# Still waiting for high MP canon while Nikon is coming out with new 800



## Jglaser757 (May 22, 2014)

I've waited a long time for Nikon to recapture the lead on Nikon and their 36 mp camera. And now I read that Nikon will introduce an upgrade to the 800e in June. Why am I not jumping ship? I do have a lot of canon glass and have been a local customer. I own the mk III and 6d and I love the images .BUTT, COME ON ALREADY cCanon. Get your stuff together!


----------



## mackguyver (May 22, 2014)

Jglaser757 said:


> I've waited a long time for Nikon to recapture the lead on Nikon and their 36 mp camera. And now I read that Nikon will introduce an upgrade to the 800e in June. Why am I not jumping ship? I do have a lot of canon glass and have been a local customer. I own the mk III and 6d and I love the images .BUTT, COME ON ALREADY cCanon. Get your stuff together!


The thing I wonder about your post and others like it is - how many people "need" 36+ MP? Sure, it's always nice to have more than you need, but unless you have the very best lenses - Canon Mk II big whites, Zeiss Otus 55 & Zeiss 135 f/2, etc., there will be little increase in _actual _resolution. It would help a lot with cropping and would equalize the FF vs. crop war for wildlife...but again, only with the very best lenses and technique. I've printed many large prints at 40x60 or larger at 300dpi (that's around a 3x enlargement for 5DII files) and found little to complain about. Most people share photos at 1600x1200 or less online and rarely, if ever, print anything over 8x12"...but these are the people who often scream the loudest over their inadequate megapixel bodies! 

While we wait for more MP, I'll keep shooting what I've got and won't lose any sleep over my 18 and 22 MP bodies 8)


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 22, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Jglaser757 said:
> 
> 
> > I've waited a long time for Nikon to recapture the lead on Nikon and their 36 mp camera. And now I read that Nikon will introduce an upgrade to the 800e in June. Why am I not jumping ship? I do have a lot of canon glass and have been a local customer. I own the mk III and 6d and I love the images .BUTT, COME ON ALREADY cCanon. Get your stuff together!
> ...




While most people (e.g., me) don't need a high MP camera, I am sure there's a market for it. There are a lot of people in landscape, product or architecture who have continued with or switched to Nikon because of the D800. While it's not as popular or as versatile as the 5DIII and therefore doesn't sell as much, it still has a unique niche in the dSLR industry.
I believe the lack of a high MP camera in Canon's lineup reflects still-developing technology rather than lack of interest in the market.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 22, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> I believe the lack of a high MP camera in Canon's lineup reflects still-developing technology rather than lack of interest in the market.



Or they decided to do the hard thing (refreshing a large portion of their lens lineup) before doing the relatively easy thing (increasing pixel density in a single body). As has been noted numerous times, both the optics and the electronics net the effective system resolution, hence the 5D3 + lenses resolving better on average than the D800 + lenses. 

Either way, people would be clamoring. I kinda suspect that if they had instead just crapped out a full frame camera with 7D-sized pixels and people only saw marginal IQ gains (albeit with large, unwieldy files) due to the unavailability of sufficiently good glass, the clamoring would be louder. But you never know.


----------



## Northstar (May 23, 2014)

It def would help when cropping 100% or more. 

I would love a 1dx that shot 10 fps with a 36+ mp sensor for field sports...it would turn my 300mm into a 400/500mm from a cropping perspective.(just a ball park estimate when I say 400/500mm because i have no clue what the actual math/ratio is to figure that out??)

Now that i write it, i'd be curious to know if someone could enlighten me on this.


----------



## 100 (May 23, 2014)

Jglaser757 said:


> I've waited a long time for Nikon to recapture the lead on Nikon and their 36 mp camera. And now I read that Nikon will introduce an upgrade to the 800e in June. Why am I not jumping ship? I do have a lot of canon glass and have been a local customer. I own the mk III and 6d and I love the images .BUTT, COME ON ALREADY cCanon. Get your stuff together!



Why does Nikon need to upgrade the D800e if Canon has nothing to compete with it? 
Maybe it’s not the big seller the “I want more megapixel crowd” think it is. 
The funny thing is that a lot of Nikon users are asking for a true successor to the D700 (less megapixels, more fps, smaller files).


----------



## eml58 (May 23, 2014)

It's an interesting situation, why have Canon not to date followed through with a higher MP Body ?? it's a little like "what's the meaning of life".

The decision to amalgamate the 1D/1Ds lines in the 1Dx was in my opinion a bad call on the future Market by Canon (albeit I think the 1Dx is a wonderful Camera Body), I just don't think their Marketing People clearly saw the Market need for a higher MP Camera (or they did, and simply weren't able to match technologies with Nikon/Sony), they got that wrong, and now they need some catch up time in designing a Sensor that approaches what the Market wants, and is comparable, better, than the Nikon 36MP sensor, and more recently the Sony 36MP sensor, and now, the Sony 50MP sensor that is finding it's way into the Haselblad, Phase One etc, and in particular the about to be released Pentax 645z.

The Pentax 645z is of huge interest to me, this is a 51MP CMOS Sensor, 3fps, high ISO Range, reasonable Lens availability, weather sealed Body, and not an inordinate amount of Money at less than 10k, that's a pretty good deal when compared to the Phase One IQ250 & Haselblad offerings of a similar type at 35k to 45k.

The Pentax will be limited as a Wildlife Camera @ 3fps, but the D800 which I have owned, and the Sony a7r which I do own, both operate at a Maximum 4fps, so not a huge difference there, even the 5DMK III is a limiting 6fps.

But the Pentax for Landscape, Portrait & Still Life should be a very interesting Camera at this price.

If, and it seems to be a huge if, Canon develop & drop a higher MP Body into the Market, it needs to be better all round than the Sony a7r & D800E, and hopefully it will be, there's no doubt in my mind that Canon have lost Market share due to these two Cameras from Sony & Nikon, and in loosing Market share to these two Bodies they loos Lens Market etc etc.

I believe Canon simply miss read the Market trend, and have paid a price, now they need to play catch up, and they need to do it with spades, that is, put into the Market a Body that pulls that Market share back from Nikon & Sony, from what I've seen over the Past few Years, I'm not convinced canon can or will be able to do that, I personally stay with Canon because of the Big Whites, there's very little difference in abilities between the D4s & the 1Dx, the D800/5DMK III, and Canon no longer have anything comparable to the Nikon D3x other than the 1DsMK III which isn't in the same league. 

Of course this is all Navel contemplation, and ultimately useless, but it's fun at 0600 on my 3rd Espresso.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 23, 2014)

100 said:


> Jglaser757 said:
> 
> 
> > I've waited a long time for Nikon to recapture the lead on Nikon and their 36 mp camera. And now I read that Nikon will introduce an upgrade to the 800e in June. Why am I not jumping ship? I do have a lot of canon glass and have been a local customer. I own the mk III and 6d and I love the images .BUTT, COME ON ALREADY cCanon. Get your stuff together!
> ...


 
Yes, I bought a D800, and files that open to 125 - 150 MB are no fun to edit. Its hard to imagine what editing a 200 - 250 MB file would be like.


The files open so large due to the huge amount of noise in any image over about ISO 800. NEF is a compressed file, but they are uncompressed in order to edit them. I tried editing 1500 shots that I took at high ISO over a couple of nights. I had to use a ton of NR on them, and that took minutes per image to run.

I sold the D800 and bought a 5D MK III, it is much better for high ISO photography. The D800 is great at ISO 200, assuming that you buy lenses that can resolve the high MP, and that you use a tripod or very fast shutter speed. Its difficult to actually get the high resolution possible, many users do not and giv up.


----------



## 100 (May 23, 2014)

Northstar said:


> It def would help when cropping 100% or more.
> 
> I would love a 1dx that shot 10 fps with a 36+ mp sensor for field sports...it would turn my 300mm into a 400/500mm from a cropping perspective.(just a ball park estimate when I say 400/500mm because i have no clue what the actual math/ratio is to figure that out??)
> 
> Now that i write it, i'd be curious to know if someone could enlighten me on this.



Cropping 100% is the same as deleting the image ;-) 
If you want your 300 to have a 400/500 FOV, buy a 7D a 70D or wait for the 7DII. The 1.6 crop gets you a 480mm FOV. 

A 1.6 crop means the surface area of the FF sensor is 2.56 (1.6*1.6) times as big. If you want to crop FF to APS-C your crop is 39% of the surface area of FF (100/2.56). 
If you want to know how much to crop for a specific lens to get the same FOV of another lens just divide to get the crop factor. 
300 to 400 => 400/300 = 1.333 cropfactor
300 to 500 => 500/300 = 1.666 cropfactor


----------



## FunPhotons (May 23, 2014)

Jglaser757 said:


> The thing I wonder about your post and others like it is - how many people "need" 36+ MP?



The thing I wonder about your post and others like it is why do you care? I want a high MP body, I can pay for it, and I'm tired of people telling me I don't (why do people overquote?) "need" it. I want it, got it?


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (May 23, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Jglaser757 said:
> 
> 
> > I've waited a long time for Nikon to recapture the lead on Nikon and their 36 mp camera. And now I read that Nikon will introduce an upgrade to the 800e in June. Why am I not jumping ship? I do have a lot of canon glass and have been a local customer. I own the mk III and 6d and I love the images .BUTT, COME ON ALREADY cCanon. Get your stuff together!
> ...



+1
I have 18Mp on FF don't want any more! One of the best LARGE prints I have seen was at a Photographers shop in Llangollen. It was a shot of Bantry Bay in Ireland and it covered a whole door - it was shot with a 6mp DSLR. I print to A3+ - I think 18mp will do!


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (May 23, 2014)

FunPhotons said:


> Jglaser757 said:
> 
> 
> > The thing I wonder about your post and others like it is - how many people "need" 36+ MP?
> ...



Because we are trying to help you get better images. If you feel that 30+ mp is an advantage on a 35mm (or smaller) sensor then go for it. 
I have tried out MANY DSLR cameras of differing sensor sizes, manufacturers and build qualities. I have always found that the more modest pixel count cameras, relative to the current technology and sensor size, have produced better images. 
If you think that MP is the answer, then I wish you luck, I have not found this to be the case.


----------



## unfocused (May 23, 2014)

> From Nikon Rumors:The new camera will be based on the D800E (without AA filter) and will contain few small updates (similar to the D4->D4s refresh).



Nikon seems to be following a strategy of minor refreshes. One suspects it is either an effort to generate enthusiasm and interest in the hopes of boosting sales without having to make much of an investment or maybe they need to fix problems with their current bodies. At any rate, I'm glad Canon seems to limit its small upgrades to Powershots and low-end Rebels.

As for the demand for high megapixel bodies, it seems telling that Sony (a company that so many people on this forum seem obsessed with) just released a new high end body with a whopping 12 mp sensor. 

Do you think maybe Canon knows the market better than their competitors?


----------



## dak723 (May 23, 2014)

johnf3f said:


> I have tried out MANY DSLR cameras of differing sensor sizes, manufacturers and build qualities. I have always found that the more modest pixel count cameras, relative to the current technology and sensor size, have produced better images.
> If you think that MP is the answer, then I wish you luck, I have not found this to be the case.



Agreed. I have found that larger pixels are more important than more pixels. I had the 6 MP original rebel and over the years rented higher MP cameras as they came out. Last year rented the 60D and did a few prints to compare. Granted, I only did a few prints and this was far from a rigid scientific experiment. What I found was that my 6 MP camera could produce acceptable prints at 180-200 dots per inch allowing me to print around 15 to 16 plus inch prints. The 18 MP 60D needed approx. 280 DPI for similarly acceptable prints - allowing me to print 18 plus inch prints. Hardly the difference one might expect from such a huge jump in pixels. My guess that the difference between a 22 MP and 36 MP camera with the same size sensor would result in virtually no difference in print quality for the same size prints. Just a guess, of course. Would be interested if anyone has done such a comparison.


----------



## poias (May 23, 2014)

Nobody needs 36 mp! At most, we post at 1000x700. So, around 0.5 to 1 mp should be enough for most. Canon gives you plenty with up to 21 mp, should you choose those ridiculous sizes. As Ken Rockwell says, large files clog your harddrive and slow down your machines. I would rather have a nice looking image from a Canon than crappy 36 mp "photos" from nikon. Just how many Pulitzer prizes have D800 images won? Answer: none, nada, zero!


----------



## poias (May 23, 2014)

FunPhotons said:


> The thing I wonder about your post and others like it is why do you care? I want a high MP body, I can pay for it, and I'm tired of people telling me I don't (why do people overquote?) "need" it. I want it, got it?


If you really "want" it, you get it. If you do not have it, either you don't want it, or cannot afford it. Since you do not yet have it and you say that you want it, then I have to deduce that you cannot afford it.


----------



## dstppy (May 23, 2014)

I can only add: uhh huh huh huh, he said butt.

Seriously:
1) Okay, we got the thread "how will canon respond to X"
2) We're missing the outraged "I'm switching to Nikon" guy
3) You buy Canon or Nikon because you know someone with that system . . . if not, then you're splitting hairs
and lastly
4) he said butt

;D


----------



## Orangutan (May 23, 2014)

FunPhotons said:


> I want a high MP body, I can pay for it



Sure, there's no problem there; the problem is that there aren't enough like you to make it cost-effective. The D800 and D800E are almost exactly what the high-megapixel crowd asked for about that time. Sales are OK, but not great. Why would Canon (or Nikon) come up with a whole new model for that market segment when it's been demonstrated to be less profitable than the 5D3 market segment?

There's nothing wrong with your preferences, just understand that you're in a clear minority.


----------



## mackguyver (May 23, 2014)

FunPhotons said:


> Jglaser757 said:
> 
> 
> > The thing I wonder about your post and others like it is - how many people "need" 36+ MP?
> ...


I think you were actually trying to quoting me (the over-quoter, LOL), and what I was really getting at is that I'm actually one of those people who want a high MP body and would make good use of it, but it seems like most of the people who complain about this on the forums are the same ones who never print their work and post 800x600 photos on the web (for fear of image theft, no doubt). They're also the same people who will someday slap their 50L on their new 40MP camera, shoot hand held at f/1.2 and then complain that their images are all soft.

Okay, maybe I'm being "silly", but so many "people" bitch and moan about "stuff" they don't have when they are "barely" using 20% of what today's "cameras" can do. I hope I didn't over-quote that last sentence


----------



## IsaacImage (May 23, 2014)

eml58 said:


> It's an interesting situation, why have Canon not to date followed through with a higher MP Body ?? it's a little like "what's the meaning of life".
> 
> The decision to amalgamate the 1D/1Ds lines in the 1Dx was in my opinion a bad call on the future Market by Canon (albeit I think the 1Dx is a wonderful Camera Body), I just don't think their Marketing People clearly saw the Market need for a higher MP Camera (or they did, and simply weren't able to match technologies with Nikon/Sony), they got that wrong, and now they need some catch up time in designing a Sensor that approaches what the Market wants, and is comparable, better, than the Nikon 36MP sensor, and more recently the Sony 36MP sensor, and now, the Sony 50MP sensor that is finding it's way into the Haselblad, Phase One etc, and in particular the about to be released Pentax 645z.
> 
> ...




Completely agree !!!


----------



## candyman (May 23, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> FunPhotons said:
> 
> 
> > Jglaser757 said:
> ...



;D
+1


----------



## lucuias (May 23, 2014)

I would prefer canon came out something with high dynamic range and high iso performance instead of high megapixel.I am very happy with 23MP from 5Dmark 3,I just need more high dynamic range for photo manipulation.


----------



## Bruce Photography (May 23, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Yes, I bought a D800, and files that open to 125 - 150 MB are no fun to edit. Its hard to imagine what editing a 200 - 250 MB file would be like.
> 
> The files open so large due to the huge amount of noise in any image over about ISO 800. NEF is a compressed file, but they are uncompressed in order to edit them. I tried editing 1500 shots that I took at high ISO over a couple of nights. I had to use a ton of NR on them, and that took minutes per image to run.
> 
> I sold the D800 and bought a 5D MK III, it is much better for high ISO photography. The D800 is great at ISO 200, assuming that you buy lenses that can resolve the high MP, and that you use a tripod or very fast shutter speed. Its difficult to actually get the high resolution possible, many users do not and give up.



I have the 5DIII and both the D800 and D800E. If you have some Nikon glass that you would like to sell because you have sold your D800, please let me know. I use Photoshop CC and Bridge. The actual file sizes on disk (NEF) are less than 50MB and no where close to what you are quoting unless you are talking about the resulting photoshop saved PSD file with all the layers that are not flattened. Perhaps your computer is slow. 

I have been very pleased with the resolution of Nikon glass and very much love the 14-24. Since I am a landscape guy I use ISO 100 mostly and here is where I find the D800 surpassing anything in the Canon line (most of which I still own). I find the raw files very easy to edit with Photoshop CC and have developed a very efficient workflow. It is true I am not a high ISO lover since my applications don't need it. Most of my prints that I do myself are 24 x 36 or larger. 

Someday, if Canon comes out with a competitive camera, including the improved dynamic range of the D800 sensor over the Canon sensors, I really would like to shoot my Canon glass again because I really think the Canon tilt-shift lenses are a kick. Also Nikon supertels are heavier than Canon equivalents but then Canon is so much more money. I'm sure Nikon will catch up by decreasing weight and raising their prices just like Canon did.


----------



## MLfan3 (May 23, 2014)

Jglaser757 said:


> I've waited a long time for Nikon to recapture the lead on Nikon and their 36 mp camera. And now I read that Nikon will introduce an upgrade to the 800e in June. Why am I not jumping ship? I do have a lot of canon glass and have been a local customer. I own the mk III and 6d and I love the images .BUTT, COME ON ALREADY cCanon. Get your stuff together!



if you want a high resolution FF , get the A7R , it is so simple and easy. the A7R has better sensor, better AF for stills, better video and it is much more portable. unless you need SLR shaped boy with dated mirror based AF, there is no contest but the A7R wins, and adding the Sony in addition to your Canon does not require any kind of lens selling or trading in for new set of crappy Nikon lenses. trust me , Nikon just go down and down from now on since Sony just announced using its best sensor for only its own cameras for certain period of time(6 months or so) this means Nikon will not be able to have any proper access to Sony's latest chips for at least 6 months after the announcement new chips. the D800E replacement will use the Sony A7R sensor and the new Sony A99Mk2 will get better improved version of it.. and in many markets Nikon is already no3 in camera sells, in HK , Australia , Brazil , China and South Korea Sony is already no1 or no2....the fall of Nikon is coming very soon.


----------



## danski0224 (May 23, 2014)

johnf3f said:


> +1
> I have 18Mp on FF don't want any more! One of the best LARGE prints I have seen was at a Photographers shop in Llangollen. It was a shot of Bantry Bay in Ireland and it covered a whole door - it was shot with a 6mp DSLR. I print to A3+ - I think 18mp will do!



+2

I recently picked up a 4.2mp Canon 1D and have been very impressed with the image quality.

If the rest of the camera was comparable to current production with respect to ISO performance, live view and the rear LCD... but it probably wouldn't sell well as many people would WTF the 4.2mp without trying it.

I usually don't crop too heavily either, so that makes a difference.


----------



## FunPhotons (May 23, 2014)

johnf3f said:


> FunPhotons said:
> 
> 
> > Jglaser757 said:
> ...



That's great, thanks for the unasked for and unwanted help! Maybe I/we want a high MP body because we like gadgets, maybe we just like lots of pixels, maybe we have too much disk space that needs filling, or maybe we feel it will help us get better pictures. Who cares? But stop dictating the same, tired trope that more pixels doesn't give better pictures. I suspect that people who push this idea are trying to convince themselves more than us, maybe they can't afford it? Or more likely, maybe they can't afford the infrastructure to handle the larger shots?

Anyhow I have cameras that span the gamut, from Google Glass on my head to a 5D with a ton of glass perched on it. Guess what? The more pixels with the better glass gives me better pictures! Technically they're better, and even more I take far more care with them, so get better shots. At the low end with my phone or Glass, I'll just snap away and hope for the best. 

Sure some nabob will promptly say, for the thousandth time, that a cell phone camera can take a picture worthy of National Geographic. Yeah, whatever, we've heard that a few times, but I have yet to see a iPhone shot that made it on those pages with any regularity. Regardless you don't find us telling you guys that 24 isn't enough _for you_, so stop trying to tell us that 24 is enough _for us._


----------



## Jglaser757 (May 23, 2014)

MLfan3 said:


> Jglaser757 said:
> 
> 
> > I've waited a long time for Nikon to recapture the lead on Nikon and their 36 mp camera. And now I read that Nikon will introduce an upgrade to the 800e in June. Why am I not jumping ship? I do have a lot of canon glass and have been a local customer. I own the mk III and 6d and I love the images .BUTT, COME ON ALREADY cCanon. Get your stuff together!
> ...



I have researched the A7r and am thinking of switching to that. I guess I needed to clarify some things. I print big usually and shoot lanscapes. So I no the sony makes sense, but I'm shocked that canon did not retake the lead.
I. Have also considered the Pentax 645 , but then I'm back to the issue of glass. 

I do appreciate the discussion here. It helps a lot !


----------



## Orangutan (May 23, 2014)

FunPhotons said:


> That's great, thanks for the unasked for and unwanted help!
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



For every one of you who has money to burn and a fetish for the newest/best, there are many more who simply need help using what they have. Forum readers can't always tell the difference from sketchy posts such as yours.

Forum readers are not mind readers, just like the rest of the human species. When someone answers with advice that's unwanted, maybe it's a clue that you didn't ask the question very clearly.


----------



## mustafaakarsu (May 23, 2014)

[/quote]
in addition to your Canon does not require any kind of lens selling or trading in for new set of crappy Nikon lenses. trust me , Nikon just go down and down from now on since Sony just announced using its best sensor for only its own camera
[/quote]

Could you explain it a bit, how can Sony cameras use Canon lenses better than Nikon?


----------



## Orangutan (May 23, 2014)

mustafaakarsu said:


> Could you explain it a bit, how can Sony cameras use Canon lenses better than Nikon?



Metabones adapter.


----------



## atkinsr (May 23, 2014)

Even on the insanely expensive 70" 4K tvs, it's still only 4k. That leaves print: I'm just curious what print houses will print at these resolutions? Even the highly regarded mpixpro lab made me send them an 8 bit sRGB JPG for my 24x36 print, and much to my surprise, at 24MP, it turned out just fine. Could it have looked better? Sure, but after playing around a LOT with the images (including re-shooting the scene zoomed in and stitching images to get a much higher effective pixel count), I'm convinced that this is due to the JPG requirement, not pixel count.

People are going to buy what they want, and I'm not going to try to stop them. I just don't understand the need to go any higher. If you are consistently cropping for added zoom, you have the wrong lens or are standing in the wrong place.

If you shoot for large format prints, you have the wrong camera, you should be shooting medium format.

I keep hearing people talk about needing high frame rates (makes sense) and high MP (why?) for sports. Even using the lossless compression, those are roughly 50MB files.
50MB x 10FPS = 500MB/s. Good luck finding a card to keep up with that. You'd need a 1-2GB insanely fast buffer in the camera just to be able to shoot for 2 seconds.


----------



## David Hull (May 23, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Jglaser757 said:
> 
> 
> > I've waited a long time for Nikon to recapture the lead on Nikon and their 36 mp camera. And now I read that Nikon will introduce an upgrade to the 800e in June. Why am I not jumping ship? I do have a lot of canon glass and have been a local customer. I own the mk III and 6d and I love the images .BUTT, COME ON ALREADY cCanon. Get your stuff together!
> ...



