideration in the first place?



Here is some calculation: http://www.eos-network.com/2012/03/cameras-banks-and-the-financial-crisis-or-why-cameras-prices-seem-so-high-these-days


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 21, 2012)

I just go my MK3 today and shot some High ISO. Un-believeable performance @ ISO 51,200 for High speed B&W's. My previous limit for High Speed B&Ws was 6400 on the 7D but the mk3 is just epic!

Good enough for a 4x6 print and thats fine for ISO 51,200!


----------



## ScottyP (Jul 21, 2012)

elflord said:


> ScottyP said:
> 
> 
> > I see Nikon using Sony sensors, and Sony itself is using its new sensors in its new well-received bodies, and I read people discussing how the Canon sensors seem to be falling behind.
> ...



Canon has the part about "not leading from a pure price to performance standpoint" and "charging a premium" down pat. Do they have the all-important counterbalancing point  about superior user-experience/funcionality sewed up, or are they resting on the security of having people heavily committed/invested in its lenses not being able to switch easily? In the face of real competition to its market share, Canon should compete by being better for the same price, just as is standard practice in all consumer goods. If you can steal a march against Nikon by putting better firmware into a lower model body, DO IT. And how much could AMFA really cost to include??


----------



## Menace (Jul 21, 2012)

My 2 cents worth...

Canon would have done their market research so they know how many units of a particular line they can sell at a given price point - too high and a lot of potential buyers will be put off and no doubt venting off frustration in various online forums 

I sold my 7d and bought the 5D III soon as it came out, I winced when I handed over my credit card but knew I'll be able to sell more / larger prints with the new body. 

Btw, I'm very satisfied with its performance and canvas prints up to A0 size


----------



## Hillsilly (Jul 21, 2012)

If Canon became a pure marketing company, selling a camera made of components from other supplier's spare parts bins, it would quickly dissolve into irrelevance. I'm not keen for that to happen and encourage Canon to keep making their own sensors. 

Despite numerous claims that Sony sensors are better, where is the real world proof? They might have a slightly different "look", but better? I've never taken a photo and thought it would be better if I'd used a Nikon or Sony. 

Anyway, arguments about sensors pale in consideration to the real issues - black and white vs colour, negatives vs transparencies, Velvia vs Provia vs Astia, kodak vs Ilford vs Rollei vs Fuji vs Fompan vs Agfa vs .... If only there was one film!


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jul 21, 2012)

ScottyP said:


> elflord said:
> 
> 
> > ScottyP said:
> ...



Other than being bitter, having a hard time figuring your logic. The mk3 is selling quite well as are canon models in general. I think you got it right for nikon though. Niokon is smaller than canon and has been trying to catch up over the past 5 years. I'm not sure if the d800 is priced the way it is due to outsourcing the sensor from sony, or, maybe nikon is trying to undercut canon by selling a product at close to a loss (or, maybe sony is taking a loss on the sensor just to get it out there). Either way, the mk3 is holding its own. Amazon is one of the only sites i have found that publish this data and keep it up to date. Since release, both the d800 and the mk3 have been in the top 20, more often than not in the top 10. As i write this post, the d800 is at 11th, and the mk3 is at 8th. 

So I'm really kind of wondering why canon would listen to you and drop prices? If they were in trouble, they would. Hell, I don't even see them scrambling to get a media campaign together to get people on board with the 5d series. What I do see canon doing is preparing to launch new lenses and new bodies. Your post describes canon as a company that sinking in quick sand, and they better listen to you or else...or else what? Sounds to me like listening to you would be a good way for canon to destroy their business. Would the mk3 sell at $2999, sure. Would the complainers still complain? Yes. Hell, if they released it at $1999 I'm sure people would still complain! Bottom line is if you want the best studio landscape cam out there then the mk3 may not be the best choice for you. Suck it up, stay on your current gear and wait, or make the decision and sell your gear to invest in nikon. Those are your choices. I made mine - I bought my mk3 a few weeks ago and it is a joy to use. The files are just awesome to work with, and the high ISO capabilities are just plain outrageous!


----------



## Cgdillan (Jul 22, 2012)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> ScottyP said:
> 
> 
> > elflord said:
> ...



I agree +1 =-) LOVE my mkiii


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 22, 2012)

Hillsilly said:


> If Canon became a pure marketing company, selling a camera made of components from other supplier's spare parts bins, it would quickly dissolve into irrelevance. I'm not keen for that to happen and encourage Canon to keep making their own sensors.
> 
> Despite numerous claims that Sony sensors are better, where is the real world proof? They might have a slightly different "look", but better? I've never taken a photo and thought it would be better if I'd used a Nikon or Sony.
> 
> Anyway, arguments about sensors pale in consideration to the real issues - black and white vs colour, negatives vs transparencies, Velvia vs Provia vs Astia, kodak vs Ilford vs Rollei vs Fuji vs Fompan vs Agfa vs .... If only there was one film!



at low iso for high dynamic range scenes there is tons of proof, it's been given here and all over the net

at high iso it's not so much different


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 22, 2012)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> So I'm really kind of wondering why canon would listen to you and drop prices? If they were in trouble, they would.



they have!
i got one for $130 off list weeks ago and many people are finding them, even at Amazon on many recent days, for $130-$400 off the $3499.


----------



## TTMartin (Jul 22, 2012)

Hillsilly said:


> If Canon became a pure marketing company, selling a camera made of components from other supplier's spare parts bins, it would quickly dissolve into irrelevance. I'm not keen for that to happen and encourage Canon to keep making their own sensors.
> 
> Despite numerous claims that Sony sensors are better, where is the real world proof? They might have a slightly different "look", but better? I've never taken a photo and thought it would be better if I'd used a Nikon or Sony.
> 
> Anyway, arguments about sensors pale in consideration to the real issues - black and white vs colour, negatives vs transparencies, Velvia vs Provia vs Astia, kodak vs Ilford vs Rollei vs Fuji vs Fompan vs Agfa vs .... If only there was one film!



All the electronic enhancements off, and for some reason actual DR output directly from the D800 is less than the that output from the 5D Mk III.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d800-d800e/19

Yes, the test is made using in camera JPG, but, that takes 3rd party RAW decoders out of the picture.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 22, 2012)

thebowtie said:


> There's no point speculating / pontificating on what Canon should / could do - unless you work for Canon, and then that forum should not be visible here.



But there is - from a purely consumer perspective, it's pretty interesting if the for example the 5d3 will drop $500 until x-mas or the 24-70ii will stay as expensive and so on...



thebowtie said:


> I'm quite sure Canon have good methods for gathering market intelligence about what the market requires - how they execute that strategy is their business, not ours.



I'm sure Kodak and Polaroid had excellent marketing gathering intelligence, too - or at least that's what they believed 



Chuck Alaimo said:


> So I'm really kind of wondering why canon would listen to you and drop prices? If they were in trouble, they would.



I'm pretty sure that you're not correct - dslrs are no mobile phones where a real market exists with flexible prices that respond to customer demand. Canon can't simply axe $500-$1000 off the 5d3 w/o ruining their reputation and alienating their early adopters customer base. The only strategically sound option for them is to release a competitive 5d2 successor for the folk's that aren't prepared to spend $3500 yet - and I'm very interested in seeing how they perform this magic trick.


----------