They "need" it because Nikon has it and Canon doesn't.


----------



## mackguyver (May 23, 2014)

atkinsr said:


> Even the highly regarded mpixpro lab made me send them an 8 bit sRGB JPG for my 24x36 print, and much to my surprise, at 24MP, it turned out just fine.


Are you using the latest ROES version? I'm not sure about MPix, but the ROES that Bay Labs and others are now using support TIFF uploads and most labs that use ROES allow you to use AdobeRGB.


----------



## sdsr (May 23, 2014)

in addition to your Canon does not require any kind of lens selling or trading in for new set of crappy Nikon lenses. trust me , Nikon just go down and down from now on since Sony just announced using its best sensor for only its own camera
[/quote]

Could you explain it a bit, how can Sony cameras use Canon lenses better than Nikon?
[/quote]

If you're asking whether Canon lenses work better on Sony A7/A7r bodies than Nikon lenses do, the latest metabones EF-Nex/e-mount adapter provides aperture control for most/many (all?) EF lenses and (if you're not in a hurry) AF for some. I don't think there's a Nikon-Nex equivalent yet. Provided you don't mind manual focusing and manual aperture control, manual Nikon lenses (you need the aperture ring) work just fine on the Sonys (as do a vast range of manual lenses - that's part of the appeal of mirrorless cameras). This has nothing in particular to do with FF, by the way - the metabones EF adapter works just the same on Sony's APS-C mirrorless bodies.

If you're asking whether Canon lenses work better on Sony mirrorless cameras than they do on Nikon cameras, I don't think it's physically possible to attach an EF Canon lens to a Nikon body; so the question doesn't really arise. (Or am I wrong about this?) 

For whatever it's worth, in my experience Canon lenses work superbly on Sony mirrorless bodies - leaving aside AF issues (accuracy is dead-on; speed, on the other hand...). And that's true not just of L lenses but even such lowly old-timers as the 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.8. When I get caught up with processing photos I'll probably post a few on this forum - though by now that point has been made by others elsewhere.


----------



## sdsr (May 23, 2014)

atkinsr said:


> If you are consistently cropping for added zoom, you have the wrong lens or are standing in the wrong place.



Perhaps. But swap "sometimes" for "consistently" and bear in mind that a small mirrorless FF camera + Zeiss/Sony 35mm or 55mm (or one of the smaller Canon - or anyone else's for that matter - primes) weighs little and is really easy to carry around all day; and the higher the resolution the easier it is to forego carrying around a longer lens as well.


----------



## sdsr (May 23, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> Or they decided to do the hard thing (refreshing a large portion of their lens lineup) before doing the relatively easy thing (increasing pixel density in a single body). As has been noted numerous times, both the optics and the electronics net the effective system resolution, hence the 5D3 + lenses resolving better on average than the D800 + lenses.



Sure; but didn't Roger Cicala at lensrentals show that while the Canon 24-70 2.8 L II is a higher-resolution lens than the Tamron equivalent, the Tamron on a Nikon D800 outresolves the Canon on a 5DIII? Reports suggest that the Canon performs awfully well on a Sony A7r (I wonder if anyone has done a similar comparison with both lenses on an A7/A7r).

It may well be that most people don't "need" more resolution, and that many of those who think they want it would be disappointed when they got it, but would anyone here complain if Canon released a relatively affordable (i.e. comparable to Sony) FF camera with higher resolution and better low ISO performance (especially if it also had at least as good high ISO performance as the 6D/1Dx)? I wouldn't - especially if it were also mirrorless, so we could avoid the tiresome back/front-focus problems that seem to affect so many lenses.


----------



## Halfrack (May 23, 2014)

Everyone itching to spend money get in line for the Pentax 645z, as it's 50mp is even more detail....

Otherwise, go take a photo and have fun.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 23, 2014)

sdsr said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Or they decided to do the hard thing (refreshing a large portion of their lens lineup) before doing the relatively easy thing (increasing pixel density in a single body). As has been noted numerous times, both the optics and the electronics net the effective system resolution, hence the 5D3 + lenses resolving better on average than the D800 + lenses.
> ...



I don't know, but I don't doubt it. My point was that if and when canon decides to turn out a higher resolution sensor, their lens lineup will be ready.


----------



## Harry Muff (May 23, 2014)

When you do heavy retouching of 10 hours or more, nice big images are very nice to have. A medium format is out of the question for most due to the silly prices, so it's a 5D3, an 800E.




Of course, the tide is turning somewhat with MF but, unless the Pentax 645z delivers, or the rumoured Fuji MF camera hits the right notes, then it'll have to be the 800E to get those big, juicy files to work on.




I use a 5D3 and love it, but it would be nice if the images had a good few more MPs to play with.


----------



## LightandMotion (May 23, 2014)

MLfan3 said:


> Jglaser757 said:
> 
> 
> > I've waited a long time for Nikon to recapture the lead on Nikon and their 36 mp camera. And now I read that Nikon will introduce an upgrade to the 800e in June. Why am I not jumping ship? I do have a lot of canon glass and have been a local customer. I own the mk III and 6d and I love the images .BUTT, COME ON ALREADY cCanon. Get your stuff together!
> ...




This is exactly what I have done for landscapes. My Canon EF glass on the A7R. The dynamic range is better than my 1dx. Hopeless for sports and wildlife, but no one wants 36MP for that.


----------



## mackguyver (May 23, 2014)

LightandMotion said:


> This is exactly what I have done for landscapes. My Canon EF glass on the A7R. The dynamic range is better than my 1dx. Hopeless for sports and wildlife, but no one wants 36MP for that.


The samples posted here and elsewhere of the A7R with 24-70II and TS-E lenses are very impressive. Also, I wouldn't mind 36MP for wildlife as I have made very large prints of some of my bird portraits in the past


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (May 23, 2014)

I'm not opposed to Canon launching a 40 megapixel camera, but it is not the right camera for my use. I just hope that in the future still exist models available with 18 or 20 megapixel, not just the top line 1DX.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 24, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > I believe the lack of a high MP camera in Canon's lineup reflects still-developing technology rather than lack of interest in the market.
> ...



Don't forget that DxO usually tests lenses at near wide open!
Who says you can't use a sharp lens stopped down for landscapes or a nice sharp tele for wildlife and get a lot of advantage? The 7D has higher density than the D800 and people seem to get plenty of good use out of it for wildlife.

Also there is the issue of low ISO DR, it's not just MP. And bringing that is NOT necessarily easier than making new lenses at all.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 24, 2014)

poias said:


> Nobody needs 36 mp! At most, we post at 1000x700. So, around 0.5 to 1 mp should be enough for most.



I see a lot of people starting to post at 1600 across now.

And now UHD/4k monitors are out!
8MP on screen at once. Believe me 8MP image on those screens looks WAY better than expanding a 1MP!

And don't forget cropping for wildlife (or sports). You can always use more reach for wildlife.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 24, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > Jglaser757 said:
> ...




125-150MB files from a D800???
I don't see others saying that the D800 is bad at high iso, at least not unless you are getting into crazy 12,800+. Both viewed at 100% it shows a bit more noise, but viewed to the same scale it has similar SNR and tighter 'grain', although it does start getting worse DR once you get to the very high ISOs and a scene at ISO6400+ might start looking worse if it has extensive areas near black.


----------



## unfocused (May 24, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> I don't see others saying that the D800 is bad at high iso...



I've read a number of reviews (in print and online) that indicate that the D800 starts to fall apart once you get above ISO 800-1600. 

Fact is, there is no free lunch and there is no magical way to get the ISO performance of an 18-22 mp sensor out of 36 mp. That's why Nikon and Canon use less dense sensors for their flagships and why the new Sony A7s has a paltry 12 mp.

High resolution, High ISO, Low Noise – you can pick two but you can't have all three. That's been discussed thoroughly here and can be seen in the reviews and samples.


----------



## unfocused (May 24, 2014)

dilbert said:


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



I'll wait for the reviews.


----------



## JoeDavid (May 24, 2014)

My next camera body for landscapes may just be a high megapixel body:

http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.uk/en/medium-format-digital/PENTAX-645-Z.html

Not much more than the 1D X when I purchased it. Of course I'll have to build up the lenses over time. Given that the sensor appears to be the same Sony sensor that Phase One and Hasselblad are just coming out with in camera backs that are megabucks, it should make high quality medium format "affordable" (relatively speaking).


----------



## Aglet (May 24, 2014)

unfocused said:


> I've read a number of reviews (in print and online) that indicate that the D800 starts to fall apart once you get above ISO 800-1600.



I don't agree and I use D800/e bodies.
you can get perfectly usable shots at 1600 & 3200 with very little NR required so it's nowhere near "falling apart" at 800. I don't even bother with NR at 800 and it's still good at a per-pixel level.

otherwise..
As for the constant comments on superiority of Canon glass, what's the point of it until there's a more capable EOS body to put it on? Did no one here bother to look at the lens tests for D800e on DxOmark?
There's a good many lenses capable of rendering more MP than Canon has theoretical ones and you can mount them on a D800e .

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Best-lenses-for-the-Nikon-D800E-The-sharpest-full-frame-camera-ever-measured/Best-DxOMark-sharpness-rankings

e.g. The flyweight Nikon 70-200 f/4 VR is capable of stunning resolution, handheld, a few stops below the usual 1/FL rule as well. A little technique and decent glass can get a lot of MP out of these bodies, if needed, and the sensor performance in other areas is still top-of-class.

Truly good and unique Canon glass, like the TS series, are better adapted for use on Sony A7 bodies.

Canon has, for years, been a letdown for those hoping for improved sensor performance and-or resolution.
I was one of those people but, with little patience, I found better options, went there, and have enjoyed the benefits of that decision since 2012. I don't have time to waste on Canon-HOPE.


----------



## Lightmaster (May 24, 2014)

Jglaser757 said:


> I've waited a long time for Nikon to recapture the lead on Nikon and their 36 mp camera. And now I read that Nikon will introduce an upgrade to the 800e in June. Why am I not jumping ship? I do have a lot of canon glass and have been a local customer. I own the mk III and 6d and I love the images .BUTT, COME ON ALREADY cCanon. Get your stuff together!



the D800 update is marginal.. so what?

if you complainers really need more MP and more details.. buy MF... i have.


----------



## Sporgon (May 24, 2014)

I don't think the sentiment expressed here on CR is representative of the overall market - at least here in the UK. 

Going by professional dealerships - not just the likes of ebay - used Nikon D700 are selling for the same price as the much more modern 24 mp D600. That's 12 mp to 24 mp. There are a surprising amount of used D800 for sale, and perhaps not a surprising amount of D600 - given the oil splatter issue. 

From a practical point of view, what I'm seeing so far is that if you really need to be over about 24 mp you need to be on a larger format.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 24, 2014)

Aglet said:


> Canon has, for years, been a letdown for those hoping for improved sensor performance and-or resolution.



For years, Canon had the highest resolution FF dSLR sensor, and for years after that, only Nikon's D3X offered slightly higher resolution, if you could afford a $7K camera. So really, you mean for *two* years Canon has been behind on resolution. 

As for sensor performance, the argument has been beaten to death. For scenes that absolutely require another 1.5-2 stops of DR, but no more than that, Canon sensors aren't optimal. If you need to push the exposure 4-5 stops in post, to get the best possible image of a barbecue next to a shed or an awning on a Stockholm street, Canon is not optimal. But for most purposes, the only 'letdown' is in the minds of a tiny minority of users. Most of us understand that the image sensor is part of a system, and is not the only component that contributes to capturing images.


----------



## Jglaser757 (May 24, 2014)

Lightmaster said:


> Jglaser757 said:
> 
> 
> > I've waited a long time for Nikon to recapture the lead on Nikon and their 36 mp camera. And now I read that Nikon will introduce an upgrade to the 800e in June. Why am I not jumping ship? I do have a lot of canon glass and have been a local customer. I own the mk III and 6d and I love the images .BUTT, COME ON ALREADY cCanon. Get your stuff together!
> ...



I wish I could afford MF,,I should of done it years ago..But I their is economics and loyalty involved here,,,especially when I have 5 canon lens, a 5dmk III and a 6d ,not to mention other canon accessories. 

And when you want to print to 40x60, its an issue..36 Mp would give that edge i needed. I should have jumped to nikon when the 800e came out,,but I didn't because I was convinced Canon would not sit idly bye trying to figure out how to recapture the glory days of the 5D Mk II.. That was a great camera at the time!!


----------



## danski0224 (May 24, 2014)

Jglaser757 said:


> And when you want to print to 40x60, its an issue..36 Mp would give that edge i needed.



There seem to be many people printing at this size without medium format... or at least claiming to print at this size.

What are they doing that allows it to happen with <36 mp sensors?


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (May 24, 2014)

eml58 said:


> It's an interesting situation, why have Canon not to date followed through with a higher MP Body ?? it's a little like "what's the meaning of life".
> 
> The decision to amalgamate the 1D/1Ds lines in the 1Dx was in my opinion a bad call on the future Market by Canon (albeit I think the 1Dx is a wonderful Camera Body), I just don't think their Marketing People clearly saw the Market need for a higher MP Camera (or they did, and simply weren't able to match technologies with Nikon/Sony), they got that wrong, and now they need some catch up time in designing a Sensor that approaches what the Market wants, and is comparable, better, than the Nikon 36MP sensor, and more recently the Sony 36MP sensor, and now, the Sony 50MP sensor that is finding it's way into the Haselblad, Phase One etc, and in particular the about to be released Pentax 645z.



I gotta flip this on ya = while a big MP offering may be something canon should have, using the 1 series isn't the best to start. Nikon has it's niche camera, but when it came time to refresh the D4, did we see a huge leap in MP's? Nope, under 20 MP's, which makes sense for both (1d and d4) because they are geared towards sports shooting which DOES favor higher frame rates over MP's (things like buffer size come to mind...)


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (May 24, 2014)

dilbert said:


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



yes, that's fine and dandy, unless you already plopped down your $$$ for the now old d800. If i were a nikon user I'd not like that at all! In fact, if I were a nikon user I'd feel like why are you yanking my chain? Not everyone, even working pros has that kind of $$ to throw around on bodies every year or 2. If I were a nikon guy, I'd rather they had just waited and put out the right d800 which would last on the market for 3-4 years.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (May 24, 2014)

Brett Hull said:


> can anyone explaine why Canon has no high Mp FF camera as Nikon
> Brett



yes...see...every other thread on CR.. ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 24, 2014)

Brett Hull said:


> can anyone explaine why Canon has no high Mp FF camera as Nikon
> Brett



Can you explain why Canon _should_ have such a camera? The 5DIII is outselling the D800. 

A wedding photographer I know asked for a recommendation on the D800, and was told she'd be better off with the D600 – that advice was given by Nikon Professional Services.


----------



## symmar22 (May 24, 2014)

Just wanted to add my two cents to the struggle. The Mpx fight seems to be an endless debate, nevertheless, I am always surprised to see people who seem to decide what is good for others. More resolution will always be wanted, that doesn't mean it's always needed. Saying that more pixel is useless is just nonsense; it might be useless for you, but some folks need more resolution for different matters. I am old enough to have worked with film for a good while, and in the good old times, everyone was trying to switch to the newest film because of it's better sharpness and finer grain. Some jobs needed better resolution than others, a press photographer could deal with small format (24x36), while fashion required medium format and advertising large format view cameras; nobody would discuss if 4x5 format was useful or not. It's like asking Ansel Adams if he really needed to shoot 8x10 sheet film.

Nowadays, things have changed a bit, since all DSLR outresolve easily small format, and the only thing that is still out of reach is the large format (minimum 4x5) cameras. On the other hand, most people only watch their pictures on screens, so for that purpose, most DSLR are overkill.

But that doesn't mean that there isn't a demand for higher quality. My work is architecture, landscape and interiors, where every pixel available is required. These jobs were previously done ideally with large format view cameras, one of the domains were DSLR cannot still compete.

One of the option is to put a digital back on a view camera, but we talk about 30 to 50k budgets here, plus they are extremely awkward to use in the field. The cheapest modern medium format back is worth 20k for 40-50MPx resolution, so the idea of getting 36 Mpx for 1/10th of the cost makes perfect sense. 

Sure not everyone needs that, as a hobbyist, if you take pictures of the dog in the garden to show on facebook, it's just plain ridiculous, but for lot of working pros with budget limitation, the Sony 36Mpx sensor is plain gold, whether you are a Nikon user (D800) or for us Canonists in the form for now of the Sony A7r / metabones combination. The Sony has the immense advantage of "opening" the system, and to get rid of the dependence to one lens/camera brand.

You like it or not, the Sony sensor is more advanced than anything Canon is able to put on the market. It's one thing that you are perfectly happy with your equipment (or for some that you rage about the inability from Canon to design a competitive sensor for now), but it is another one to say that nobody needs better. I can read that lots of people here use their camera hand held, focus with AF and make extensive use of high ISOs. For this use, a 1Dx, 5D3 or 6D make perfect sense; in my case, I use a tripod 99% of the time, very seldom use more than 400 ISO, and focus manually since 75% of my work is done with TS-E lenses. 

I could easily say : "why the hell do people need 150 points AF, 12Fps and 12800 ISO"?. I don't, because I know some folks shoot different things than I do, use different technique and simply have different needs. So maybe it's time to admit that other people may need more than the average 20Mpx than Canon can offer us nowadays.

It's not because you don't need it than no one does. I work with a 5D2 and I've reached the limits of its sensors, some of my clients would like (need) more, but the 50k digital view camera option is not a realistic financial option in my case. Fact is that Canon has nothing better to offer for my needs than my 5 years old 5D2. So the option will likely be the Sony / metabones combination. There is no shame here, and I consider myself lucky that Sony is offering an alternative.

When I shoot for pleasure, I use a Linhof 4x5 camera with Schneider lenses, and the digital files I get from my Canon simply look ridiculous compared to a well scanned 4x5.

A more careful a way to put it would be to ask in what case more resolution is needed, instead of assuming that what is good for you is enough for all. To finish, I do not agree with the idea that the D800 (or A7r) are niche products; they are not for everyone, and have not been designed as all-round cameras. Nikon has the D600 and Sony the vanilla A7 for that purpose, but that doe not make them niche cameras, simply specialized ones (ask pro fashion and beauty photographers if their Hasselblads are niche cameras). I think it is just different approaches, Canon wants every camera to be an all-rounder, but doing that, they have pushed away specialized users. Nikon or Sony make different cameras for different uses, and I am betting that the new Sony A7s will be extremely successful with videographers, though as well a specialized camera.


----------



## traveller (May 24, 2014)

There's an awful lot of angst on this thread about what Nikon is doing with the D800. From what I can see, it is a mid-life refresh designed to reduce costs by consolidating the D800 and D800e into a single model, combined with a few extra goodies to boost sales at the soft point in the cameras life cycle. 

I can't see the point of dredging up the same old arguments that were had on this forum two years ago; either the D800(e) appealed enough back then that you sold your Canon glass and jumped ship, or it didn't and you bought the 5D MkIII or decided to wait a generation. What would a D800s change in this whole equation? Were people seriously thinking that Canon would replace the 5D MkIII on a two year life-cycle?


----------



## atkinsr (May 24, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> atkinsr said:
> 
> 
> > Even the highly regarded mpixpro lab made me send them an 8 bit sRGB JPG for my 24x36 print, and much to my surprise, at 24MP, it turned out just fine.
> ...



Yes, downloaded about an hour before I submitted the order for the big canvas. I'm going by what they say on their website. I'll have to play around with this and if it accepts the large TIFF file and AdobeRGB, email them and try to get it re-printed. According to their website, all of their printers work in the sRGB colorspace, so if ROES does accept it, it may be changing colorspace and converting the TIFF to JPG... if so, I'd rather do it myself so I have some control over the output. The help page I'm referring to is: http://www.mpixpro.com/help/help.aspx?id=21#anchor_115

I may look into Bay Labs in the future as well. Thanks for responding! (and apologies to the OP; not trying to thread-jack)


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 24, 2014)

symmar22 said:


> It's not because you don't need it than no one does.



Of course not. The point is that Canon's goal isn't to make a product to meet the specific needs of every individual. They've shown that they can accurately assess the needs of the majority, and design/produce cameras and lenses that satisfy the needs of the majority of customers. If an individual's needs differ from those of the majority, they should look elsewhere for gear...and understand that their doing so doesn't bother Canon in the least.


----------



## David Hull (May 24, 2014)

Brett Hull said:


> can anyone explaine why Canon has no high Mp FF camera as Nikon
> Brett


Can you explain why the 5DIII seems to outsell the D800? Just curious.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 24, 2014)

A lot of people purchase D800's because of the High MP count. I did it as well. Then, I bought some very good Nikon Lenses and used it for about 2000 images at varying ISO's up to 12800.

It was very good up to ISO 400, but by ISO 800, the noise and file size started noticeably climbing. The 24-70 f/2.8 G had such horrible CA's at the edges that it could not be corrected in Lightroom. Of course, if I printed it at a small size and did not crop, it was fine, but I wanted to be able to crop images a lot, and that's when the noise shows up - in spades. Noise wasn't horrible, and could be reduced with NR, but it was taking too much time. With today's better raw processors and faster computers, NR and processing are not a issue. The thing was, I used my 1D MK IV sise by side with the D800, and it performed very well at 12,800 and focused much better. I had bought it used, so the cost was the same.

Then, there was the issue of trying to edit 1000-1500 NEF images from a nights shoot at high ISO's. The time it took my computer to run NR was so long that it was very frustrating. I have 2 generations newer pc, and LR5 now, and it does run faster, usable even.

So far, the photographers I know who bought the D800 were not happy, and either sold it, or are wanting to. Last fall, one wanted to give his D800e in trade for my 5D MK III. Its a good camera, but needs some exceptional skill to get the most out of it, and many can not do that and are disappointed.

Its entirely possible that the refresh will sell, and some of the early issues will be overcome, but Nikon's track record in fixing issues has not been good as of late.


----------



## symmar22 (May 24, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> symmar22 said:
> 
> 
> > It's not because you don't need it than no one does.
> ...



I hear you, but aside from the debate if Canon sells more or less, it is supposed to be one of the 2 real professional DSLR brands (aside from medium format). The want / need for a higher Mpx count is not the fact of only one individual, it is a requirement for lots of pro photographers. Therefore it is not completely insane to assume that Canon (if they still consider themselves as a professional photo equipment company), could think about fulfilling the needs of a decent part of the professional market (fashion, beauty, product, architecture, interiors, art repro and so on), who would need more resolution. The market being what it is, not everyone can afford the 50k investment for a digital back. I am just saying that Sony/Nikon, seem to have understood the need, while Canon wants to sell a camera that does everything. Doing that, they push away a sizable part of the pro market (not everybody is into sports or weddings). 

The way Nikon has segmented the pro cameras make IMO more sense, D4 for press/speed, D800 for studio/resolution, D600 for general public/budget. With canon we have 1Dx for everything/high end, 5D3 for everything/medium end, 6d for everything/budget. I'm not saying they are bad cameras, I am saying that the image they give are all the same. 

And no, I do not want to switch to Nikon (I was there for 20 years), I would just like to have another sensor to put behind my 10k of EF glass. In my case the Sony A7r will likely be the alternative, but I would have preferred a Canon 35/40 Mp DSLR offer.


----------



## R1-7D (May 24, 2014)

One of the posters (I forgot to record the name, damn it) at dpreview.com said this on Nikon sensors. I saved the quote to ask Neuro about, but since it seems relevant to this thread I'll just post it.



> Nikon has completely given in to the whims of customers in protecting shadows (because we all know the importance of exposing shadows to the point that they are no longer shadows) but that sacrifices highlights at the other end of the spectrum.
> Canon focuses on just the opposite, but according to the masses they do not capture as much shadow detail in giving you that greater range in highlights.
> 
> Technically, in the scope of capturing light, once the upper end of the spectrum is blown - it is gone - and therefore should be the end protected the most. However the average photographer (aptitude or numerical demographic) has been made to believe that broad dynamic range in the areas of a photo that you were not intended to see (shadows) is the most important part of photography.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 24, 2014)

Brett Hull said:


> can anyone explaine why Canon has no high Mp FF camera as Nikon
> Brett



Yes, however those who can explain understandeably don't share proprietary information. The rest of us can speculate, as has been done here, as well as many other places.



symmar22 said:


> To finish, I do not agree with the idea that the D800 (or A7r) are niche products; they are not for everyone, and have not been designed as all-round cameras. Nikon has the D600 and Sony the vanilla A7 for that purpose, but that *doe not make them niche* cameras, simply specialized ones (ask pro fashion and beauty photographers if their Hasselblads are niche cameras).



That's exactly what it makes them. Specialized cameras aimed at a specific subset of the market are niche by definition. They include medium format systems, 1Dx, D4, D800, etc.. There's nothing wrong with serving a niche market, it's just risky from a business perspective.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (May 24, 2014)

Brett Hull said:


> I asked, why can not Canon introduce a high mega pixel camera as Nikon and Sony. Not if any brand are out selling another. So why?
> 
> And about signal noise and if the cameras file size are compared at the same file size, there are not much to discusse, they are equal regarding higher iso. So my question is, why can not Canon introduce a high megapixel camera year 2014 ?



Canon can and have produced high mp sensors (160mp on a 1.3 crop was the last I heard of) however they probably don't see a market for high MP cameras. As a Canon user I most certainly do not want higher MP and on APSC cameras I want much lower MP than is currently available.
Given that Canon, up until recently, offered higher MP cameras than the competition don't you think they would still be doing so if they thought there was any profit in them?
Perhaps you should contact Canon and see what they say?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 24, 2014)

symmar22 said:


> The way Nikon has segmented the pro cameras make IMO more sense, D4 for press/speed, D800 for studio/resolution, D600 for general public/budget. With canon we have 1Dx for everything/high end, 5D3 for everything/medium end, 6d for everything/budget. I'm not saying they are bad cameras, I am saying that the image they give are all the same.



It may make sense to you, but obviously Canon doesn't see it that way...and Canon sells more dSLRs than Nikon, so clearly Canon's way of segmenting the market is working for them.


----------



## Sporgon (May 24, 2014)

symmar22 said:


> The cheapest modern medium format back is worth 20k for 40-50MPx resolution, so the idea of getting 36 Mpx for 1/10th of the cost makes perfect sense.



Does it ? As someone who has used medium and large format film you must know that these mediums were not just about more resolution; there are significant benefits from the much larger format - as well as some disadvantages of course. With digital we are not even getting the same size of medium format !

My own feeling regarding the answer to this thread is that Canon are probably of the opinion that if you really require more than 24 mp you require a larger format to make it worthwhile. I'm also sure their market research guys will have an accurate handle on the general response to the D800, and that has only confirmed this view.

I'm also amazed that Nikon produced a 36 mp camera without any way of having access to raw data in a smaller file form. I know that sRAW etc are generally not at all popular on CR, but for people coming away from an event with over 1000 frames, that are not likely to be produced very big anyway but will require editing, the smaller files are very welcome - and that's on 22 mp never mind 36.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 24, 2014)

Brett Hull said:


> I asked, why can not Canon introduce a high mega pixel camera as Nikon and Sony. Not if any brand are out selling another. So why?



As I've stated many times, people buy cameras, not bare silicon sensors. For example, with a given data throughput rate, one could have 50% more resolution or a 50% higher frame rate. 

As stated above, Canon produced a 120 MP APS-H sensor, so clearly they _can_ achieve high pixel density. The most likely answer is that Canon could produce a high MP body, and likely could have done so for some time. But they haven't. Nikon did (with help from Sony), and the Canon model in the same price bracket sells better. *You* can ignore the realities of the market if you want, Canon will not. There's your 'why' right there.


----------



## Bruce Photography (May 24, 2014)

Aglet said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I've read a number of reviews (in print and online) that indicate that the D800 starts to fall apart once you get above ISO 800-1600.
> ...



+2 At long last someone that reports the same results for the D800/E as I have been getting. I was shooting the new Tamron 150-600mm at 3200 on the D800 last night hand-held and I was pleased with the results (except for the fact that all the birds in the area took off when they saw the lens). I did have to do some noise reduction but I really like the tighter grain (I mean noise) and can smooth it over to what print size I'm aiming at. Thanks again for letting Canon users know they do have options.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 24, 2014)

Brett Hull said:


> I asked, why can not Canon introduce a high mega pixel camera as Nikon and Sony. ... So my question is, why can not Canon introduce a high megapixel camera year 2014 ?


.

Before you asked why they do not, not why they can not. They certainly can produce higher resolution sensors. Whether and when they do are business decisions.


----------



## DanielW (May 24, 2014)

Brett Hull said:


> I asked, why can not Canon introduce a high mega pixel camera as Nikon and Sony. Not if any brand are out selling another. So why?



Is that swedish food I'm smelling?


----------



## Lawliet (May 24, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Nikon did (with help from Sony), and the Canon model in the same price bracket sells better. *You* can ignore the realities of the market if you want, Canon will not. There's your 'why' right there.



Thats a very simplified view of "market". For example does the 5D3 sell better because people feel its in a sweet spot, or are there factors like depreciation rules that make a quick switch unviable?
The idea that sales of one particular item within a complete system in the context of a long term commitment is an accurate reflection of how well it fits unbiased customer demands(i.e. thats all we get, so it has to fit) is somewhere between naive and intentionally bad science.


----------



## DanielW (May 24, 2014)

Lawliet said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon did (with help from Sony), and the Canon model in the same price bracket sells better. *You* can ignore the realities of the market if you want, Canon will not. There's your 'why' right there.
> ...



What's the more realistic and scientific explanation, then?


----------



## Sporgon (May 24, 2014)

Lawliet said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon did (with help from Sony), and the Canon model in the same price bracket sells better. *You* can ignore the realities of the market if you want, Canon will not. There's your 'why' right there.
> ...



If you want to see the 'market' look at the used availability and values. In the UK at least there are more D800 s for sale than 5DIII s, and cheaper to boot. That says it all really.


----------



## Lawliet (May 24, 2014)

DanielW said:


> What's the more realistic and scientific explanation, then?


That question is about as smart as DXO or and lens review site boiling their whole results down into a single number...
But complacent reliance on market inertia has historical precedence, lets seewhat has been learned from those examples.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 24, 2014)

Lawliet said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon did (with help from Sony), and the Canon model in the same price bracket sells better. *You* can ignore the realities of the market if you want, Canon will not. There's your 'why' right there.
> ...



Given the petulant and transparent nature of the original question, only a simple response was warranted. 

The fact remains that we aren't privy to the motivation behind Canon's business decisions, much less the motivation behind the buying decisions of millions of consumers. To suggest we could know that information is somewhere between disingenuous and just plain silly. 

Nevertheless, we can observe the _results_ of those business and buying decisions, namely that Canon is the market leader for dSLR sales, and has been so for over 11 years. For the last ~4 of those years, Nikon has had "better" sensors (better if you believe DxOMark's Biased Scores, that is), and that hasn't helped Nikon move ahead of Canon in market share, nor even gain significantly. I would not consider market inertia or brand loyalty as major drivers for that, since the bulk of the market is at the entry-level end, where system buy-in doesn't really affect buying decisions.


----------



## DanielW (May 24, 2014)

Lawliet said:


> DanielW said:
> 
> 
> > What's the more realistic and scientific explanation, then?
> ...



I definitely agree with you on that one. That's probably why Canon outsells other companies: it's rather a good system, not a good sensor or whatever piece. That's why you can't just boil it all down to a number or a single reason.
There must be a better way of saying "Canon's wrong, but the reasons are way too complex for you to understand", though. I was truly hoping for something better... 
About market inertia, well, I guess we will really have to see, even though I fail to see it on Canon's part except on the mirrorless market.
Cheers,
Daniel


----------



## timcz (May 24, 2014)

I have to confess as a landscape shooter I wouldn't mind a few extra mp, purely so when I crop down into a panorama format, I still have a decent mp count to work with. Currently I stitch a lot, but some scenes (seascapes in particular) this can be difficult. I have printed 30" prints off my old nikon d70 back in the day which worked well enough - but I guess the less upscaling you have to do the better. 

I do love my 5dmk3 though, but still often shoot my 1ds3 as I feel at iso 100 the files can be pushed a little more than the 5d in the shadows.


----------



## ksagomonyants (May 24, 2014)

Guys, a comment and a question at the same time. For those who crop or want to print large images and doesn't want to get d800 (for whatever reason), would it make sense to buy software like Perfect Resize/BlowUp/Photozoom, etc.? Has anybody had good experience with either software? Thanks.


----------



## Synkka (May 25, 2014)

I really don't think there is a strong demand for a higher mega pixel body I think it is more that if more mega pixels are on offer they would take it. 
I do a bit of varied shooting, with wildlife I probably see 1 out of every 20 users is a Nikon user, never any d800s and never any high end telephotos.
With weddings maybe 1 in 5 and Nikon users tend to have a d800 and a d600.
Landscape I do see a more even split of Nikon users but this is also where I see the least photographers.

So overall I really don't think there is any application for a high megapixel body outside of landscapes and I also don't think landscape photography is as popular as some people think.

Also in regards to large printing, just how close do you view prints ? For big prints I normally place them so you can stand back and enjoy them and from a distance it's tough to tell high megapixel prints apart.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 25, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Brett Hull said:
> 
> 
> > I asked, why can not Canon introduce a high mega pixel camera as Nikon and Sony. Not if any brand are out selling another. So why?
> ...



But, Nikon users had a mere 12MP in their FF cameras, the D3/D3S and the 5D MkII competition D700, until the $7,000 D3X (the 1Ds MkIII competitor).

There is a huge difference in usable resolution between 12MP and 21MP files, there is not such a huge leap between 24MP (the current 5D MkIII) and the 36MP Sony sensor.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 25, 2014)

Jglaser757 said:


> I've waited a long time for Nikon to recapture the lead on Nikon and their 36 mp camera. And now I read that Nikon will introduce an upgrade to the 800e in June. Why am I not jumping ship? I do have a lot of canon glass and have been a local customer. I own the mk III and 6d and I love the images .BUTT, COME ON ALREADY cCanon. Get your stuff together!



Technically, The new D800s would finally be that d700 replacement, Alas with Small RAW and Decent FPS options. I'd imagine this would please the majority of d700 users who complained about the 36 megapixels files.

I stayed with canon because - Lens selection > Sensors.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 25, 2014)

dilbert said:


> I'm a firm believer in the fact that Canon have been working down a different path for sensor R&D in the belief that their current design pattern for full frame sensors was good enough and that Sony's advances with the 36MP sensor caught Canon by surprise.



Yes, Canon was caught totally by surprise. I mean, it's not as if big, research based companies have Competitive Intelligence departments to ferret out what their competitors are doing. Surely not. Well, ok, mine does...but they must be the only ones. 

Canon was so surprised by the D800 that they had no choice but to go ahead with the 5DIII launch, even knowing that a 36 MP body in the same price class would absolutely trounce the 5DIII in sales. There Canon was, thinking an awesome general purpose camera combining great IQ, class-leading AF, and a decently fast frame rate would be popular, but then, like a 1-2 punch, after the D800, they get hit by Sony's 36 MP mirrorless with great ergonomics, excellent battery life, and a stellar native lens collection. 

Obviously, Canon is feeling the pressure...they have predicted a drop in dSLR sales this year. Nikon's great sensors mean they they'll do much better than Canon this year. At least, I think that's what they predicted...I mean, 6 is a bigger number than 1, so Nikon's prediction of a 6% loss in dSLR sales is better than Canon's predicted 1% loss. Right?


----------



## 100 (May 25, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> There is a huge difference in usable resolution between 12MP and 21MP files, there is not such a huge leap between 24MP (the current 5D MkIII) and the 36MP Sony sensor.



Could you explain that? 
I mean, when I look at the math I don’t see “a huge difference in resolution”.
1Ds mk III => 5616 × 3744 versus D3S => 4256 × 2832
D800 => 7360 x 4912 versus 5D mk III => 5760 × 3840 

1Ds mk III versus D3s => 3744/2823 = 1.32
D800 versus 5D mk III => 4912/3840 = 1.28

It’s 32% more resolution versus 28% more resolution.
However, you wrote *usable* resolution so maybe the usability diminishes with the increase in mp and if so I like to understand why that is.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 25, 2014)

100 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > There is a huge difference in usable resolution between 12MP and 21MP files, there is not such a huge leap between 24MP (the current 5D MkIII) and the 36MP Sony sensor.
> ...



Why would you consider just the vertical/linear resolution?

5DII vs D700: (21 – 12) / 12 = 75% increase
D800 vs 5DIII: (36 – 22) / 22 = 64% increase

That's sensor resolution. The 'usable' part comes when you consider that there's a lens attached to the camera. 

From DxOMark:
D700 with Nikon 24-70/2.8G – 9 P-Mpix
5DII with Canon 24-70/2.8L – 12 P-Mpix

D800 with Nikon 24-70/2.8G – 15 P-Mpix
5DIII with Canon 24-70/2.8L – 14 P-Mpix

So, with a very popular professional wedding/event lens from each brand, the 21 MP 5DII delivers 33% more usable resolution than the 12 MP D700, and the 36 MP D800 delivers only 7% more usable resolution than the 22 MP 5DIII. Those values are for the original version of the Canon 24-70/2.8, if you look at the new MkII version...

5DIII with Canon 24-70/2.8L II – 18 P-Mpix

So when you factor in the current 24-70/2.8 lenses, the D800 actually delivers 17% *less* usable resolution than the 5DIII, despite it's 64% higher sensor resolution. 

If you instead compare the D800E + 24-70/2.8G, it fares better...but at 21 P-Mpix is still only delivering a 17% usable resolution increase over the 5DIII, nowhere near 64%. 

Obviously, other lenses can be chosen with different results. But the key point is that what really matters is the system resolution (camera + lens). Given the resolution of most lenses available for both brands, going from the low teens to the twenties in MP count makes a lot more difference in output resolution than going from the twenties to the thirties.


----------



## 100 (May 25, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Why would you consider just the vertical/linear resolution?
> 
> 5DII vs D700: (21 – 12) / 12 = 75% increase
> D800 vs 5DIII: (36 – 22) / 22 = 64% increase



Spatial resolution (how closely lines can be resolved) seems a good way to measure resolution if you look at test charts for comparisons, that’s why I used it in the calculation. 
I’m ok with pixel resolution though, the difference between 75% and 64% increase isn’t that big either. 



neuroanatomist said:


> The 'usable' part comes when you consider that there's a lens attached to the camera.
> 
> From DxOMark:
> D700 with Nikon 24-70/2.8G – 9 P-Mpix
> ...



I agree it’s the total system that makes the picture, so if we want to compare resolution it’s best to use the same glass. 
The Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM A on a D3s => 10P-Mpix
The Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM A on a 1Ds MkIII => 17P-Mpix

The Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM A on a 5D MkIII => 19P-Mpix
The Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM A on a D800 => 23P-Mpix

70% versus 21%, that confirms the gap in usable resolution between 12mp and 21mp is larger than between 22mp and 36mp if we assume DxO’s P-Mpix value are a good indication for the difference in (spatial) resolution.
A 1mp difference between the 1Ds MkIII and the 5D MkIII results in a 2P-Mpix points difference, so a grain of salt is need with this P-Mpix value. 

My question stays the same, I like to understand why that is and what it will mean if we get sensors with even more megapixels?


----------



## unfocused (May 25, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a firm believer in the fact that Canon have been working down a different path for sensor R&D in the belief that their current design pattern for full frame sensors was good enough and that Sony's advances with the 36MP sensor caught Canon by surprise.
> ...



Neuro, you missed a very important point. 

Not only was Canon forced to go ahead with the 5DIII launch but in order to beat the D800 in sales, they had to charge 20% more for the 5DIII. Canon made such a terrible mistake with the 5DIII that it's ranked as the seventh highest seller on the Amazon list, even though it sells for twice what the second most expensive camera in the top 20 sells for which...wait for it...happens to be the Canon 6D.

Funny how Canon has fallen so far behind that the latest flagship releases from Sony (A7s) and Nikon (D4s) have substantially less resolution than even the 5DIII.

Oh and maybe Sony just shaved $200 off the price of the A7 because it was selling so well.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 25, 2014)

100 said:


> A 1mp difference between the 1Ds MkIII and the 5D MkIII results in a 2P-Mpix points difference, so a grain of salt is need with this P-Mpix value.



Perhaps. But consider the differences that can be observed in P-Mpix values for the same lens compared on the 36 MP D800 vs. the 36 MP D800E (e.g., a 6 P-Mpix = 40% difference for the 24-70/2.8G, which isn't the sharpest of lenses). Given that, it would not be at all surprising that a slight change in AA filter design between camera generations could result in a sharpness difference beyond what you'd predict from the change in MP count. 



100 said:


> My question stays the same, I like to understand why that is and what it will mean if we get sensors with even more megapixels?



It is that way because in most cases resolution is limited by the lens more than by the sensor. If we get higher MP sensors without a corresponding increase in lens resolution, we'll see diminishing marginal returns in output resolution as MP counts increase. 

DxOMark's P-Mpix values can illustrate this, in part. Comparing the calculated P-Mpix value with the real sensor MP count gives an approximation of resolution lost 'to the system' (lens, AA filter, etc.). With the very sharp 35A, the 5DIII loses 14% of its theoretically possible resolution, the D800 loses 36%. Sharp as the lens is, you're still seeing the diminishing return with increasing MP counts. 

Keep in mind that what really matters isn't the MP count, but pixel density (though MP count works when discussing same-sized sensors). An 18 MP APS-C sensor is far more limited by lens resolution than an 18 MP FF sensor. That means even if/when FF sensors get into the MP count range of medium format sensors, the output resolution of MF will still be much higher.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 25, 2014)

For usable resolution it isn't even just about the system (sensor, AA filter, lens, firmware etc), that just gives you a potential resolution in best case scenario situations that most of us practically never shoot in, and require 10x Live View manual focus, optimal aperture for lens sharpness, minimum or base iso (if we take the time and trouble to work out our sensors true base iso), very good light with high contrast, very firm support, cable release etc etc.

Now that list sounds like a landscape and architectural shooters M.O., and I believe they are the only people who will get any remote chance of worthwhile resolution increases when going over 30MP in the 135 format etc. Having said that I do a reasonable amount of higher end real estate work that is regularly used in quality print advertising as well as posters and billboards and I haven't found 21MP to be a serious limitation. Peolpe who use AF, BIF, sports shooters, action shooters, most wedding shooters etc will get practically nothing from a 30+MP sensor over current models.

After some extensive testing I did with the 1Ds MkIII and the 7D (sure things are better now but they are better for both formats) in ideal shooting situations set up to maximise the difference between the 21MP sensor and the effective 46MP sensor that showed minimal resolution differences, I concluded the numbers mean very little, in real world shooting situations where I was using AF and not optimal iso and aperture settings the differences disappeared completely. In truth AF had a far bigger impact on resolution than a 21 or 46 MP sensor.

If I shot landscape 100% of the time I'd use TS-E's on an A7R where the methodology of realising the potential resolution wouldn't impact my shooting, but I don't, I am a generalist and need AF, a range of ISO's, apertures, and shutter speeds, zoom lenses, etc etc.

In conclusion, I am not saying, and never have, that a higher MP sensor doesn't resolve "more", it does, but the rule of diminishing returns kicks in for virtually all real world shooting scenarios and makes the difference so small as to be imperceptible most of the time. Having something because it has a higher number is a game I stopped playing long ago, I look very closely at what it can actually do for me, so far the disadvantages of higher MP sensors in 135 format have not convinced me that Canon don't know far more about this than us and they hit a sweet spot with the 5D MkIII. I am a long time 1Ds MkIII user, if they come out with a true replacement in the 35-45MP range I am not interested, if they come out with a 1DX MkII with a 24MP sensor I died and went to camera heaven.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 25, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Of course you're welcome to tell me that bigger isn't better



Bigger is only better if the smaller thing you are enlarging more is better than the native big thing.

You are not arguing bigger is better, you are saying smaller (pixels) are as good as bigger ones, that has been demonstrated repeatedly to not be the case.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 25, 2014)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > 100 said:
> ...



Well....who would have guessed it? 36mp and the thing holding the resolution back is the lenses attached...oh actually....we've all been saying that all along. 36mp of the sharpest 22mp optical / lens resolution can muster.

As to printability....the 300dpi rule is only a guide line. I have an A1+ print on my wall from a 5D classic and it's pin sharp and looks great.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 26, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Of course you're welcome to tell me that bigger isn't better



More real resolution is better. More megapixels are not necessarily better. 

I use Zeiss microscopes at work (I'm in drug discovery, BTW), some of the cameras on them have 1.3 MP sensors with a CFA but no microlenses, and the camera can move the sensor with piezo motors in full-pixel or sub-pixel increments. Color can be interpolated, or with full-pixel moves each pixel can see R/G/B with no interpolation. Sub-pixel moves shift the position of the photodiode within the area of each pixel (microlenses would obviate that benefit), so the 1.3 MP sensor can sample a 2x2 sub-pixel array for a 5 MP image or a 3x3 array for a 12 MP image, and the 5 and 12 MP images are real resolution. Zeiss also provides information for their objective lenses, indicating the digital resolution necessary to fully capture the available optical resolving power of the lens. For some lenses, the 12 MP image is needed. For other lenses, even a VGA camera (0.3 MP) can fully capture the spatial resolution delivered by the lens, so a 1 MP image is more than adequate (even allowing for oversampling according Nyquist). Those lenses for which 1 MP or 5 MP are sufficient to fully capture their optical resolution can still be used with a 5 or 12 MP capture, but using a higher resolution than the lens can deliver doesn't capture any additional information. That's referred to as 'empty resolution', all it adds is 'overhead' – needlessly larger files, longer acquisition time, etc. 

So in fact, 'bigger' (meaning more MP) isn't always better.


----------



## LightandMotion (May 26, 2014)

ksagomonyants said:


> Guys, a comment and a question at the same time. For those who crop or want to print large images and doesn't want to get d800 (for whatever reason), would it make sense to buy software like Perfect Resize/BlowUp/Photozoom, etc.? Has anybody had good experience with either software? Thanks.



For all my prints (typically 1m / 40" conventional or 1.5m / 60" for panoramas) I use Perfect Resize whether the images are from a 1dx or A7R. I've had libraries and and restaurants order prints for wall type murals and have printed to 5m using Perfect Resize with excellent results. Even a 36MP A7R image will only print to about 25" at 300 dpi, so anything above this will need software to resize. I've found the genuine fractal algorithm of Perfect Resize superior to other software and to PS own bicubic smoother.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 26, 2014)

dilbert said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



So a 70D pixel enlarges as well as a 1DX pixel? 

If you look at same generation sensors on a per pixel basis bigger pixels have always performed better than smaller ones.


----------



## dslrdummy (May 26, 2014)

Jglaser757 said:


> Lightmaster said:
> 
> 
> > Jglaser757 said:
> ...


And before that the 5D, the first "affordable" full frame dslr.


----------



## GaryJ (May 26, 2014)

I'd rather get a PhaseOne and be done with it 8)


----------



## tinkertinker (May 26, 2014)

hello world.

RIGHT OR WRONG?
i think that´s not the question.

many of you (like me) want a highmegapixel camera from canon!
as a studio and architecture photographer i would appreciate
more megapixel than 21...(21MP is quite enough but i would welcome
about30-40MP), because i (hope to) know how to use it, and I have the fantatic TSe lenses.
but, i hope i won´t be more than 50MP because that would
be way too much for the small sensor and best lenses used with perfect aperture.

@neuro: i really love to read your posts but sometimes 
so please.... not every photographer is doing weddings, sports or events!!
and sure does the 5diii outsell the d800, because its an allroundcamera!!
and to be honest the company canon is a little bigger than nikon...
cheers.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (May 26, 2014)

symmar22 said:


> Just wanted to add my two cents to the struggle. The Mpx fight seems to be an endless debate, nevertheless, I am always surprised to see people who seem to decide what is good for others. More resolution will always be wanted, that doesn't mean it's always needed. Saying that more pixel is useless is just nonsense; it might be useless for you, but some folks need more resolution for different matters. I am old enough to have worked with film for a good while, and in the good old times, everyone was trying to switch to the newest film because of it's better sharpness and finer grain. Some jobs needed better resolution than others, a press photographer could deal with small format (24x36), while fashion required medium format and advertising large format view cameras; nobody would discuss if 4x5 format was useful or not. It's like asking Ansel Adams if he really needed to shoot 8x10 sheet film.
> 
> Nowadays, things have changed a bit, since all DSLR outresolve easily small format, and the only thing that is still out of reach is the large format (minimum 4x5) cameras. On the other hand, most people only watch their pictures on screens, so for that purpose, most DSLR are overkill.
> 
> ...



I don't think anyone here really doubts that there are people who do need more MP's. But from Canon's standpoint, it's a numbers game, and the numbers don't go in your favor - and I think that's the biggest thing people here are arguing - that numbers game - sure there are tons who *want *more MP's, but those that *need *it are much smaller and it is a niche market.

I bring it up a lot here, that difference between needs and wants and how that impacts on camera decisions. I mean, we are human, we like bright shiny things. We all have a list of things we wantbut have no use for, may never use it, may never learn how to use it, may not have the space to store it, etc, etc, etc. The things we need though, we need. Like, you need a car, you need to get to and from work and depending on where you live that's the best way. That car does not have to be a hummer, nor does it have to be (insert fancy fast race car name here). Needs - do you have to drive up a mountain, one without paved roads and traverse creek beds and haul whole giant trees on a daily basis? No, then you don't need a hummer. And the opposite end, to get to and from work do you really need to go 1-60 in 2 seconds? Do you really need a max speed of 300 mph when your not gonna be going more than 65mph? The same applies to all those MP's, needs vs wants. I can say that on both ends - do i need more MP's? No, I want them and sure, a few of my clients would notice the difference - but I shoot weddings and I'm more like to want the MP's for my own displays because the vast majority of print orders range from 4x6 - 8x12. Likewise, something like a 1dx is also overkill, like the racecar because at 12 fps yikes - I'd either never shoot at the full frame rate or end up with 10,000 images from each wedding. That is why for my needs the 5d3 and 6d combo do the trick. 

Commercial interior work - for sure that is an area that crosses the line of needs and wants - most commercial jobs are big budget clients with lots to spend. But, back to the numbers game, and the real world - just as with weddings you have your i know a guy with a camera jobs and the I will bill you at 10K per day job. Numbers scale, there are a whole lot more small business' out there that get their friends or find a portrait person to do their commercial shots because most smaller fish don't have the budget to afford a true commercial tog. that's why it's a niche - not enough big money clients to make big budget commercial jobs more than a smaller niche. (your basically working for the upper 5%....)


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (May 26, 2014)

Brett Hull said:


> I asked, why can not Canon introduce a high mega pixel camera as Nikon and Sony. Not if any brand are out selling another. So why?
> 
> And about signal noise and if the cameras file size are compared at the same file size, there are not much to discusse, they are equal regarding higher iso. So my question is, why can not Canon introduce a high megapixel camera year 2014 ?



These companies need to make money in order to keep making the products we want right? so they need to make things that sell. They need to make things that don't break their budgets. You can't talk about this without sales figures - because sales figures do tell you what the demand is and right now. Money talks - so yes, sales are a big factor. I mean, why spend a ton of money in R&D and tooling and production to make something that won't sell in the numbers their other products do????


----------



## dgatwood (May 26, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> I don't think anyone here really doubts that there are people who do need more MP's. But from Canon's standpoint, it's a numbers game, and the numbers don't go in your favor - and I think that's the biggest thing people here are arguing - that numbers game - sure there are tons who *want *more MP's, but those that *need *it are much smaller and it is a niche market.



I don't think it's a niche market at all. It just requires the right marketing—advertise it as a built-in, optically lossless 1.6x teleconverter. 

I suspect that pretty much every single person who carries a separate crop body or a 1.4x teleconverter for reach would prefer to be able to dispense with those. A full-frame camera with the same pixel density as a crop body would let them do so (albeit at a cost in terms of SNR on a per-pixel level compared with a TC). Maybe that's not a huge market, but I wouldn't call it a niche.

If you did it right, you could even advertise it as a low-end step-up camera for crop body owners wanting to move to a full-frame camera without having to replace their lenses all at once. This would, of course, require a slightly more complicated mirror design to avoid hitting the back of certain EF-S lenses, but I can think of several ways that it could be done. And that market would actually be pretty significant.

Of course, all those people would buy fewer cameras and extenders, so it isn't in Canon's best interest to actually provide that user experience....


----------



## Aglet (May 27, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Some of us would just be happy if Canon fixed its sensor pattern noise and DR and kept the same resolution. Put the current 24MP FF sensor from Sony in a 5D2 or 5D3 or 6D and I'd be a happy camper.



+1
just fix the pattern noise!
low DR is workable but stripes are for tigers and zebras (& cougars in lycra?)


----------



## Orangutan (May 27, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Some of us would just be happy if Canon fixed its sensor pattern noise and DR and kept the same resolution.



Now, you just need to go out and convince a few million to join your March Against Pattern Noise and Slightly Inadequate Dynamic Range. 



> Put the current 24MP FF sensor from Sony in a 5D2 or 5D3 or 6D and I'd be a happy camper.


Isn't that a D600? How's that selling?

How much would Sony charge Canon for that privilege? And what's the cost difference between Canon's in-house sensor and a Sony-made sensor? Are you enough customers willing to pay that difference?


----------



## 100 (May 27, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> DxOMark's P-Mpix values can illustrate this, in part. Comparing the calculated P-Mpix value with the real sensor MP count gives an approximation of resolution lost 'to the system' (lens, AA filter, etc.). With the very sharp 35A, the 5DIII loses 14% of its theoretically possible resolution, the D800 loses 36%. Sharp as the lens is, you're still seeing the diminishing return with increasing MP counts.



It seems so with most current lenses and I’m ok with some extra loss of resolution due to the bigger impact optical imperfections have in combination with high megapixel sensors but I think optics can be made better suited for those sensors so the gain in resolution will be sufficient enough to justify a 30-40mp FF body. 

Look at the Sony FE Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 55mm F1.8 ZA on a Sony Alpha 7r for instance. 
It has a score of 29P-Mpix. That’s “only” 20% below the theoretical maximum, but 30% more than the theoretical maximum of the 22mp 5D MKIII.
This is “best case” at the moment (on average lenses are 45% below their theoretical maximum in P-Mpix I believe) but with purposely designed high mp glass on 30-40mp FF cameras we probably get a substantially higher real world resolution compared to the current 20-24mp FF sensors. 

It will all depend on price I guess. With the new Pentax 645z medium format camera costing “just” 8k (50mp, weather sealed, 400k ISO, 3fps) a high mp 135 format camera will have to be substantially cheaper so it probably won’t have an 1D-style body. 5D-style and price tag somewhere around 4K might be possible, but we’ll have to see what Canon comes up with if they decide to bring a high mp body to the market. They may very well decide not to because it will be a relatively small market anyway.


----------



## 100 (May 27, 2014)

privatebydesign said:



> For usable resolution it isn't even just about the system (sensor, AA filter, lens, firmware etc), that just gives you a potential resolution in best case scenario situations that most of us practically never shoot in, and require 10x Live View manual focus, optimal aperture for lens sharpness, minimum or base iso (if we take the time and trouble to work out our sensors true base iso), very good light with high contrast, very firm support, cable release etc etc.
> 
> Now that list sounds like a landscape and architectural shooters M.O., and I believe they are the only people who will get any remote chance of worthwhile resolution increases when going over 30MP in the 135 format etc. Having said that I do a reasonable amount of higher end real estate work that is regularly used in quality print advertising as well as posters and billboards and I haven't found 21MP to be a serious limitation. Peolpe who use AF, BIF, sports shooters, action shooters, most wedding shooters etc will get practically nothing from a 30+MP sensor over current models.
> 
> ...



I shoot architecture/buildings/cityscapes with the TS-E 24 and I shoot macro. Both usually from a tripod with manual focus and 10x live view, so I’d be interested in a FF 135 format camera in the 30-40mp range if they keep the price under 4k. If it’s 6-8k the Pentax 645z is probably the way to go.
I think with glass specifically designed for high megapixel sensors the increase in resolution will be substantial enough, but you are right it’s only useful for specific situations. For everything else a 20-24mp FF body will do just fine.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 27, 2014)

100 said:


> I shoot architecture/buildings/cityscapes with the TS-E 24 and I shoot macro. Both usually from a tripod with manual focus and 10x live view, so I’d be interested in a FF 135 format camera in the 30-40mp range if they keep the price under 4k.



If that's what I primarily shot, I'd be giving serious consideration to a Sony a7R with a Metabones adapter to use the Canon TS and macro lenses...


----------



## 100 (May 27, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > I shoot architecture/buildings/cityscapes with the TS-E 24 and I shoot macro. Both usually from a tripod with manual focus and 10x live view, so I’d be interested in a FF 135 format camera in the 30-40mp range if they keep the price under 4k.
> ...



It’s certainly an option but where I live the Sony with the Metabones will cost me over 2500 euros (about 3500 USD) on top of my Canon gear because I do shoot other things too for which my 5DIII is the best tool. At the moment it’s not worth it to me and I would like to see if Canon comes up with a 30-40mp body within the next 2 years. The price of the 7R will drop probably so I might still end up with one.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (May 27, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Brett Hull said:
> 
> 
> > I asked, why can not Canon introduce a high mega pixel camera as Nikon and Sony. Not if any brand are out selling another. So why?
> ...



I don't know about that --- the focus on improving glass says to me that they do have bigger sensor plans, but, want the correct infrastructure in place first and want to get it right the first time (LOL, yeah, that means no here's a d800, and a d800e, oh now here's a new body thats just the 2 old bodies together...). Patience, make all that kick ass glass. In the meantime, we will all be updating other pieces of the puzzle (like our computers, or computer components - big mp files transferred on usb3 takes minutes where as if your still on usb2, well, hope you have other things to do cause that transfer will take a long time).

Either way, I do think that all these lens updates are the prelude to the big mp body launch - which will make the big mp body actually worth it.


----------



## surapon (May 27, 2014)

Dear Friends.
In 1999, My First Semi-DSLR = Olympus C2500L = 2.5 MP( $ 2,000 with all accessories) with My First 128 MB. Compactflash card ( $ 200 US Dollars ?)---And That was one of the Best camera that I ever have, Better than Sony Mavica = 0.8 MP with 3 1/2 inches Floppy disk.
Now We have 22 MP. still not happy, want 36 to 42 MP DSLR, in 2014.
Just Dream, Near future dreaming.
Surapon.
PS the White house photo below = from Olympus C2500L 1999


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (May 27, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think anyone here really doubts that there are people who do need more MP's. But from Canon's standpoint, it's a numbers game, and the numbers don't go in your favor - and I think that's the biggest thing people here are arguing - that numbers game - sure there are tons who *want *more MP's, but those that *need *it are much smaller and it is a niche market.
> ...



Maybe it's just me but I still think it's a niche market, filled with people who want it more than need it. Again, Need means your business will suffer and lag behind because of it. Want means, I want it, it's pretty and shiny. Need means I feed my family. 

The problem here is this - the market in question is niche because ---- there isn't as that much $$$ in it to make it worth it to spend thousands to achieve marginally better results. 

LOL - your arguing for a big MP body not for the big files but as a cheap work around to longer focal ranges - why because big tele's are pricey and teleconverters are a trade off for fstops ----why do these types of togs need work arounds? Because there just isn't on a whole that much $$$ to be made on this type of photography - which means it's a hobby budget. That leads us to this weird place where there are pro's looking for por gear for pro reasons and hobby people lobbying to gimp pro gear so that it helps them more for their hobby? And unlike landscape work which there are other options for getting more mps out of current systems by using adaptors and stuff - animals generally need kick ass AF, so even with 36 mp's on that a7r that a7r won't be the king of the jungle. 

As others have pointed out ---- part of why the 5d3 is outselling the d800 is because it's a general purpose body. The general user isn't looking to get 600 mm or FOV out of a 300mm lens by cropping. 
As this guy here says - 



tinkertinker said:


> hello world.
> 
> RIGHT OR WRONG?
> i think that´s not the question.
> ...



the thing with this is --- wedding photographers are actually the perfect people to target for a general purpose camera. A wedding tog has some action to contend with (dancing and such), they have detail work, they have fashion style work, they have studio level work, they have dimly churches to shoot in, then off to shoot in a bright field, then back to a dimly lit reception - wedding togs are shooting at longer ranges, and at wide ranges ----- so in reality, the average wedding photographer will encounter a very broad range of technically challenging situations --- so yeah, a wedding tog is kind of the perfect subject to design an all purpose camera for. 

Back to the idea of niches--- an all purpose camera occupies several niches, where a niche camera is just that --- nikon did mess that one up - they had the d700, widely regarded as a great all purpose camera and turned it into a landscape camera that can also do other things. 

the thing I find the most funny is that where talking about this because nikon messed up and made 2 bodies that essentially do the same thing and now have to consolidate those 2 into 1 body totally screwing all those who bought either body over....


----------



## unfocused (May 27, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Back to the idea of niches--- an all purpose camera occupies several niches, where a niche camera is just that --- nikon did mess that one up - they had the d700, widely regarded as a great all purpose camera and turned it into a landscape camera that can also do other things.
> 
> the thing I find the most funny is that where talking about this because nikon messed up and made 2 bodies that essentially do the same thing and now have to consolidate those 2 into 1 body totally screwing all those who bought either body over....



Chuck, most of what you've written is music to my ears. I've been trying to explain the same thing for quite some time. Canon produced a 5DIII with a definite market in mind. Nikon produced the D800 to win a title (higher MP than Canon). Their marketing department failed them – they didn't have a clear customer base in mind and once the pent-up demand from their existing customers had been met, they didn't have anywhere to go.

I don't want to quibble too much with your post except that I think you have the profitability of business needs and hobbyist needs reversed. From everything I've read, the really lucrative market is hobbyists -- people who buy what they want without being constrained by things like return on investment. 

But, I still agree that high megapixel is a niche market. Just as there are very few professionals who can benefit from a high megapixel body, there are few hobbyists who really care about higher megapixels right now. There are some vocal advocates, but they are a small minority.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (May 27, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > Back to the idea of niches--- an all purpose camera occupies several niches, where a niche camera is just that --- nikon did mess that one up - they had the d700, widely regarded as a great all purpose camera and turned it into a landscape camera that can also do other things.
> ...



agreeed...but hobbyists coverthe spectrum too...and the laws of haves and have nots still come into play. Hobbyists may not have to govern their purchases based on ROI like pros do, but - you just can't get around the base economics of it - the middle class is shrinking and expenses keep going up. So yeah, you have your top 10 percent that will buy whatever shiny new thing is out there but until there is more disposable cash in the hands of the middle class we just won't see these shiny things move off the shelves as much. Mid to low level gear will still sell like hotcakes, which ensures that there will be a steady Pros market because they have needs and need to make sure their work is a few notches ahead of the uncle bobs....


----------



## unfocused (May 27, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Chuck Alaimo said:
> ...



Good point. Reading this forum, it's easy to forget that the t3i remains the best selling DSLR out there. You are correct, most consumers are never going to spend even $1,000 on a camera.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 28, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> the thing I find the most funny is that where talking about this because nikon messed up and made 2 bodies that essentially do the same thing and now have to consolidate those 2 into 1 body totally screwing all those who bought either body over....



meh, it's not totally screwing anyone over. Everyone who bought the D800 knew what they were getting. Likewise with the D800E. Chances are many of them have netted some spectacular images with them over the past couple years. Nikon releasing a marginally better model doesn't affect anything excepting maybe resale value.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 28, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Brett Hull said:
> ...


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (May 28, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > the thing I find the most funny is that where talking about this because nikon messed up and made 2 bodies that essentially do the same thing and now have to consolidate those 2 into 1 body totally screwing all those who bought either body over....
> ...



Well, I guess if your used to a company that updates high end stuff too quickly then no, it isn't screwing folks over it's just good training to never buy their new products because it'll just be upgraded within 2 years anyways.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 28, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Chuck Alaimo said:
> ...



Ok, what of the huge amount of D700 users who wanted a D3 lite replacement? 
The D700 was Nikons best performing DSLR in terms of sales by a long long way and far out sold the replacement D800. There was literally half the wedding market selling all their Canon kit and going with Nikon because of that particular camera. When the D800 was released, their only option was to buy a mint S/H D700 or pay nearly double ($4K) for the D4. These buyers genereally need two DSLR bodies...that's $8K!!! There were a lot of really irratated pros and semi pros who no longer had a viable replacement path...they were effectively abandoned by Nikon. The D800 was a fine camera but certainly not a D700 mkII.

Meanwhile back in Canon land, the 5DIII was released keeping all their existing user base happy with a clear and logical replacement plan. Which left a lot of Nikon users pretty green with envy and angry / frustrated with their brand choice. Some even migrated back again. Most pros / semi pros have a three year cycle of camera buying. After which the DSLR is in a pretty shabby state (most nikons have all the rubber falling off by then) and need to be replaced on the reliability factor alone. One of my 5DIII's is up for renewal early next year. If I bought a 1DX, i'd move that camera to a 5 year cycle instead of three.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 28, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Chuck Alaimo said:
> ...



Waiting for the next best thing in the electronics industry is a losing game.

Buy what you need/want/can afford when you need/want/can afford it, and don't worry if x months down the road there is a better version, because that's a near guarantee.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (May 28, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



+100 --- that's what I was talking about!!!!


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (May 28, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



never said we should be "waiting for the next best thing." This is why I actually like Canon's mindset with gear refreshing. Put it on a reasonable time table so that by the time the next thing comes around, it fits in nicely with most of our own purchasing cycles. the 5d3 came out and now it's used and we as users aren't worrying about Canon throwing us for a loop with a 5d3a or something silly like that (like ---if canon said, fixed the DR issue, here's a new 5d3 with more fps greater dynamic range and no banding at base ISO). 

Releasing new gear on a more paced out schedule allows us to do what you said, because we know what we have and we know the replacement will be in 3-4 years - not 2, or even 1. Like i said, I would be rather frustrated with nikon right now if I were on that side of the fence. First, wow, have to choose between 2 d800's, then came the flop that was the d4, followed by the d4s (great camera unless you shelled out a ton of $$$$ on the d4


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 28, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> GMCPhotographics said:
> 
> 
> > Chuck Alaimo said:
> ...




Sure, maybe Nikon screwed its wedding professional base by not adequately replacing the D700 (the D600 kinda does, but at a significantly higher resolution).

But quickly refreshing the D800 is entirely independent of that lack of market entry. The introduction of the D800S in no way plays into what GMC noted. It isn't a D700 replacement either, and they're still looking at either two D4-level cameras or finding mint D700s.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 28, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Chuck Alaimo said:
> ...



I guess I just put a little responsibility on the consumer. If the D800 offers what you need, get it. If it doesn't, don't get it, or return it. Same goes for the D4. Nikon isn't withdrawing money from your account and then mailing you a camera. Did they make some blunders? Sure.

Can most people afford to refresh bodies every two years? No. So don't get the S. If Nikon waited another year to release the S, would it change anything? Not for previous D800/E owners. On the other hand, if they recognize flaws in their products, and refrain from releasing a ready-to-go replacement, that absolutely screws anyone who will purchase the *old* version between the time the replacement is *ready* and the time it is *released*. Remember, not everyone buys things immediately at market entry. 

Anyway, this is silly and tangential, so I'll bow out.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 28, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> On the other hand, if they recognize flaws in their products, and refrain from releasing a ready-to-go replacement, that absolutely screws anyone who will purchase the *old* version between the time the replacement is *ready* and the time it is *released*.



*cough* SB910. D610. *cough*


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (May 28, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



LOL...mind you I did say "if" I was a nikon user i'd be pissed. i am not so I can just say thank god the 5d3 6d combo suits my needs.

With that said though - the d800 was supposed to be the follow up to the d700 - the d600 was meant to be an entry level FF option. But, and who knows on this one - nikon either had to use the 36 mp sensor because sony said you have to, or, nikon had such a case of MP envy that they went over the top on it. Nikon had a large user base of d700 users that were waiting for a mk2 of that body - that user base was a lot of wedding togs who just said screw it and kept their d700's, bought d3s's or bought then sold d800's. The d600 is a gimped d800, much like the 6d is a gimped 5d3 - the d600 is not the d700 successor. So again, if I were a nikon wedding shooter, yeah I'd be a little pissed off ----luckily I am not!


----------



## bosshog7_2000 (May 28, 2014)

*Wow...*

I guess I'm late to this topic but had to laugh at all the ridiculous comments. First of all...it's funny how many on here 'don't need' the pixels from the D800...sounds awfully like the Nikon crowd when the 5D2 was first announced. Secondly, the D800/D800E sensor is one of the best out there today...period. Even if you don't 'need' the resolution it still offers better dynamic range than your 5D3.

Count me in as a loyal Canon customer who is tired of waiting for the answer to the D800. I'm still slugging away with my 5D2 until such time as Canon catches up in their sensor design...which I'm sure they will at some point.


----------



## timcz (May 28, 2014)

I am quite confident that when this new camera does come to the table, i will definitely _want _ it, but definitely wont _need _ it. As I mentioned previously, id love a few extra mp, but the expanded DR and shadow detail like on the 800 is what i'd really like.

Having said that though, I have seen what people like Ryan Dyar, Sean Bagshaw, Chip Phillips etc can do with the gear that I own, and until I can do something like that, I dont think I deserve an upgrade!


----------



## Harry Muff (May 29, 2014)

Is this one still going?


----------



## Aglet (May 29, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > On the other hand, if they recognize flaws in their products, and refrain from releasing a ready-to-go replacement, that absolutely screws anyone who will purchase the *old* version between the time the replacement is *ready* and the time it is *released*.
> ...


don't forget a few recent Canon products causing people allergic or other skin reactions to poor quality materials.


----------



## R1-7D (May 29, 2014)

Nikon has completely given in to the whims of customers in protecting shadows (because we all know the importance of exposing shadows to the point that they are no longer shadows) but that sacrifices highlights at the other end of the spectrum.
Canon focuses on just the opposite, but according to the masses they do not capture as much shadow detail in giving you that greater range in highlights.

Technically, in the scope of capturing light, once the upper end of the spectrum is blown - it is gone - and therefore should be the end protected the most. However the average photographer (aptitude or numerical demographic) has been made to believe that broad dynamic range in the areas of a photo that you were not intended to see (shadows) is the most important part of photography.


----------



## 100 (May 29, 2014)

Aglet said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



If your product is seriously flawed you have to admit it as soon as possible, recall the product, fix it for free and change your production line so the new ones don’t have the same flaw. 

That’s what Canon did with the light leak in the 5D Mk III http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/support/consumer?pageKeyCode=prdAdvDetail&docId=0901e02480538fc7 and Nikon should have done with the oil spatter problem of their D600. I realize the light leak was a much easier (cheaper) fix than replacing the shutter but it doesn’t depend on the size of the mistake a company makes. 

Nikon however decided to ignore and/or deny customer complaints even when they knew the problem was real. They left their D600 customers in the cold, started working on a D610 and hoped to get away with it, but they underestimated the power of social media and the reputation damage it can do. It took them until February 2014 (the D600 is a 2012 camera, the D610 was introduced on the 8th October 2013) to give a “service advisory” http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Service-And-Support/Service-Advisories/hs309y82/Technical-Service-Advisory-for-Users-of-the-Nikon-D600-Digital-SLR-Camera.html but they still didn’t admit to their mistakes.

In the end it took the Chinese government (they ordered Nikon to stop selling the D600) to get an excuse out of Nikon. That happened on March 28, 2014 (18 months after introduction and 5 months after the introduction of the D610) http://www.nikon.com/news/2014/0328_01.htm


----------



## 100 (May 29, 2014)

R1-7D said:


> Nikon has completely given in to the whims of customers in protecting shadows (because we all know the importance of exposing shadows to the point that they are no longer shadows) but that sacrifices highlights at the other end of the spectrum.
> Canon focuses on just the opposite, but according to the masses they do not capture as much shadow detail in giving you that greater range in highlights.
> 
> Technically, in the scope of capturing light, once the upper end of the spectrum is blown - it is gone - and therefore should be the end protected the most. However the average photographer (aptitude or numerical demographic) has been made to believe that broad dynamic range in the areas of a photo that you were not intended to see (shadows) is the most important part of photography.



I haven’t seen any evidence Canon sensors recover substantially more highlights than the Sony EXMOR sensor. 
Can you provide a link to any evidence for that claim? 

The better low ISO dynamic range of Sony EXMOR isn’t needed in a lot of situations, but it is in some and therefore nice to have. The human eye has an even greater dynamic range so we are “intended to see” shadow detail. It can be an artistic choice not to show it though. 
The point is you can reduce the dynamic range of a high dynamic range sensor if you want to in post, but you can’t expand the dynamic range beyond what a sensor is capable of capturing.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 29, 2014)

Aglet said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



Way to miss the point... :

Did Canon rapidly release a new product for which the main 'upgrade' was to correct those flaws? No, they initiated a recall and fixed the affected products. Did Canon let problems with a product escalate to a point where the most populous nation in the world banned sale of the product in their country? *cough* D600 *cough*


----------



## Ivan Muller (May 29, 2014)

I have used Canons all of my photography life, I am quite happy with the results, have no major complaints...and I don't plan to switch.... because I have already invested a pretty penny

all I know is that I look with longing eyes at the the Sony A7R....( and sometimes the D80OE )

and dream up all sorts of ways of how I am going to fit my EF lenses on those bodies...

Because somehow I have lost a bit of faith in Canons will and/or ability to make something similar...


----------



## sanj (May 29, 2014)

Somebody give our favorite guru Neuro some cough syrup. He seems to be suffering.


----------



## Sella174 (May 29, 2014)

Ivan Muller said:


> all I know is that I look with longing eyes at the the Sony A7R....( and sometimes the D80OE )
> 
> and dream up all sorts of ways of how I am going to fit my EF lenses on those bodies...



Sony A7r + Metabones adapter = QED.


----------



## Sella174 (May 29, 2014)

I have looked very hard at Canon before I ultimately decided to invest in another system. My conclusion was that Canon cannot really produce a "High-MP" camera (or a decent mirrorless camera) for the very simple reason that the DiG!C processor has hit the wall.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 29, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> My conclusion was that Canon cannot really produce a "High-MP" camera (or a decent mirrorless camera) for the very simple reason that the DiG!C processor has hit the wall.



Just once digic5+ is good for at least 180MB/sec (5D3 raws at 6FPS). Given Moore's "law," it would shock me if something like the core logic chip fundamentally precludes higher-resolution cameras.


----------



## Sella174 (May 29, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> Just once digic5+ is good for at least *180MB/sec* (5D3 raws at 6FPS). Given Moore's "law," it would shock me if something like the core logic chip fundamentally precludes higher-resolution cameras.



That's the transfer rate of data, i.e. throughput, of already processed data. What is important is the number of instructions per second that the little guy can do ... and then how many instructions are required to process the data from the sensor's A/D-converter. Not stuff that Canon gives out readily, but it can be deduced from current camera models.


----------



## zlatko (May 29, 2014)

*Re: Wow...*



bosshog7_2000 said:


> I guess I'm late to this topic but had to laugh at all the ridiculous comments. First of all...it's funny how many on here 'don't need' the pixels from the D800...sounds awfully like the Nikon crowd when the 5D2 was first announced. Secondly, the D800/D800E sensor is one of the best out there today...period. Even if you don't 'need' the resolution it still offers better dynamic range than your 5D3.
> 
> Count me in as a loyal Canon customer who is tired of waiting for the answer to the D800. I'm still slugging away with my 5D2 until such time as Canon catches up in their sensor design...which I'm sure they will at some point.



It all depends on what photography one does. Some people actually don't need the 36mp of the D800. I'm not waiting for Canon's answer to the D800 because I never print big enough to justify it. I have a friend with two D800 cameras and he often shoots them in the 15mp crop mode because having tens of thousands of 36mp files is a PITA. I have another friend who back in 2005 bought *and returned* the original 12.8mp 5D because he felt it had too many megapixels; 8mp was already plenty for him.

If I were choosing between the Sony A7 and A7R, I would choose the lower mp A7 because it's cheaper, has a quieter shutter and has all of the mp that I want. Of course, a photographer who needs to print large will have a different view. If I actually needed 36mp, I would have bought the D800 or A7R. Why wait? Switching brands isn't the big deal that it used to be. With eBay one can convert one's gear to cash in just days and get market value for it easily.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 29, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Just once digic5+ is good for at least *180MB/sec* (5D3 raws at 6FPS). Given Moore's "law," it would shock me if something like the core logic chip fundamentally precludes higher-resolution cameras.
> ...



Yes, it's data rate. In any case, one digic 5+ is good for at least 6 23MP captures per second, soup to nuts, all operations. Maybe it doesn't scale linearly, i.e. perhaps it's not safe to assume one can do 3 46MP captures, but I bet it can do 1.5-2. And that's with a single 2+ year old chip. Canon can do dual processors even in a half sized body (7D), and they can do it with modern cores.


----------



## Aglet (May 29, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


THE POINT is that Nikon is not the only mfr guilty of inadequate testing and QC. Stop gazing at your reflex mirror and pay attention. 
And what's with all the couging, you got some FPN stuck in your throat?


----------



## Orangutan (May 29, 2014)

Aglet said:


> THE POINT is that Nikon is not the only mfr guilty of inadequate testing and QC. Stop gazing at your reflex mirror and pay attention.



Just trying to make sure I understand your point:

CANON QA problem: one batch of rubber caused allergic reactions in some people. Devices otherwise functional.

CANON'S Response: Recall and fix at no charge


NIKON QA problem: D600 and SB900 problems caused malfunctions

NIKON'S Reponse: (1) Deny; (2) Delay; (3) Grudgingly repair after CA lawsuit filed; (4) Introduce "new" models that are otherwise identical, but with the flaws purportedly removed.

Are you saying these are equivalent?

If yes, you are...um...how to put this gently...sadly mistaken.

If no, then your previous argument is void.



> And what's with all the couging, you got some FPN stuck in your throat?



Perhaps it's oil from a D600. 8)


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 29, 2014)

Aglet said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Aglet said:
> ...



No, the REAL point isn't that design and QC failures occur – that's a given. The REAL issue is how manufacturers deal with those issues when they occur – announce a recall and fix the problem at their expense, or announce an 'update' that passes the cost of the 'fix' (replacement) on directly to the consumer. 

FPN isn't causing my cough, I'm not the one who tries hacking up 4-5 stop exposure pushes in post.


----------



## 9VIII (May 30, 2014)

Jglaser757 said:


> I've waited a long time for Nikon to recapture the lead on Nikon and their 36 mp camera. And now I read that Nikon will introduce an upgrade to the 800e in June. *Why am I not jumping ship?* I do have a lot of canon glass and have been a local customer. I own the mk III and 6d and I love the images .BUTT, COME ON ALREADY cCanon. Get your stuff together!



Nikon's image editor sucks, their live view sucks, their IR only flash system sucks, their Wi-Fi adapter sucks, their non-touchscreens suck, their completely random lens and body compatibility sucks...

That's just off the top of my head.

The BigMP Canon is going to poop rainbows.


----------



## eml58 (May 30, 2014)

9VIII said:


> Nikon's image editor sucks, their live view sucks, their IR only flash system sucks, their Wi-Fi adapter sucks, their non-touchscreens suck, their completely random lens and body compatibility sucks...



Yeeees, but, what are you reeeeeally trying to say ??



neuroanatomist said:


> FPN isn't causing my cough, I'm not the one who tries hacking up 4-5 stop exposure pushes in post.



Ouch !!!


----------



## eml58 (May 30, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> Perhaps it's oil from a D600. 8)



That pretty well made my morning, maybe my day as I'll keep thinking about this all day, really, very funny ;D

I know I shouldn't, but sometimes I can't help myself, my own experience Canon/Nikon similarish issue.

Bought the D800 (doesn't matter why, believed the hype, loss of common sense, interested to see), could not get anything but OOF Images, contacted Nikon and was told I needed to improve my skills, kept trying, then read about Tom Hogan having same issues plus a huge amount of other D800 users, turned out the Camera had left/right focussing issues, Nikon eventually replaced, but same issue with 2nd Body, Nikon eventually replaced & I sold the D800 unopened still in the Box, along with the Underwater Seacam Housing and 4 Lenses I'de purchased, not a great experience but it happens.

Biggest issue here was I was so annoyed I sold the 14-24f/2.8 Lens as well, that was a mistake, should have kept that Lens.

Own 2 x 1Dx Bodies, got a Flyer from Canon Singapore there was a known issue with lack of lubrication in the AF motor & I should return the bodies for repair (seems everyone knew it was an issue except me, I'de just returned from Tanzania where I'de shot 15k Images between the two 1Dx Bodies, issue ?? what issue ??), 1 day in Canon Singapore, issue (which wasn't an issue for me to this point in any case) fixed and Cameras work just like they did before knowing about the issue, professionally handled known issue repaired, this happens with any mechanical device, Nikon or Canon, it's how it's resolved that counts.

You could also compare this situation with the way Nikon handled the AF Motor/Oil throwing/Grease Splattering issue of the D600, they fixed this issue by bringing out the D610, even die hard Nikon friends of mine were disappointed at Nikon's showing in this instance, just seems.....wrong, that Nikon chose to do this, the D800 issue didn't put me off Nikon too much, I had a great time with the D3x, but the way Nikon handled the D600/D610 has ensured I'll not buy/try another Nikon camera in this lifetime, you just can't do this sort of crap & expect Brand Loyalty.


----------



## eml58 (May 30, 2014)

Excuse my ignorance Guys, what's FPN ?? Sometimes I think I was born in the wrong Century.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 30, 2014)

eml58 said:


> Excuse my ignorance Guys, what's FPN ?? Sometimes I think I was born in the wrong Century.



Fixed Pattern Noise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-pattern_noise

https://www.google.com/search?q=fixed+pattern+noise&client=firefox-a&hs=swr&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&channel=sb&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=pdOHU5PUF9axsATk4YDIBg&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1905&bih=1056

Some say Canon sensors are unusable because of how much worse they are with FPN than Nikon/Sony sensors.


----------



## eml58 (May 30, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> eml58 said:
> 
> 
> > Excuse my ignorance Guys, what's FPN ?? Sometimes I think I was born in the wrong Century.
> ...



Oh ! Ok, Thanks Private.

Nor sure I'de agree with what "some" say, but what the hell do I know, didn't even know Canon had an issue with "FPN", I thought maybe FPN meant "Foul Play Nikon", a play on the D600/D610 fiasco, I guess I got that wrong.


----------



## Sporgon (May 30, 2014)

eml58 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > eml58 said:
> ...



PBD was being sarcastic about FPN, or at least the opposite of facetious, whatever that is. Under expose the Canon sensor by five stops or take a picture with the lens cap on and you get more noise than with an exmor sensor. Oh Horror !

I was up in the English Yorkshire Dales for a few days earlier this week taking panoramics of the waterfalls. Yes I can now stitch water ! Shot some of them as a 75 x 100 format at about 180 mp. The depth and resolution is amazing, but this comes from the large format rather than the mp. Puts 36 mp on 24 x 36 format in perspective. I'll post some of them when I have finished them.


----------



## Sella174 (May 30, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> Canon can do dual processors even in a half sized body (7D), ...



And that is the sore thumb ... Canon already needs to dual-configure these little rascals to produce a decent frame rate with 18MP sensors. So to get a decent frame rate with a 36MP sensor they'll need to quad-configure 'em ... 'cause who's gonna buy a 36MP FF camera that can only do 2 frames per second?

Also, can these DiG!C 5+ or 6 processors even be quad-configured?



3kramd5 said:


> ... and they can do it with modern cores.



True, but the big question is whether Canon has any "modern cores". The very fact that they have not used it in the 1DX tells me that the answer is a very sorry no, they don't.


----------



## 100 (May 30, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Canon can do dual processors even in a half sized body (7D), ...
> ...



The 1Dx does 12 fps raw or 14 fps jpeg and is 18mp.
So 36mp at 6 or 7 fps is no problem with a 2 year old dual processor. 
The new generation processors will probably have no problem with 8 or 10 fps at 36mp so why do you think they need quad processors?


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 30, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Canon can do dual processors even in a half sized body (7D), ...
> ...



That was a camera developed for release in 2009. They probably don't need dual processors to do the same in 2014 (the pixel throughput of the 5D3 is nearly 93% of the 7D even though the former only has one processor).



Sella174 said:


> Also, can these DiG!C 5+ or 6 processors even be quad-configured?



Good question. I imagine they could fit four in a full sized body. The PCB might get a little thick, and heat would likely be a major factor, but it's probably doable. I doubt it would be necessary unless they wanted a super high resolution super high frame rate $20,000 market entry. 



Sella174 said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > ... and they can do it with modern cores.
> ...



Wait, what? 
The fact that in a camera developed for release two years ago they didn't use a modern core indicates they don't have a modern core now?


----------



## Sella174 (May 30, 2014)

100 said:


> The 1Dx does 12 fps raw or 14 fps jpeg and is 18mp.
> So 36mp at 6 or 7 fps is no problem with a 2 year old dual processor.



(1) Processing data is not quite linear; (2) stills might be fine, but what about video (the more photosites the sensor has, the more photosites must be processed to downscale the video ... very processor intensive); (3) if it really was this simple, then why haven't we seen a 36MP FF camera from Canon (as they certainly do have the sensor technology for it).



100 said:


> The new generation processors will probably have no problem with 8 or 10 fps at 36mp so why do you think they need quad processors?



This was directed at the current DiG!C 5+ processor and high-MP sensors.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 30, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> PBD was being sarcastic about FPN, or at least the opposite of facetious, whatever that is.



I think my favourite synonym for facetious is jocose.


----------



## Sella174 (May 30, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> That was a camera developed for release in 2009. They probably don't need dual processors to do the same in 2014 (the pixel throughput of the 5D3 is nearly 93% of the 7D even though the former only has one processor).



The 1DX also has dual-processors, plus a third to lend a hand ... for 18MP @ 12fps.



3kramd5 said:


> The fact that in a camera developed for release two years ago they didn't use a modern core indicates they don't have a modern core now?



The very fact that there are more capable processors than the (old'ish) DiG!C 5+ can only mean that Canon is behind ... either in terms of actual know-how or due to patent constraints. So it will be very, very interesting to see what processor(s) are placed inside the 7D2.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 30, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that in a camera developed for release two years ago they didn't use a modern core indicates they don't have a modern core now?
> ...



To me it merely means camera cores developed >2 years ago are behind current cores, but that's an obvious reality.

It doesn't give me any indication as to what Canon will produce for future models (i.e. cameras developed <2 years ago). If they release a digic 6+ with the same kind of performance gains the 5+ saw, it will be very capable.


----------



## Sella174 (May 30, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> If they release a digic 6+ with the same kind of performance gains the 5+ saw, it will be very capable.



True, and then I would have been proven wrong. So that is why I am very interested to see what Canon puts inside the upcoming 7D2 camera.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 30, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > If they release a digic 6+ with the same kind of performance gains the 5+ saw, it will be very capable.
> ...



As I recall, they didn't develop a new processor for the 7D, but rather used the same configuration as the 1D4. So maybe a new 7D would use the same config as the current pro sports model (dual digic 5+). However, those cameras came out really close to one another so that could have simplified the decision.

They may want to use a 7D as a test bed for new tech, or they may want to use the economy of scale and leverage of the existing production infrastructure. 

In any case, my suspicion is that getting a capable core is the lowest hanging fruit in the higher resolution tree. Developing a line of great lenses is the biggest hurdle, and they've crossed it. The sensor unit is somewhere in the middle, and that's the biggest question in my mind from a tech standpoint, whereas the market is the overarching driver in all of this (if they don't think they can sell sufficient higher res cameras, they won't bother making them).


----------



## 100 (May 30, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > The 1Dx does 12 fps raw or 14 fps jpeg and is 18mp.
> ...



What about video? 
The 1Dc (same processors as the 1Dx) does 4K video at 24p and 25p
4k = 4096 x 2160 = 8.84mp at 25 frames per second… 

The fact Canon doesn’t have a 36mp camera has nothing to do with the processors they use. They are faster than anything Nikon has. The brand new Nikon D4s does 11fps with 16mp, the 2 year old Canon 1Dx does 12 fps with 18mp, so more megapixels and faster.



Sella174 said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > The new generation processors will probably have no problem with 8 or 10 fps at 36mp so why do you think they need quad processors?
> ...



The 1Dx and 1Dc both have dual DiG!C 5+ processors. 
They are 2 years old and have more than enough power to process 36mp data files up to 6 fps unless you think a 36mp data file is substantially lager that two 18mp files.


----------



## Sella174 (May 30, 2014)

100 said:


> What about video?
> The 1Dc (same processors as the 1Dx) does 4K video at 24p and 25p
> 4k = 4096 x 2160 = 8.84mp at 25 frames per second…



Obviously the setup of dual DiG!C 5+ processors with an additional DiG!C 4 clapping hands is sufficient regarding the 1DX and 1DC cameras. That is not the issue. The issue in question is whether this setup is sufficient for what the future brings ...


----------



## Jeffrey (May 30, 2014)

I'm not looking for more megapixels because I am very satisfied with my 1D-X and trying to get better and better at shooting birds in flight. If you are a hardware collector and want to spend more money, then sure, bring on more megapixels. I probably will not buy a new camera body for the foreseeable future. In that regard, I am far from alone.....


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 30, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > What about video?
> ...



Why is that the question? I still can't quite get why you are evidently assuming that digic5+ is the best core canon can make. The issue in question is whether what the future brings is sufficient for what the future brings, not whether what they released 2 years ago is.


----------



## 100 (May 30, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > What about video?
> ...



Well, you said (and I quote) “So to get a decent frame rate with a 36MP sensor they'll need to quad-configure 'em ... 'cause who's gonna buy a 36MP FF camera that can only do 2 frames per second?”

To me that sounds like you weren’t aware of the performance of the current (2 year old) processors because they are able to do 3 times what you thought they could do (6 fps instead of 2 fps) 
If rumors become reality the 36mp Nikon D800s or D810 will max out at 5 fps or 6fps with the grip (they up the voltage that way to squeeze everything out of their EXPEED 4 processor). There will be no D5 or D900 before 2016.

So the answers is easy. Yes the current DIGIC 5+ will do just fine for the next 2 years. 
DIGIC 6 is already used in the PowerShot G16, PowerShot N100, PowerShot S120, PowerShot SX280 HS and PowerShot SX270 HS. 
The next pro body will probably have a dual DIGIC 6+ processor and if Moore's law still applies they will have a lot more power than the DIGIC 5+


----------



## 100 (May 30, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > 100 said:
> ...



I never said or implied DIGIC 5+ is the best they can make, I just say it’s fast enough for a 36mp body like the Nikon D800. DIGIC 6 has been used in a number of cameras already and improves on DIGIC 5 so it’s safe to assume a DIGIC 6+ will improve on DIGIC 5+ or do you think future processors will be slower than the current ones? 

It seems to me you are discussing a non-existing problem unless you think a high megapixel body will have a 100+ mp sensor and it will need 8K video at 120fps. Wait a minute, Canon did a 120mp APS-H sensor in 2010 already with an output speed of 9.5 frames per second http://www.canon.com/news/2010/aug24e.html if they put that in the next body DIGIC 6+ will be too slow I guess…


----------



## Aglet (May 30, 2014)

Data processing is not likely as much of a bottleneck as their dirty little off-sensor ADCs.
(i know, more than just the ADC is at issue there)
They already suffer stripes when dualed in previous bodies, upping the BW in their existing architecture will likely bring more shadow noise without a significant change in readout method


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 31, 2014)

100 said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Sella174 said:
> ...



I was replying to Sella


----------



## 100 (May 31, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



Oops… 
Sorry about that, I should listen more and talk less, that’s what my primary school teacher said 40 years ago and I still haven’t mastered it completely :-[


----------



## Sella174 (May 31, 2014)

The question is why has Canon not released a 36MP'ish FF camera when both Nikon and Sony have done it.

So, if according to you, the ability of the processor(s) to handle the data is not the issue, then what is the excuse? Crummy lenses without the resolving power? No. Slow SD and CF cards? No. Inability to actually make such sensors? No. What then?

Or has Canon simply decided that absolutely no photographer actually needs 36MP in a FF package?

To those chucking Moore's Law around ... yes, possibly the DiG!C architecture can handle the data, but at what cost in terms of power consumption and thermal management? Both these factors can negatively impact on the actual use of the chips ... which leads to the same conclusion.


----------



## danski0224 (May 31, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> The question is why has Canon not released a 36MP'ish FF camera when both Nikon and Sony have done it.
> 
> So, if according to you, the ability of the processor(s) to handle the data is not the issue, then what is the excuse? Crummy lenses without the resolving power? No. Slow SD and CF cards? No. Inability to actually make such sensors? No. What then?
> 
> ...



Nikon and Sony use the same sensors, correct?

How well does the 36mp Sony sensor hold up at say 3200 ISO and up compared to Canon? I know that a 12,000 ISO image from a 1DX is pretty much usable right out of the camera. The 5DIII does pretty good too.

I would guess that Canon will deliver their answer when they are good and ready. I do not understand the details of sensor fabrication, but I bet that Canon doesn't want to release a 36mp sensor that performs like the current 7D. Some like the 7D, some don't.

There is also the possibility that all of the people on photography forums screaming for a 36mp Canon sensor may not actually buy one when it is released (measurebators) or the sales lost to Sony/Nikon are insignificant in the bigger picture.

The people wanting 36mp so they can crop at 400% must be a small part of the market, certainly not enough to support a camera line.

I have done 11 x 14 prints from a Canon 1D with a whopping 4.2mp and those look pretty damn good to my eyes without a stand alone program like Perfect Resize (I just used DPP and tried out Qimage with the jpegs). I just got the 17 x 22 paper to try that out. So, do people want a 36mp camera to make 4mp crop prints of the image? ;D

I don't have any inside Canon info, but I suspect that when their answer to the 36mp Sony comes out, it'll be a knockout punch (I bet they have bought 36mp cameras at retail and looked inside very intently). Even if it isn't a knockout but a step forward, Canon is a pretty diverse company. The measurebators wanting the 36mp sensor are eclipsed by the pro's wanting a system that works or the hobbyists that don't care.

I wonder what it will cost when/if it is released...

I wonder if people inside the Canon skunkworks laugh at these threads


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 31, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Or has Canon simply decided that absolutely no photographer actually needs 36MP in a FF package?



I'm not sure why people have such difficulty grasping this concept, but Canon has no intention to meet the needs of absolutely every photographer. Their goal is to meet the needs of the _majority_ of photographers. Perhaps Canon simply decided that 22 MP @ 6 fps would be better than 36 MP @ 4 fps? The fact that the 5DIII has outsold the D800 suggests Canon understands the needs of the majority of photographers very well.


----------



## Sella174 (May 31, 2014)

danski0224 said:


> How well does the 36mp Sony sensor hold up at say 3200 ISO and up compared to Canon? I know that a 12,000 ISO image from a 1DX is pretty much usable right out of the camera. The 5DIII does pretty good too.



You are probably right, but then again there are many people like me who don't really care about "high-ISO" performance and are instead always griping about the lack of 50 ASA and ...  ... 25 ASA equivalent. Plus it now seems that even 100 ASA/ISO is biting the dust. :'(


----------



## Sella174 (May 31, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > Or has Canon simply decided that absolutely no photographer actually needs 36MP in a FF package?
> ...



So the answer to my question is then ... YES ... ???

Then please explain ... Canon spent several millions over several years brainwashing us consumers that more megapixels are better; and now you're saying they're just chucking that huge investment away? Only, hey, no, in fact, Canon has just simply built Sony's and Nikon's marketing foundation for them, because in order to actually get the more megapixels we are conditioned to crave, us consumers have to switch to Sony or Nikon! :


----------



## 100 (May 31, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> The question is why has Canon not released a 36MP'ish FF camera when both Nikon and Sony have done it.
> 
> So, if according to you, the ability of the processor(s) to handle the data is not the issue, then what is the excuse? Crummy lenses without the resolving power? No. Slow SD and CF cards? No. Inability to actually make such sensors? No. What then?
> 
> ...



Canon as market leader don’t need an excuse to not bring a 36 mp camera to the market. 
My guess is they thought they wouldn’t make enough profit with a 30+ mp FF camera on top of the 1DX, 1DC, 5DIII and 6D. High mp 135 format cameras are a niche market (landscape, advertising, architecture) with competition from Nikon, Sony and from the medium format manufacturers. Canon has been market leader for 11 years in a row, so they know they can rely on their market research people. 

The Canon 1Dx with dual DIGIC 5+ and 100,000 pixel RGB AE metering with a dedicated DIGIC 4 processor handles 12 fps of 18mp files and there is no reason to believe this setup can’t handle 36mp files at 6 fps. Power consumption and thermal management is something every camera maker has to deal with and has been dealt with by Canon this far, so I can’t see any immediate reason to think Canon won’t be able to handle these things in future cameras. 

You are right about one thing though, it all leads to the same conclusion.
Processing power, power consumption and heat management are most likely NOT the reasons Canon hasn’t brought a 30+ mp camera to the market. I think you focus too much on technical aspects. They do play a part, but in the end it’s the commercial aspects on which decisions are based about what to bring to the market and what not.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 31, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Sella174 said:
> ...



Read my response again. I'm sure you can understand that the word 'majority' does not mean 'everyone' but rather implies (and affirms) there is also a minority. 



Sella174 said:


> Then please explain ... Canon spent several millions over several years brainwashing us consumers that more megapixels are better; and now you're saying they're just chucking that huge investment away? Only, hey, no, in fact, Canon has just simply built Sony's and Nikon's marketing foundation for them, because in order to actually get the more megapixels we are conditioned to crave, us consumers have to switch to Sony or Nikon! :



If that were true, the D800 should be outselling the 5DIII. But it's not. 

It could be argued that Canon 'skates to where the puck is going to be'. Nikon/Sony tried playing the MP game, but maybe it was too much and too late. Nikon's entry level APS-C cameras have been at 24 MP for some time, while Canon remains at 18 MP....and Canon is still selling more entry-level dSLRs than Nikon (and more FF dSLRs, too). 

You can make statements like 'brainwashed' and 'consumers have to switch to Nikon/Sony' all day long, it doesn't change the fact that Canon has sold more interchangeable lens cameras than Nikon (and far more than Sony) every year for the past 11 years, and if forecasts by Canon and Nikon are accurate, Canon will sell more ILCs in 2014, too.


----------



## Sella174 (May 31, 2014)

100 said:


> Canon as market leader don’t need an excuse to not bring a 36 mp camera to the market.



Canon sells the most camera, thus Canon makes the best cameras. How about: the majority of people live in cities where they breathe polluted air, thus air-pollution is good for us?

Or did you mean Canon is the market-leader through technological superiority? Sorry to burst that bubble, but even Olympus makes better *mirrorless* cameras than Canon.



100 said:


> My guess is they thought they wouldn’t make enough profit with a 30+ mp FF camera on top of the 1DX, 1DC, 5DIII and 6D. High mp 135 format cameras are a niche market (*landscape, advertising, architecture*) with competition from Nikon, Sony and from the medium format manufacturers.



And yet Canon still makes tilt & shift lenses even though the application these lenses are design for, is, according to you, a niche market. And on the flipside, Canon makes a 600mm lens, which is also a niche product. Sorry, but that argument of "niche products" never floated.



100 said:


> Canon has been market leader for 11 years in a row, so they know they can *rely on their market research people*.



Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!! Then why are sales figures down? And please don't blame the "global recession", 'cause a really decent marketing dept. would still be able to increase sales by tapping into new markets ... using niche products.


----------



## Sella174 (May 31, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Read my response again.



Done.



neuroanatomist said:


> I'm sure you can understand that the word 'majority' does not mean 'everyone' but rather implies (and affirms) there is also a minority.



Yes, a majority implies a minority. But, as I have also said before on other threads, the majority and the minority are not equal. Perhaps the majority are sheep consumers following the marketing talk, and the minority are professionals who, through picking the best tools for the job, are also exerting influence on the majority ... or on a minority of the majority. Whatever, because we didn't agree then, so we won't agree now.



neuroanatomist said:


> If that were true, the D800 should be outselling the 5DIII. But it's not.
> 
> ...
> 
> You can make statements like 'brainwashed' and 'consumers have to switch to Nikon/Sony' all day long, it doesn't change the fact that Canon has sold more interchangeable lens cameras than Nikon (and far more than Sony) every year for the past 11 years, and if forecasts by Canon and Nikon are accurate, Canon will sell more ILCs in 2014, too.



Nikon and Sony are making the same mistake that Olympus and Panasonic are making ... lack of product availability. Over here in southern Africa, even computer shops sell (and carry stock of) Canon cameras, but Nikon is only available from really dedicated photography shops and Sony is by special order only. That said, I am seeing more and more people using new-model Nikon APS-C cameras at every event. Reason when asked? The Nikon has more megapixels than the Canon model.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 31, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > Canon has been market leader for 11 years in a row, so they know they can *rely on their market research people*.
> ...



Canon's unit sales of dSLRs are down. Nikon's unit sales of dSLRs are down *more* than Canon's, and based on 2014 projections, Nikon expects to fall even further behind. Did you have a point other than silly maniacal laughter?




Sella174 said:


> Yes, a majority implies a minority. But, as I have also said before on other threads, the majority and the minority are not equal. Perhaps the majority are sheep consumers following the marketing talk, and the minority are professionals who, through picking the best tools for the job, are also exerting influence on the majority ... or on a minority of the majority. Whatever, because we didn't agree then, so we won't agree now.



"The majority and the minority are not equal," wow, based on the definitions of those words, I'd never have guessed they weren't equal. Thanks for clarifying. 

Canon sells more APS-C cameras than Nikon. Canon sells more FF cameras than Nikon. There are more white lenses than black ones at nearly every televised sporting event. By inference, more amateurs choose Canon, and more pros choose Canon. So either Canon makes systems that better meet the needs of the majority of photographers, or the majority of photographers are intentionally choosing to use gear that doesn't meet their needs as well as the alternatives. Are you really suggesting that the majority of photographers are choosing gear that's inferior in terms of meeting their needs? 



Sella174 said:


> Nikon and Sony are making the same mistake that Olympus and Panasonic are making ... lack of product availability.



... Not selling more cameras than Canon! 




Sella174 said:


> Over here in southern Africa, even computer shops sell (and carry stock of) Canon cameras, but Nikon is only available from really dedicated photography shops and Sony is by special order only. That said, I am seeing more and more people using new-model Nikon APS-C cameras at every event. Reason when asked? The Nikon has more megapixels than the Canon model.



Sorry, but southern Africa is a tiny fraction of the global market. Nikon cameras are widely available in major markets. 

What you see in the microcosm of your locality obviously doesn't reflect global sales. You might want to (again) review the definitions of majority and minority.


----------



## Aglet (May 31, 2014)

I hate to agree with Neuro, so I won't. 
I'll try to make a real explanation of what's happening instead of merely crowing about market share.

Yup, Canon makes niche lenses, but they mount on "good enough" bodies. That's likely to fill out the niche needs of a few pro's and enthusiasts who otherwise don't mind using a commodity camera body.

But Canon knows how to coast on its market share, much like many other companies do after they make a big market breakthru at some point in the past.
You have to go back to film days when Nikon, Pentax and even Olympus and Minolta were BIG. Canon was in there too but were, as an also-ran, laughed at by Nikon and Pentax users. (kinda like now too but the ratios were different then)

Canon seemed to gain some traction when they went to the EOS mount, developed some good stabilized lenses for that, then made another good surge when their "new" CMOS sensor was outperforming other digital offerings in the new DSLR market. They also developed tremendous market share in compact digital cameras at the outset of that category. 
They built a LOT of mindshare and it's stuck, despite the fact that, right now, every other major mfr (Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Fuji, Panasonic, Olympus, maybe even Samsung) use sensors that outperform Canon's in most metrics, despite being smaller.

Canon makes cameras that are "good enough" for many pro's, and more than good enough for most consumers and enthusiasts. Their biggest benefit is they are easy to use and produce decent results, and the common folk like that.
The rest of us buy the "good stuff" from the others, for whom I'm thankful for their continued existence.


----------



## zlatko (May 31, 2014)

Aglet said:


> I hate to agree with Neuro, so I won't.
> I'll try to make a real explanation of what's happening instead of merely crowing about market share.
> 
> Yup, Canon makes niche lenses, but they mount on "good enough" bodies. That's likely to fill out the niche needs of a few pro's and enthusiasts who otherwise don't mind using a commodity camera body.
> ...



So much distaste for Canon. Why are you on a Canon forum?


----------



## Sella174 (May 31, 2014)

zlatko said:


> So much distaste for Canon. Why are you on a Canon forum?



Although not (quite) directed at me, I'll still answer from my perspective ... As to your second question, I've been using Canon cameras for about, oh, sixteen or seventeen years now. As to your first question, technology is moving ahead (read: mirrorless), yet Canon is stuck in mirrorland.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 31, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> The question is why has Canon not released a 36MP'ish FF camera when both Nikon and Sony have done it.



It's a business decision.



Sella174 said:


> So, if according to you, the ability of the processor(s) to handle the data is not the issue, then what is the excuse? Crummy lenses without the resolving power? No. Slow SD and CF cards? No. Inability to actually make such sensors? No. What then?



Their market analysis, likely. 




Sella174 said:


> To those chucking Moore's Law around ... yes, possibly the DiG!C architecture can handle the data, but at what cost in terms of power consumption and thermal management? Both these factors can negatively impact on the actual use of the chips ... which leads to the same conclusion.



As has been noted multiple times, canon already churns through 18MPx2 @ 12-14FPS in a two year old body. Clearly processing a 36MP image is NOT beyond their past architecture, so assuming that it's beyond their future architecture is pretty ridiculous. 

Canon is very calculating. They won't bring a high dollar camera to the market until a) their infrastructure (lenses, primarily, and I suspect they're there now) is ready, and b) the market can support the investment.


----------



## Sporgon (May 31, 2014)

Aglet said:


> Canon makes cameras that are "good enough" for many pro's, and more than good enough for most consumers and enthusiasts. Their biggest benefit is they are easy to use and produce decent results, and the common folk like that.
> The rest of us buy the "good stuff" from the others, for whom I'm thankful for their continued existence.



Aglet; I hope your day job's a stand up comic. Don't pretend to know the first thing about what real 'pros' do or don't need. 

Despite the mighty exmor sensor and 36 mp Sony have failed to meet Canon ( and Nikon ) head on in DSLR sales, the DSLR still being by far the most _versatile_ camera system, and this is rather irrefutable evidence that it takes more than a good sensor and high mp to make a winning system.

Or is it just that the sensor they are trying to compete against isn't that bad ? 

Ah yes, it's because mirrorless is the way forward, and Sony are in the lead - if you ignore the likes of Fuji and such - and ignore the fact most people still want the 'flappy' mirror.......


----------



## Orangutan (May 31, 2014)

Aglet said:


> I hate to agree with Neuro, so I won't.
> I'll try to make a real explanation of what's happening instead of merely crowing about market share.



What kind of photography do you do? You're obviously not unintelligent or completely ignorant, but you strike me as the kind of person who sees everything from his own perspective, as though your type of photography is the only kind that's important.

I have a friend who is a die-hard Nikon fanboi. He has a D800 and some nice glass. He mostly shoots portraits, and loves his D800, and made jokes about Canon products not keeping up. Then he shot a wedding using someone else's 5D3, and nearly switched to Canon.

If you shoot landscapes, or other slow-moving objects, you can get really great photos from Nikon, Sony, etc, especially using lens adapters and third-party (even Canon) glass. If your subject is moving, it doesn't matter how good the sensor if the rest of the camera can't give you a well-focused shot at the moment you want it.




> The rest of us buy the "good stuff" from the others, for whom I'm thankful for their continued existence.



I appreciate that. I would like some pressure on Canon to continue to improve. However, I don't want them to drop all their strong features just to be a hunk of metal with a great sensor.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 31, 2014)

Aglet said:


> I hate to agree with Neuro, so I won't.



I hate to be wrong, good thing it doesn't happen often. 




Aglet said:


> ...right now, every other major mfr (Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Fuji, Panasonic, Olympus, maybe even Samsung) use sensors that outperform Canon's in most metrics, despite being smaller.



When did low ISO DR suddenly become 'most metrics'? Oh, I see, you meant 'most important to Aglet and others who represent a minority of consumers'. 




Aglet said:


> I'll try to make a real explanation of what's happening instead of merely crowing about market share.
> 
> Canon makes cameras that are "good enough" for many pro's, and more than good enough for most consumers and enthusiasts. Their biggest benefit is they are easy to use and produce decent results, and the common folk like that.
> The rest of us buy the "good stuff" from the others, for whom I'm thankful for their continued existence.



A 'real explanation' from your personal, biased, 'I need to push images 4-5 stops in post' perspective. I think you should ask Sella174 to explain the concept of 'minority' to you...

Canon makes a *system* of cameras, lenses, flashes, etc., that collectively meet the needs of the majority of photographers in the world. The sensor may only need to be be 'good enough' - recall that the 5DIII + Canon 24-70/2.8L II outresolves the D800 + Nikon 24-70/2.8G. 




Sella174 said:


> As to your first question, technology is moving ahead (read: mirrorless), yet Canon is stuck in mirrorland.



Stuck? Canon sold nearly twice as many dSLRs last year as ALL mirrorless cameras from all makers combined. Worldwide, MILC sales are falling faster than dSLR sales for the second straight year. Explain how mirrorless is moving ahead? Perhaps you mean mirrorless is a better technology format...just like Sony's Betamax?


----------



## Orangutan (May 31, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> technology is moving ahead (read: mirrorless), yet Canon is stuck in mirrorland.



I would also like Canon to release a fully-mature mirrorless. It would probably suit my needs very well, but there are a few outstanding issue that make the technology unready to replace DSLRs completely


AF tracking fast moving objects (progress has been made, but there's still a gap with reflex)
battery life (this has a long way to go)
EVF (this is getting close for general use, but not for low-light manual focus)

That's all I can recall for now.


As with Aglet, don't fall into the trap of assuming everyone's needs are the same as yours.


----------



## unfocused (May 31, 2014)

I used to get annoyed at Neuro's sarcasm. Now I think he's a hero for having the patience to explain basic economic concepts to the same people over and over again. 

Unfortunately, it's pretty clear that these folks are really saying: "I've already made up my mind. Don't try to confuse me with the facts."

Nonetheless, I can't help myself.

So, let's see if I've got this right: Canons are available in a wide variety of stores in southern Africa, but Nikon and Sony are not. Umm...That would mean that the proprietors of those stores have figured out that if they want to sell products, they need to stock Canon. It would also mean that the market for Sony and Nikon is smaller and better suited for specialty shops. And, I'm guessing those specialty shops carry Canon as well. Regardless of what you might think, I'm sure Nikon and Sony aren't happy about that. They are mass marketers and if the mass market stores can't sell their product, that's a huge problem. 

I love the old "I'm a more discerning customer" trope. It's one of the last refuges of someone who has lost every rational argument. It's been used hundreds of times on this forum, always by people who have run out of logical arguments to make. "Market share is for the unwashed masses – those poor poor amateurs and professionals leading their lives of quiet desperation. I'm an artiste and as such am blessed with superior taste that makes all your plebeian concerns insignificant."

Oh and don't forget the one about how we were all "brainwashed" into wanting more pixels and then Canon quit delivering more pixels and that's some sign of failure on their part. Someone quoted Moore's Law but ignored the very real law of diminishing returns.

Yes, when Cameras had four, six or eight pixels, having more pixels was better and it made sense in the early years of DSLR development to focus on greater pixel density. Which Canon did far better than any of its competitors. But, having won that race, give Canon credit for recognizing that there are tradeoffs to producing ever-higher density sensors. The benefits of going from 10 mp to 20 mp are much greater than the benefits of going from 20 mp to 30 mp. 

Canon, as the leader in megapixels, figured that out and changed course. They took a risk and it paid off big time for them. One could even argue that they played a pretty good dodge here, sending Nikon and Sony down the high megapixel path, while veering off into the high ISO path themselves. 

Why is it that people always give Nikon and Sony so much credit for being "leaders" when they both are now desperately trying to catch up to Canon by now offering lower megapixel, high ISO models. 

Oh, I get it...the facts are too inconvenient for some people.


----------



## Rocky (May 31, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> As to your second question, I've been using Canon cameras for about, oh, sixteen or seventeen years now. As to your first question, technology is moving ahead (read: mirrorless), yet Canon is stuck in mirrorland.


What makes you think mirrorless is newest technology?? If it is so good why DSLR outsells mirrorless by such a wide margin??? With IS lenses, the advantage of less vibration of mirrorless has been eliminated. As for weight saving, it is also misleading. Try to hold a M9 or M-E, you will agree that they are as heavy or heavier than the average SLR. As for size, mirrorless does have an advantage. But with a few lenses in the bag, the size of the body will not be the determining factor. Do not get me wrong, I like mirrorless too. With a small short prime (35mm) you can put in in a large coat pocket if you do not mind the weight.


----------



## zlatko (May 31, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> zlatko said:
> 
> 
> > So much distaste for Canon. Why are you on a Canon forum?
> ...



Mirrorless cameras have been around forever, from before the film era through the film era and to the present. And Canon makes lots of mirrorless cameras today, just not a high quality mirrorless system camera with an EVF, etc. However, while mirrorlessland offers some good options, DSLR mirrorland happens to be quite good for photographers and for Canon. Just because you personally want Canon to make better mirrorless cameras doesn't mean that Canon is "stuck". After 16 or 17 years using Canon, your personal needs have changed. Canon doesn't serve you personally and is not at fault for not following changes to your personal camera needs. 

I use mirrored (Canon) and mirrorless (Olympus) and each has its pluses. I'm not annoyed that Canon doesn't make my mirrorless. They have a business to run as they see fit. As neuro has pointed out, Canon is concentrating on 90% of the camera market. Does that mean they're stuck?


----------



## RustyTheGeek (May 31, 2014)

No offense intended but this is one of those threads that I start to read, then I begin to skim and eventually I start to wish I had that 10 minutes of my life back. 

Although I have to admit that what kept me reading as long as I did was seeing how far Neuro would be sucked in! It's not often I see him post this much bantering! 

Regardless, it's all good guys! 

And FWIW, I am extremely glad Canon hasn't participated in the high megapixel race. There are so many better things to improve first and I think that's what they are doing.


----------



## danski0224 (May 31, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> You are probably right, but then again there are many people like me who don't really care about "high-ISO" performance and are instead always griping about the lack of 50 ASA and ...  ... 25 ASA equivalent. Plus it now seems that even 100 ASA/ISO is biting the dust. :'(



All I can say is I don't play too much at either extreme.

I don't look for high ISO performance, but it is really nice to not need a flash and still have the image come out nice.

I don't get the whole low ISO thing, either. Not saying that it isn't important, but if Canon isn't delivering the product that fits that niche then someone else will.

From what I remember of 35mm film photography, pretty much any digital body I have tried since (and including) the 5DII beats my memories. And, I never had a darkroom- digital allows me to do so much more than just getting 4x6 prints developed. Suffice it to say that I am pretty happy with what some call "mediocre" offerings from Canon. I get many compliments on mediocre shots with said mediocre equipment too ;D 

It would be nice to try one of those Sony's with an adapter, but that is a niche purchase for my uses. Maybe I'll rent one to see what the hubbub is about. I should have picked up one of those DP3 Sigmas when they went on sale... but the lack of a viewfinder really put a damper on things.


----------



## 100 (May 31, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > Canon as market leader don’t need an excuse to not bring a 36 mp camera to the market.
> ...



Wow, you manage to get air pollution, tilt & shift lenses, a 600mm lens and global recession in one reply on an answer to the question why Canon didn’t bring a 36mp camera to the market (yet). 
It seems to me you have trouble focusing on the subject…
Not something one would expect of a photographer though. You should buy a D800, the left focusing of some of those bodies is all over the place too but it has 36mp. 

Anyway. I didn’t say Canon makes the best cameras (best is depending on what you want, so no objective measure) I just say Canon is market leader and they are because they sell the most camera’s, nothing more, nothing less. A commercial company is about selling things for profit. 



Sella174 said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > My guess is they thought they wouldn’t make enough profit with a 30+ mp FF camera on top of the 1DX, 1DC, 5DIII and 6D. High mp 135 format cameras are a niche market (*landscape, advertising, architecture*) with competition from Nikon, Sony and from the medium format manufacturers.
> ...



When they designed the 24mm TS-E II and the 17mm TS-E their cameras had the most megapixels so what’s your point this time? They should stop selling those lenses because Sony put more megapixels on a sensor in 2012? 

About niches, do you think that if Canon makes a product for one niche, they should make products for all niches all the time? 



Sella174 said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > Canon has been market leader for 11 years in a row, so they know they can *rely on their market research people*.
> ...



So you believe you can do better than Canon? How much did you turn over last year and what kind of profit did you make? It must be more than $ 3,212,162,000 because that Canons 2013 operating profit in USD with their “laughable marketing department”.


----------



## nda (Jun 1, 2014)

Oh... and it's made in Thailand, not that there is anything wrong with that 

http://nikonrumors.com/2014/05/29/the-nikon-d800e-replacement-will-be-made-in-thailand.aspx/


----------



## eml58 (Jun 1, 2014)

unfocused said:


> "Market share is for the unwashed masses – those poor poor amateurs and professionals leading their lives of quiet desperation. I'm an artiste and as such am blessed with superior taste that makes all your plebeian concerns insignificant."



Geez, unfocussed, that's almost...poetic, I picked out this section because I thought it was so well put, but the whole Post was just as good.

I think the issue Aglet in particular has is that he sees himself as not being like most of us, you know, the "Common Folk"  those majority of "enthusiastic amateurs", the majority of those "Pros", the incredibly mentally challenged....Canon users, poor people, the misguided.

I think Sporgon had it in one



Sporgon said:


> Aglet; I hope your day job's a stand up comic.



Personally I have no real clue why Canon haven't developed as yet a higher MP Sensor, I'de like to see them do it, I'de likely buy it, but in the meantime I'm sort of Ok with my 1Dx & 5DMK III, you know... Those Cameras used by the majority, the "Common Folk".


----------



## danski0224 (Jun 1, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> I hate to be wrong, good thing it doesn't happen often.



It's a good thing you are modest too


----------



## sanj (Jun 1, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > Canon as market leader don’t need an excuse to not bring a 36 mp camera to the market.
> ...



It is amazing how many people believe in this crap.


----------



## Roo (Jun 1, 2014)

Aglet said:


> The rest of us buy the "good stuff" from the others, for whom I'm thankful for their continued existence.



And I thought Walter White died ;D It seems like most of your posts are written using his stuff.


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 1, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> I have a friend who is a die-hard Nikon fanboi. He has a D800 and some nice glass. He mostly shoots portraits, and loves his D800, and made jokes about Canon products not keeping up. Then he shot a wedding using someone else's 5D3, and *nearly* switched to Canon.



But he didn't actually switch ...


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 1, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon sold nearly twice as many dSLRs last year as ALL mirrorless cameras from all makers combined. Worldwide, MILC sales are falling faster than dSLR sales for the second straight year. Explain how mirrorless is moving ahead? Perhaps you mean mirrorless is a better technology format...just like Sony's Betamax?



Quantity has a quality of its own.


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 1, 2014)

unfocused said:


> I used to get annoyed at Neuro's sarcasm.



What sarcasm?



unfocused said:


> Now I think he's a hero for having the patience to explain basic economic concepts to the same people over and over again.



And, for instance, I'm an idiot for not understanding "basic economic concepts" ... or it could be the other way around.



unfocused said:


> Nonetheless, I can't help myself.



I know, it's an addiction ... but healthier than alcoholism and cheaper than gambling.



unfocused said:


> So, let's see if I've got this right: Canons are available in a wide variety of stores in southern Africa, but Nikon and Sony are not. Umm...That would mean that the proprietors of those stores have figured out that if they want to sell products, they need to stock Canon.



Not quite ... Canon makes their stuff generally available to anyone interested in selling it, whereas Nikon and Sony appear to want to confine their products to more, erm, exclusive outlets. Well, that's my impression anyway.

What is very interesting, however, is that FUJIFILM appears to be doing the same as Canon. This is really going to be interesting to watch.


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 1, 2014)

zlatko said:


> After 16 or 17 years using Canon, your personal needs have changed. Canon doesn't serve you personally and is not at fault for not following changes to your personal camera needs.



Correct. That is why I have gone to another brand/manufacturer/system for part of my photographical equipment requirements. It is not Canon's fault ... it is simply a missed opportunity for them. However, since they control the majority share of the market, I'm as important as a single voter in a national election.


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 1, 2014)

100 said:


> Wow, you manage to get air pollution, tilt & shift lenses, a 600mm lens and global recession in one reply on an answer to the question why Canon didn’t bring a 36mp camera to the market (yet).
> It seems to me you have trouble focusing on the subject…



Disregarding the cliche of a pun, yes, I broke my own golden rule ... one post, one statement. Otherwise it just confuses the kids.



100 said:


> Not something one would expect of a photographer though.



Ah, yes, when you have nothing else to say, question the poster's abilities as a photographer.



100 said:


> Anyway. I didn’t say Canon makes the best cameras (best is depending on what you want, so no objective measure) I just say Canon is market leader and they are because they sell the most camera’s, nothing more, nothing less. A commercial company is about selling things for profit.



Quantity over all ... and never mind sustainability in the long term!



100 said:


> When they designed the 24mm TS-E II and the 17mm TS-E their cameras had the most megapixels so what’s your point this time? They should stop selling those lenses because Sony put more megapixels on a sensor in 2012?
> 
> About niches, do you think that if Canon makes a product for one niche, they should make products for all niches all the time?



Ooooh, you got my post all twisted up. What YOU wrote was that a "high-MP" camera only has application in "landscape, advertising, architecture" and that these are all "niche markets". What I then wrote was that Canon actually does cater for these specific "niche" markets by making T&S lenses and that Canon also caters for two other non-masses (i.e. niche) markets by producing a 600mm lens; thereby illustrating that Canon actually does cater for "niche" markets and thus that any argument that Canon doesn't produce a certain product because it is a "niche" product is proven false, especially when Canon in fact supports that particular "niche" market already.



100 said:


> So you believe you can do better than Canon?



One should always strive to be the best, and the mere thinking that somebody else is better is the first step towards failure. Canon may have the market cornered for now, but they are also losing certain "niche" markets ... and niche markets have a nasty tendency to become mass markets.



100 said:


> How much did you turn over last year and what kind of profit did you make? It must be more than $ 3,212,162,000 because that Canons 2013 operating profit in USD with their “laughable marketing department”.



Well, enough to classify myself as comfortably well-off, affluent and highly eccentric.


----------



## sanj (Jun 1, 2014)

I wonder what many would say if Canon did launch a 32+ MP camera. I am sure the 32+ MP camera would be ok then because Canon would do it. In my mind it is a matter of time….


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 1, 2014)

sanj said:


> I wonder what many would say if Canon did launch a 32+ MP camera. I am sure the 32+ MP camera would be ok then because Canon would do it. In my mind it is a matter of time….



they better ... and rather soon ... 

and if they want me to buy it - and gazillions of others too ;D - then in a very decent mirrorless body at a very decent price with very decent lenses at very decent prices.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 1, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder what many would say if Canon did launch a 32+ MP camera. I am sure the 32+ MP camera would be ok then because Canon would do it. In my mind it is a matter of time….
> ...



LOL.


----------



## 100 (Jun 1, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Ooooh, you got my post all twisted up. What YOU wrote was that a "high-MP" camera only has application in "landscape, advertising, architecture" and that these are all "niche markets". What I then wrote was that Canon actually does cater for these specific "niche" markets by making T&S lenses and that Canon also caters for two other non-masses (i.e. niche) markets by producing a 600mm lens; thereby illustrating that Canon actually does cater for "niche" markets and thus that any argument that Canon doesn't produce a certain product because it is a "niche" product is proven false, especially when Canon in fact supports that particular "niche" market already.



You keep reacting to an argument I didn’t make. 

This is what I wrote:
*My guess is they thought they wouldn’t make enough profit with a 30+ mp FF camera on top of the 1DX, 1DC, 5DIII and 6D. High mp 135 format cameras are a niche market (landscape, advertising, architecture) with competition from Nikon, Sony and from the medium format manufacturers.*

Either my English isn’t good enough to get my point across or you like using the straw man (as in logical fallacy).
My argument is not that Canon shouldn’t cater for niche markets, nor that they never have and never will be in the future. 
My argument was and is that Canon came to the conclusion that there was *not enough profit* in a high mp body for them on top of their current product range. 

You might disagree, but please disagree with the argument I make and don’t make up arguments for me.


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 1, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > I have a friend who is a die-hard Nikon fanboi. He has a D800 and some nice glass. He mostly shoots portraits, and loves his D800, and made jokes about Canon products not keeping up. Then he shot a wedding using someone else's 5D3, and *nearly* switched to Canon.
> ...



<sarcasm>You must be independently wealthy, or you are one of those people who has no concern about spending the rent money on toys. Many people would understand the implications the of the expression "nearly switched:" You see, camera systems are rather expensive, and only very wealthy people, such as yourself, can afford multiple systems. Therefore, a compulsion to switch has to be so strong as to be worth the loss of a large amount of money on the sale of the old system vs. purchase of the new system. That's where that word "implication" comes in: even to contemplate that switch seriously means you have a substantial preference for the "other" system, but just can't afford to make the switch. You may now go back to your chardonnay and caviar.</sarcasm>

** Note: ordinarily I avoid sarcasm because it's not very effective on the interwebs. In this case I'll make an exception.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 2, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Now I think he's a hero for having the patience to explain basic economic concepts to the same people over and over again.
> ...



Perhaps I'm being unfair. But, when people assert that a company is headed toward financial disaster because the specific product that they as an individual would like to see produced isn't available and when in reality that company's products consistently outsell their competitors' comparable models across the entire product line, the charitable assumption is that the person making the assertion doesn't quite grasp some fairly basic economic principles. There are certainly less charitable assessments that could be made – perhaps some people just enjoy being trolls and don't really believe what they write. 



Sella174 said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > So, let's see if I've got this right: Canons are available in a wide variety of stores in southern Africa, but Nikon and Sony are not. Umm...That would mean that the proprietors of those stores have figured out that if they want to sell products, they need to stock Canon.
> ...



Yes...here in the U.S. Nikon and Sony offers their products to exclusive outlets like Walmart, Target and Best Buy.


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 2, 2014)

100 said:


> *My guess is they thought they wouldn’t make enough profit with a 30+ mp FF camera on top of the 1DX, 1DC, 5DIII and 6D. High mp 135 format cameras are a niche market (landscape, advertising, architecture) with competition from Nikon, Sony and from the medium format manufacturers.*



I can read a lot into that paragraph ... like Canon has too many FF models on the market; or that the competition in the "high-MP" segment is too tough for Canon; or that ... but I rather focused on the whole "niche market" excuse.



100 said:


> You might disagree, but please disagree with the argument I make and don’t make up arguments for me.



:-X


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 2, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> <sarcasm>You must be independently wealthy, or you are one of those people who has no concern about spending the rent money on toys. Many people would understand the implications the of the expression "nearly switched:" You see, camera systems are rather expensive, and only very wealthy people, such as yourself, can afford multiple systems. Therefore, a compulsion to switch has to be so strong as to be worth the loss of a large amount of money on the sale of the old system vs. purchase of the new system. That's where that word "implication" comes in: even to contemplate that switch seriously means you have a substantial preference for the "other" system, but just can't afford to make the switch. You may now go back to your chardonnay and caviar.</sarcasm>



Wrong, because your friend is a portrait/wedding photographer. Thus his photographic equipment are not only tools, but revenue-generating tools. This also implies, if he follows sound business management, that every piece of equipment is (a) justified and (b) calculated to pay for itself within a specific timeframe. I know this sounds cold, but it is the reality of running a business. So, if a particular piece of equipment cannot satisfy BOTH these criteria, then there is absolutely no reason to purchase it; and he should then rather rent it, which implies absolutely zero investment on his part. (Compare this situation with the enthusiasts who have a day-job to support their GAS.)

Coupled with criterion (a) is the fact that as a professional (portrait/wedding) photographer your friend MUST always provide his clients with the very best product possible. This then will invariably necessitate a constant upgrade/replacement of photographic equipment (aka tools) and this must be factored into criterion (b). Again, I know this sounds cold, but it is the reality of running a business.

Now, if your friend is NOT a professional (portrait/wedding) photographer, but just an enthusiast with a "professional-grade" camera, then why did you mention him?


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 2, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Perhaps I'm being unfair. But, when people assert that a company is headed toward financial disaster because the specific product that they as an individual would like to see produced isn't available and when in reality that company's products consistently outsell their competitors' comparable models across the entire product line, the charitable assumption is that the person making the assertion doesn't quite grasp some fairly basic economic principles.



Let me try this again from MY understanding of basic economic principles. In order to succeed, most companies need at least two types of products, i.e. foundation products and mass products. The former (foundation products) are what you build your company reputation on and are also the products that support your company through any lean years, recessions and failures to predict the swing of the market. The latter (mass products) are the hugely popular products you sell to the masses at huge profits, i.e. the cash cows, and which support the growth and development of your company.

For Canon, IMO, the 1D-series and the 5D-series are foundation products, whereas the 6D and the "xxxD"-series with their kit lenses are the mass products.

Mass products come and go, but foundation products stay for the count. It is therefore vital for any company to always maintain this distinction within the company itself. Placing reliance on the revenue from the mass products for the financing of essential corporate functions is always a one-way ticket to insolvency.

But, due to the fickleness of the mass market consumers, a company must always be ready with the next big mass market "thing". IMO, in cameras, this is mirrorless.

Problem for Canon, IMO, is that not only do they not have any decent mirrorless cameras or a "high-MP" (portrait/architecture/landscape) camera waiting in the wings, they are also allowing their competitors to actually steal the early adopters of this "new trend" away from them. You snooze, you lose.

(I could go on, but I've probably lost everyone's attention by now.)



unfocused said:


> There are certainly less charitable assessments that could be made – perhaps some people just enjoy being trolls and don't really believe what they write.



Or it could be research into the thought-patterns of the influential persons within the market. For example, what I've determined through my incessant ramblings/trolling/flaming is that (a) sales figures sell products, (b) a product sells simply because it is the best of what is offered and not because it is actually any good, and (c) extremes sell best.



unfocused said:


> Yes...here in the U.S. Nikon and Sony offers their products to exclusive outlets like Walmart, Target and Best Buy.



Two things then ... obviously the "regional managers" of those brands have a better understanding of the importance of placing products on shelves; and perhaps we here in Africa could be a significant untapped market for those brands ... if they only tried.


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 2, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > <sarcasm>You must be independently wealthy, or you are one of those people who has no concern about spending the rent money on toys. Many people would understand the implications the of the expression "nearly switched:" You see, camera systems are rather expensive, and only very wealthy people, such as yourself, can afford multiple systems. Therefore, a compulsion to switch has to be so strong as to be worth the loss of a large amount of money on the sale of the old system vs. purchase of the new system. That's where that word "implication" comes in: even to contemplate that switch seriously means you have a substantial preference for the "other" system, but just can't afford to make the switch. You may now go back to your chardonnay and caviar.</sarcasm>
> ...



Wow, I'm impressed: a reply that's actually somewhat thoughtful. Again, however, you argue from your own parochial perspective. 

Let's start here:


> Now, if your friend is NOT a professional (portrait/wedding) photographer, but just an enthusiast with a "professional-grade" camera, then why did you mention him?


This is a false dichotomy logical fallacy. The question is not whether he is, by your definition, a professional. The question is whether he is skilled enough to recognize the relative merits of two different systems. For the record, he's a part-time pro in the process of building his business. Obviously, you would need to take my word that the guy is smart, thoughtful and has fairly solid skills, but you won't.



> if he follows sound business management, that every piece of equipment is (a) justified and (b) calculated to pay for itself within a specific timeframe. I know this sounds cold, but it is the reality of running a business.


I agree with you here nearly 100%. Again, though, you overlook the other side of that...



> your friend MUST always provide his clients with the very best product possible


Here's a part you may not understand: different equipment is suited to different needs. I think few would argue that the D800 is the superior studio/portrait camera (assuming you have the glass to go with it). And of course, all those MF enthusiasts will argue that the D800 does not rise to that level. There are very few pros who can kit up with $200k of gear and have several assistants running around as pack-stock. Most pros must spend money wisely to cover the range of their business. Pros who buy too much may price themselves out of the market. And that's another iron-clad business truth: your services are worth what the customers are willing to pay. If the customers are not willing to pay enough that you can maintain a broad range of equipment, then you'd better not try to maintain a broad range of equipment. In some markets, there just aren't enough high-end customers to justify more than a handful of boutique photographers.

I've seen "pros" who can't shoot their way out of a burlap sack. I've seen amateurs who take wonderful photos, even with cheap P&S cameras. The arbitrary definition of a full-time pro, who makes nearly 100% of income on photography is no longer valid.

Please try to broaden your perspective.


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 2, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> > Now, if your friend is NOT a professional (portrait/wedding) photographer, but just an enthusiast with a "professional-grade" camera, then why did you mention him?
> 
> 
> This is a false dichotomy logical fallacy.


Nice try, but no cigar. Your argument was that your friend is a "fanboi" locked into the Nikon system due to the financial constraints of switching to the Canon (or another) system. I assumed that he is a professional photographer specialising in portraits and weddings - which you have confirmed. So I wrote what I wrote from that perspective. But if you had instead said that your friend is an enthusiast who scrimped and saved for almost a year in order to buy a D800 camera, then my post would have been quite different and I would have in all probability agreed with you.

Oh, did I mention _my_ friend who is a wildlife photographer and recently switched from Canon to Pentax? Well, I am now. Yip, Pentax.



Orangutan said:


> The question is not whether he is, by your definition, a professional.


Actually, I follow the definition of the Oxford dictionary, i.e. "engaged in a specified activity as one's main paid occupation".



Orangutan said:


> The question is whether he is skilled enough to recognize the relative merits of two different systems. For the record, he's a part-time pro in the process of building his business. Obviously, you would need to take my word that the guy is smart, thoughtful and has fairly solid skills, but you won't.


I wouldn't know as I haven't seen his work, but do take your word for it. However, even as a "part-time pro" what I wrote stills holds. If that D800 isn't generating the money to pay for itself within a given timeframe, then it's bad business management.



Orangutan said:


> > your friend MUST always provide his clients with the very best product possible
> 
> 
> Here's a part you may not understand: different equipment is suited to different needs. I think few would argue that the D800 is the superior studio/portrait camera (assuming you have the glass to go with it). And of course, all those MF enthusiasts will argue that the D800 does not rise to that level. There are very few pros who can kit up with $200k of gear and have several assistants running around as pack-stock. Most pros must spend money wisely to cover the range of their business. Pros who buy too much may price themselves out of the market.


I think you have misunderstood my use of "best product possible". By "product" I did not mean that a photographer must use the (perceived) best cameras and lenses; I meant that a photographer must provide his/her clients with the best possible photographs ("product") that it is possible for said photographer to produce given his/her tools (i.e. cameras, lenses, etc.) and skills.



Orangutan said:


> And that's another iron-clad business truth: your services are worth what the customers are willing to pay. If the customers are not willing to pay enough that you can maintain a broad range of equipment, then you'd better not try to maintain a broad range of equipment. In some markets, there just aren't enough high-end customers to justify more than a handful of boutique photographers.


True and I agree. But would also like to add that if your clients aren't willing to pay for the "quality of a D800", but are satisfied with what a "Rebel plus kit lens" produces, then that's what you use in your business. The objective is to make money, not flaunt your expensive gear.



Orangutan said:


> I've seen "pros" who can't shoot their way out of a burlap sack. I've seen amateurs who take wonderful photos, even with cheap P&S cameras.


Same here.



Orangutan said:


> The arbitrary definition of a full-time pro, who makes nearly 100% of income on photography is no longer valid.


Here I must differ. There is nothing arbitrary about the definition of a professional photographer. If someone, as you said, can't shoot their way out of a burlap sack, but still generates 100% of his/her income from photography, then he/she is per definition of the word a professional photographer.



Orangutan said:


> Please try to broaden your perspective.


Ditto.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jun 3, 2014)

Children please stop squabbling!
If Canon don't make the high MP camera that you think you want/need the go buy from someone who does. It is pointless going on ad infinitum about what they don't make, if you really want 30+mp go buy it and stop whingeing. If there are enough of you then Canon will change their products - though when you discover (as I have) the advantages of more modest MP sensors we will welcome you back.


----------



## mustafaakarsu (Jun 3, 2014)

johnf3f said:


> Children please stop squabbling!
> If Canon don't make the high MP camera that you think you want/need the go buy from someone who does. It is pointless going on ad infinitum about what they don't make, if you really want 30+mp go buy it and stop whingeing. If there are enough of you then Canon will change their products - though when you discover (as I have) the advantages of more modest MP sensors we will welcome you back.



Well said.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jun 4, 2014)

mustafaakarsu said:


> johnf3f said:
> 
> 
> > Children please stop squabbling!
> ...



Thank you.
I posted on this thread when it started as I thought I could contribute. However it has degenerated into rattle throwing and teddies going skydiving!


----------



## Aglet (Jun 4, 2014)

johnf3f said:


> Thank you.
> I posted on this thread when it started as I thought I could contribute. However it has degenerated into rattle throwing and teddies going skydiving!



Doh! That's my cue!


----------



## Aglet (Jun 4, 2014)

zlatko said:


> So much distaste for Canon. Why are you on a Canon forum?



no distaste for Canon except their sub-par read-noise performance.
I still have at least 6 (older) Canon bodies in inventory that get used for various shoots. I like plenty about their products otherwise.


----------



## Aglet (Jun 4, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Despite the mighty exmor sensor and 36 mp Sony have failed to meet Canon ( and Nikon ) head on in DSLR sales, the DSLR still being by far the most versatile camera system, and this is rather irrefutable evidence that it takes more than a good sensor and high mp to make a winning system.
> 
> Or is it just that the sensor they are trying to compete against isn't that bad ?



there ya go, sounds like you're also saying Canon's "good enough"
were you trying to make a counter point to my argument?
the marketshare argument is more in support of the OP's topic
there's apparently room for other mfrs to fill the generous gaps left in the market by its leader


----------



## Aglet (Jun 4, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> What kind of photography do you do? You're obviously not unintelligent or completely ignorant, but you strike me as the kind of person who sees everything from his own perspective, as though your type of photography is the only kind that's important.
> 
> I have a friend who is a die-hard Nikon fanboi. He has a D800 and some nice glass. He mostly shoots portraits, and loves his D800, and made jokes about Canon products not keeping up. Then he shot a wedding using someone else's 5D3, and nearly switched to Canon.
> 
> If you shoot landscapes, or other slow-moving objects, you can get really great photos from Nikon, Sony, etc, especially using lens adapters and third-party (even Canon) glass. If your subject is moving, it doesn't matter how good the sensor if the rest of the camera can't give you a well-focused shot at the moment you want it.



Thanks for a civilized approach to a contentious topic. 

I don't do events, sports or wildlife, so I don't often need great AF systems unless I'm after birds on occasion. My needs are primarily best possible IQ (highly maleable raw files) at lower ISO levels as most of my images are sunlit scenes with inherently wide dynamic range and processing those images into a useful print, the way I want to process them, means ABC cameras perform better in my workflow.

My gripe is less with Canon's products (they're making tons of profit with 'good-enough' products, why change) than with its fanbois who think that, "if only those complainers knew what they were doing then Canon products would do what they need." And as voiciferous as some of those fanbois are, that's just wrong. Canon has some inherent flaws that have been around a long time and some of us got tired of working around those problems and waiting for them to be fixed. We don't have to hobble ourselves if we used ABC cameras instead but you might notice the most evangelical Canonites here are the ones who likely haven't learned how to make good use of ABC cameras or, the compromises embodied by Canon products actually are well suited to their uses so, they think if their mainstream or niche application can be filled by Canon gear then all such endeavors can be similarly satiated. And I am happy to disagree with that sort of generalization. 



> ..I would like some pressure on Canon to continue to improve. However, I don't want them to drop all their strong features just to be a hunk of metal with a great sensor.


I certainly do not advocate for them to introduce _more_ compromises in order to add improved sensor performance! I'm interested in seeing them catch up to where everyone else is in sensor performance as I'd love a 7d2 with clean low iso shadow performance.


----------



## Aglet (Jun 4, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> When did low ISO DR suddenly become 'most metrics'? Oh, I see, you meant 'most important to Aglet and others who represent a minority of consumers'.


Geez Neuro, did you miss the part where the other major mfrs now also have hi ISO performance that rivals or exceeds Canon's last bastion of sensor performance? Even MFT with a smaller sensor is outperforming Canon sensors across most, if not ALL metrics as measured by DPR, IR and DxO.



> A 'real explanation' from your personal, biased, 'I need to push images 4-5 stops in post' perspective. I think you should ask Sella174 to explain the concept of 'minority' to you...



And what you got against "minorities" anyway?... Do they get in the way of your corporate interests?
Do you think monopolies are good for anything?... Canon had a virtual monopoly, can we see how much innovation happened during that time?
Yes, for YOU it's all about the shareholders.  We don't all think that way.

And thanks to Sony's innovations, I CAN push 4 stops if I want to and I don't need to have great retouching skills to fix a mass of FPN that shows up if I try the same with a Canon file. ABC cameras save me a lot of time compared to Canon bodies for that kind of work and when you're old and prone to getting cranky, it's good to not waste time on irritating products. ;D



> Canon makes a system of cameras, lenses, flashes, etc., that collectively meet the needs of the majority of photographers in the world. The sensor may only need to be be 'good enough' - recall that the 5DIII + Canon 24-70/2.8L II outresolves the D800 + Nikon 24-70/2.8G.



You just finished agreeing that Canon makes "good enough" products for the majority of users, which is what I said they did. Sure, they make a few decent lenses too. But good lenses don't make a system either.




> Explain how mirrorless is moving ahead?


 I'll take Sellas line here.
faster pace of technology and performance improvement from everybody but Canon lately.
Even Nikon's N1V3 can do some tricks their flagship flapper can't.


----------



## Aglet (Jun 4, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Why is it that people always give Nikon and Sony so much credit for being "leaders" when they both are now desperately trying to catch up to Canon by now offering lower megapixel, high ISO models.



So they can kick Canon's arse in another direction; hi-ISO, low-light, low-cost, video-capable bodies vs the other end they already own; Low-ISO, High-DR, High MP bodies. That leaves Canon with the big, fat, boring, middle-ground of "good enough" which makes them a pile of money which apparently makes Neuro happy.  He must own Canon stock as a portfolio diversification to protect against a possible loss of income from a large corporate Drug-Co it sounds like he works for.... Cuz, you know, they don't already have enough government concessions and lobbyists to ensure their long-term viability. (sorry, was a good set up for a dig  I might just do stand-up comedy)


----------



## Aglet (Jun 4, 2014)

eml58 said:


> I think the issue Aglet in particular has is that he sees himself as not being like most of us, you know, the "Common Folk" those majority of "enthusiastic amateurs", the majority of those "Pros", the incredibly mentally challenged....Canon users, poor people, the misguided.


Well, you may be partly correct. Unlike you, perhaps, I'm not satisfied with Canon's product for all of my uses. Now if you also feel like adding a "mentally challenged" category to that group... if the shoe fits, slip your flash on it and strobe along. 

The point is, for those of use who are not satisfied with the cadre of mediocre Canon sensors that place limitations on otherwise good gear, we have other options to go to, thankfully.


----------



## Aglet (Jun 4, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> What is very interesting, however, is that FUJIFILM appears to be doing the same as Canon. This is really going to be interesting to watch.



oh, gawd, no! I like Fuji more than Canon. But Fuji believes in doing good for the consumer, even if to their detriment at times. It's a noble Japanese custom... Apparently not so much so for Canon... Well, Canon DID eventually release some updated firmware that unlocked hardware features that could have stayed hidden...
Yes, this might be interesting.



> ..and niche markets have a nasty tendency to become mass markets.



+1



> Oh, did I mention my friend who is a wildlife photographer and recently switched from Canon to Pentax? Well, I am now. Yip, Pentax.



I'd like to know why. I have Pentax too. I like it but I tend to fall back to Nikon or Fuji more now.


----------



## Aglet (Jun 4, 2014)

dilbert said:


> But Canon are selling lots of camera, more than the others, so what Canon is doing must be ok, right?


Yup, it certainly works for Canon and all those users who are satisfied with the product.


> Lets face it, Canon's sensors currently rate bottom of the rung so whilst Canon might be getting lots of people to buy their equipment, there is an increasing number of people that won't buy anything again (or recommend Canon) because there's just no incentive to upgrade for "better IQ."


Agreed. 
Altho today's "bottom of the rung" is not all that bad, is disappointing Canon have not yet done better. The other mfrs have caught up or passed them, even with limitations imposed by physics causing a handicap for the MFT sensors.
I will only recommend Canon for users who like an easy to figure out camera and who aren't likely to exceed its limitations. That's still a lot of potentially satisfied users. 

For me, and others of my ilk, Canon doesn't offer anything compelling enough to buy yet. The longer it takes for them to bring something better to market the less likely I am to keep waiting. I've already sold most of my high end Canon gear and will eventually sell the rest if I'm using it less and less.
I've only got one L lens left and have been waiting a long time for a 7D replacement to put it on. But it has to perform better than the current 70D to be useful. If not, I'll be going MFT and saving weight and money in the process while only losing out some low light AF ability which, frankly, I don't really need.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 4, 2014)

Anyone who doesn't agree that Sony sensors are better at the moment than canon sensors are in denial. Let's face facts that it's true. 

However, in most everything else, canon is better and what limitations are in the Canon sensor can be overcome by proper technique as photographers have done for decades. 

Once canon releases the next Gen of sensors, we should have lenses and AF paired that will get every ounce of resolution from that sensor. Currently, those 36 MP can't be resolved by the majority of lenses and when canon drops there high MP sensor, we will have a new lens lineup to match it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 4, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> Anyone who doesn't agree that Sony sensors are better at the moment than canon sensors are in denial. Let's face facts that it's true.



When I go out to shoot birds, I'm usually in the f/8-11 range for sufficient DoF with my f/5.6 lens (600/4L IS II + 1.4xIII, so 'get a faster lens' isn't an option even if I didn't need the DoF). Flying birds mean shutter speeds of 1/1600 s or faster, and I'm almost always shooting with relatively poor light. That means I need to shoot in the ISO 1600-6400 range >80% of the time.

Can you please either educate me on the facts I should face that show how Sony sensors are better than Canon sensors for my needs, or explain how your definition of 'better' is more relevant for me than my own definition? I'd hate to remain in denial... :


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 4, 2014)

Aglet said:


> But good lenses don't make a system either.



Correct, it is a pool of resources which make a system. On the subject of IQ, flashes and all that can generally be neglected since all that is strictly needed to produce a photograph are 1) a camera and 2) a lens.

Again, ignoring weirdly weighted scores, When comparing the huge volume of data accumulated over measuring 147 lenses, one very surprising result was revealed. The average sharpness scores of the Canon EOS 5D Mark III matched the Nikon D800 and if the results were based solely on the mean average, the Canon actually out-performed the Nikon.

When using specific lenses (such as the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM A) the Nikon can out resolve the Canon. However, taken as a whole, the statistics reveal the EOS 5D MK III is capable of similar sharpness and of achieving a close DxOMark camera/lens score to the Nikon D800. Moreover, that’s despite the latter camera’s 60% extra pixel count.

So, while the sensor Nikon sources for the D800/E/S is undeniably more capable than that Canon builds for the 5D3 (both cameras representing the highest resolution offering from both makes), the lenses for the Nikon are, on average, undeniably poorer performing than those for the Canon. 

Within its system, Nikon doesn't yet offer a wide variety of lenses that are a match for its highest resolution body. 

Within its system, Canon does offers a wide variety of lenses that are at least good enough for its highest resolution body. Whether they're good enough for a 50% pixel increase has yet to be determined. If and when Canon makes the business decision to enter the higher-res market (and I suspect their lens refresh is a milestone in that direction) we shall see. 

Assuming canon releases a 35+ MP body and the lenses resolve that well, it will trounce the D800 in detail. Canon fans will trumpet. Nikon fans will likely say "yah but you need to spend $20,000 for a variety of series II lenses for it." I'll sit back with 23MP and be glad I don't need a metric ton of flash memory and a supercomputer to process it all.


----------



## sdsr (Jun 4, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> Again, ignoring weirdly weighted scores, When comparing the huge volume of data accumulated over measuring 147 lenses, one very surprising result was revealed. The average sharpness scores of the Canon EOS 5D Mark III matched the Nikon D800 and if the results were based solely on the mean average, the Canon actually out-performed the Nikon.
> 
> When using specific lenses (such as the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM A) the Nikon can out resolve the Canon. However, taken as a whole, the statistics reveal the EOS 5D MK III is capable of similar sharpness and of achieving a close DxOMark camera/lens score to the Nikon D800. Moreover, that’s despite the latter camera’s 60% extra pixel count.
> 
> ...



Actually, anyone who really cares can determine this right now - it's easy to attach a Canon lens to a Sony mirrorless body (APS-C or FF), so those who take the right sort of measurements should be able to make the comparison, assuming they have any interest in doing so (for all I know this has already been done somewhere). I'm in no position to take such measurements, but my casual use of Canon lenses on my Sony A7r yields marvelous results in terms of resolution (and other ways too) - and the lenses I've tried probably aren't, for the most part, those which would score the highest (I've used 28mm IS, 40mm, 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 100L, 135L, 24-105L & 70-200 f4 IS L, as well as an old FD 55mm 1.2). My hunch is that Canon lens owners have absolutely nothing to be worried about (in this regard, anyway) when/if Canon releases a camera with a high MP sensor. 

Roger Cicala has noted that the Tamron 24-70VR on a D800e outresolves the Canon 24-70 II on a 5DIII. It would be interesting to see how they compare on a Sony A7r, and not outlandish to expect that Canon/Sony combination to handily beat the Tamron/Nikon.


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 4, 2014)

Aglet said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > What is very interesting, however, is that FUJIFILM appears to be doing the same as Canon. This is really going to be interesting to watch.
> ...



Just to clarify, I meant it in the context of product availability. It is now actually easier to purchase FUJIFILM X-lenses than Canon L-lenses ... over here, of course.



Aglet said:


> > Oh, did I mention my friend who is a wildlife photographer and recently switched from Canon to Pentax? Well, I am now. Yip, Pentax.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to know why. I have Pentax too. I like it but I tend to fall back to Nikon or Fuji more now.



He says it is the WR lenses and the Limited primes that did it. (Note that he isn't one of those people who wants to photograph the mites on the ticks on the rhino at 300 metres; he prefers to photograph the animals/tourists within the context of their environment.)


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 4, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone who doesn't agree that Sony sensors are better at the moment than canon sensors are in denial. Let's face facts that it's true.
> ...


Sony sensors do perform better at all ISO ranges. The new Exmor in the a7s will supposedly even raise it higher. To deny they don't perform better is sheer egotism. I'm on your side neuro, as we both know a camera is much more than a sensor.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jun 4, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps I'm being unfair. But, when people assert that a company is headed toward financial disaster because the specific product that they as an individual would like to see produced isn't available and when in reality that company's products consistently outsell their competitors' comparable models across the entire product line, the charitable assumption is that the person making the assertion doesn't quite grasp some fairly basic economic principles.
> ...



I don't get one part of this. Sony has the only FF mirrorless body out there now - and it allows those in the canon system to buy it without having to do a complete switch (how many of you are there are using an a7 with canon lenses???). Mirrorless is new and may or may not take off - and if it does who knows what form it will take. Pro grade equipment or mass market equipment. so both Canon and Nikon are letting sony do the market research for them. Canon is actually in a good position considering with this - early adopters aren't selling off their gear to switch, most are keeping their canon gear and adding the sony...


----------



## CaiLeDao (Jun 4, 2014)

I fell for the grass is greener with a higher MP sensor so bought a Sony A7R and mounted my Canon lenses on it.

My experience so far is this.
the moire of the Sony A7R is better (less) than a 5D III
the 5D mark III produces sharp images, while the Sony on the same lens doesn't. EF 70-200 F4 (non IS) at 200mm because its shutter vibrates too much (known issue on Sony fanbois websites)
I can't use Manual focus lenses like the 24mm TSE because I have failed thus far to figure out how to get EVF zoom to work so focus here is poor. it may only work with Sony Lenses
I bricked the Sony doing a firmware upgrade so waiting for it to be repaired. (trying to fix problem above)
I cannot get a remote shutter trigger easily, to operate the camera from a Promote control or gigapan head so all in all its quite limited. having to make a shutter cable from bits.
The best recommended solution to the vibration issue I found is to use two tripods one for the body to dampen that and one to take the lens weight... did I think the sony was lighter

The A7R is a great concept and promises much, but its made me realise how good DSLR's are, they are heavy for a reason and there is no leap in IQ that made buying it worth while and I can only use it in very niche ways not as a light everyday camera. 

Summary I suspect Canon will sort out the ADC noise issue they have and the IQ will leap as a consequence, just need to be patient, I have been reminded that Canon isn't so bad.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 4, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



Well, thanks. That's good to know. Here I was, thinking that at high ISO the 1D X was better. Silly me. Those yellow lines for the 1D X that are above the red and orange lines for the Sony sensors in the D800E and a7R, such as for dynamic range at ISO 800 and higher…that's performing worse, right? More tonal range and color sensitivity - those are bad things? Higher SNR across the ISO range, that's worse too, right? 

: : :

Of course, a camera is more than just a sensor. But I'm still waiting for your _facts_ showing how my Canon sensor is worse at higher ISOs...


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 5, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Very ignorant of you. Please go see d4s.  It outperforms the 1dx period in sensor tech.


----------



## Aglet (Jun 5, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Of course, a camera is more than just a sensor. But I'm still waiting for your _facts_ showing how my Canon sensor is worse at higher ISOs...



Gee, Neuro. Would you write up the drug test studies with cherry-picked data too?

_You know, I've heard that some DrugCo's double-blind placebo tests
used spiked placebos to make test subjects have more nasty side effects
using the "placebo" than they do when using the new wonder-drug? _​In the crop sensor and smaller world, the results are notably different.

And remember the MFT is outperforming Canon's latest crop sensor using with only about 60% of the surface area of an APSC... And the prices are similarly ratio'd.

These are all presented as SCREEN rather than PRINT data; don't want any of that funky downsampling math to make the differences even bigger.

And to make it more relevant to you, I think Canon probably sells more 70D bodies than 1DX bodies.
That's gotta count for something, eh?.. 

(Data provided by DxoMark)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 5, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> Very ignorant of you. Please go see d4s.  It outperforms the 1dx period in sensor tech.



The performance of the two is nearly identical above ISO 800, and the D4s has a DR advantage below ISO 800. Plus, I can't hand-hold Nikon's 600/4.

Also…



RLPhoto said:


> Sony sensors do perform better at all ISO ranges.



AFAIK, Sony doesn't make the sensor in the D4s. Ignorance must be bliss for you… 




Aglet said:


> Gee, Neuro. Would you write up the drug test studies with cherry-picked data too?
> In the crop sensor and smaller world, the results are notably different.



Would you believe the results of testing a drug for Alzheimer's disease in a population of 20 year olds with asthma? Note that I said _my_ Canon sensor in the use case I described. The point was, people make assumptions about their own, personal definition of 'better' without regard for the fact that their needs don't define the needs of everyone else.

Come back when m4/3 is outperforming FF sensors, we'll talk.


----------



## Aglet (Jun 5, 2014)

*DOUBLE SMACKDOWN on Neuro*



neuroanatomist said:


> Would you believe the results of testing a drug for Alzheimer's disease in a population of 20 year olds with asthma?



coming from you, ya, it's not impossible



> Note that I said _my_ Canon sensor in the use case I described. The point was, people make assumptions about their own, personal definition of 'better' without regard for the fact that their needs don't define the needs of everyone else.
> 
> Come back when m4/3 is outperforming FF sensors, we'll talk.



sure, don't let facts you don't like get in the way
In case you forgot, the thread's about Canon tech, and when are we gonna see some improvements.

If you didn't like the previous smackdown try this one; using an old-tech D3s with the same kind of pixel-size-advantage BS you tried to pull off in your data comparison... tho even less of a size advantage for the Nikon this time.

Even the old D3s has the 1Dx beat pretty much across the board. Screen OR print normalized. (screen presented data from DxOmark)
FWIW, you can compare a D700 to the group too, it only loses on DR at higher ISO.

So pay attention, YOUR 1DX is the red line, note how IT'S MOSTLY AT THE BOTTOM of every chart.

put that in your syringe and poke it. 

DOUBLE-SMACKDOWN!
(tho likely to try BS his way out of it with more weasel-feces)


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 5, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Very ignorant of you. Please go see d4s.  It outperforms the 1dx period in sensor tech.
> ...



You confirmed my original comment to the letter. Your in denial and Sony sensor tech is better at the moment.


----------



## R1-7D (Jun 5, 2014)

I went out shooting today with my 5D3. Got some great shots. 

Then I thought...you know what would make these photos even better? Zero freaking shadows!!!! I pushed and pushed in post processing until there was nothing left to push. Man...the noise in the blacks was awful. I could barely make out a sign that was in some deep shade in the far upper left corner of my photo. After some noise reduction, and zooming in to 400%...I saw what the sign said:

Beware of Internet Trolls.


I was blown away. Had I been using the D800e, with its 30% better sharpness compared to the regular 800...and it's amazing dynamic range, I wouldn't have had to spend so much time figuring out what the sign said. 


Tomorrow I'm going to go back to a creepy looking bridge I found and see what Trolls I can find in the shadows when I post-process.


----------



## R1-7D (Jun 5, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Very ignorant of you. Please go see d4s.  It outperforms the 1dx period in sensor tech.
> ...



I wouldn't bother anymore. Clearly the Nikon/Sony match-made-in-heaven is superior. You and your 1DX will have to just continue taking sub-par photos with poor dynamic range. Even if you think you've got a great picture that you've just taken, Dilbert and the crew here will assure you that your photo is lacking in sufficient DR for it to be worthwhile. 

See the light. Spend more time on the internet researching this, and take less photos with what you have. C'mon


----------



## traingineer (Jun 5, 2014)

R1-7D said:


> I went out shooting today with my 5D3. Got some great shots.
> 
> Then I thought...you know what would make these photos even better? Zero freaking shadows!!!! I pushed and pushed in post processing until there was nothing left to push. Man...the noise in the blacks was awful. I could barely make out a sign that was in some deep shade in the far upper left corner of my photo. After some noise reduction, and zooming in to 400%...I saw what the sign said:
> 
> ...



Darn trolls! Always hiding in the shadows, filling up the internet with lies and lame jokes!

Pro Tip: Since trolls have never seen people in real life, they easily get scared when an actual human is near by.


----------



## R1-7D (Jun 5, 2014)

*Re: DOUBLE SMACKDOWN on Neuro*



Aglet said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Would you believe the results of testing a drug for Alzheimer's disease in a population of 20 year olds with asthma?
> ...




Do you perhaps wear a spandex jumpsuit and grease up with vaseline before you come post here? I take you for a WWE/F fan. 

            

But seriously, you've shown me the light/detail in the dark underexposed world I've been living in (get it? 'Cuz we're talking about DR). I'm selling my gear for Nikon and Sony stuff. I'm just worried about resale value now since my Canon gear is so subpar. Ugh...if only you were here on Canon Rumors sooner... before I bought everything. 

Really my purchasing all this non-Nikon stuff is your fault. If I can blame a casino for gambling too much (which I did BTW), then I can blame you for my mistake in camera equipment.


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 5, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> You confirmed my original comment to the letter. Your in denial and Sony sensor tech is better at the moment.



According to this http://nikonrumors.com/2012/10/25/chipworks-report-on-the-sensors-used-in-nikon-dslr-cameras.aspx/

The D3, D3S and D4 sensors were designed by Nikon and fabricated by Renesas. It's fair to assume the same is true of the D4S.

Making a broad statement about who has the best tech on the market right now is a little difficult. Clearly, Canon's APS-C sensors are significantly behind several other camera makers. For FF, ya payz yer money and ya takes yer pitchers: find the body+lens combos that work for you and get to it.

Next flame-war thread: The Judean People's Front vs. The People's Front of Judea.


----------



## R1-7D (Jun 5, 2014)

traingineer said:


> R1-7D said:
> 
> 
> > I went out shooting today with my 5D3. Got some great shots.
> ...



I'll shoot from a distance and just crop in. 

Oh no! Damn...I wouldn't be able to crop as far because of my low 22 megapixel count!!!! If only I had the 36 MP monster that is the D800.

Damn Canon, again! Ugh.


----------



## traingineer (Jun 5, 2014)

R1-7D said:


> traingineer said:
> 
> 
> > R1-7D said:
> ...



Fun Fact: Internet Trolls are the people who make the sensor charts for DxO, they all love their glorious Nikon bodies/lenses.


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 5, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> I don't get one part of this. Sony has the only FF mirrorless body out there now - and it allows those in the canon system to buy it without having to do a complete switch (how many of you are there are using an a7 with canon lenses???). Mirrorless is new and may or may not take off - and if it does who knows what form it will take. Pro grade equipment or mass market equipment. so both Canon and Nikon are letting sony do the market research for them. Canon is actually in a good position considering with this - early adopters aren't selling off their gear to switch, most are keeping their canon gear and adding the sony...



A few points, if I may.



> Sony has the only FF mirrorless body out there now - and it allows those in the canon system to buy it without having to do a complete switch (how many of you are there are using an a7 with canon lenses???).



The "Metabones" adapter is (a) a stop-gap solution for Sony whilst they build a full stable of lenses, thus (b) enabling Canon/Nikon users to spread out the cost of the transition to Sony over a period of time. Nice of them, huh?



> Mirrorless is new and may or may not take off ...



Mirrorless is already soaring with the eagles. Please accept it.



> so both Canon and Nikon are letting sony do the market research for them.



Actually, Olympus did most of the market research and it is now all done. Sony, Panasonic, Olympus and FUJIFILM are now applying the results of that research and reaping the benefits. By the time Canon (and Nikon and Pentax) finally get going, all those people who are willing to embrace new technology (in the form of mirrorless) will be already using other systems than theirs. Now, you might argue the adapted lens stance, but remember that a company like Canon does not make the bulk of its "photographic" profit from the sale of 600mm lenses ... they make it from the sales of xxxD/Rebel with a single kit lens jobbies.



> Canon is actually in a good position considering with this - early adopters aren't selling off their gear to switch, most are keeping their canon gear and adding the sony...



Nope (see above), but to reiterate: *neuroanatomist* made the argument regarding the majority and the minority. Well, does the majority of Canon users own a 600mm lens - or even any L-lens, for that matter? Nope, these people (who own grand lenses) form the minority and thus a niche market. And since the majority on this forum feel that niche markets are negligible, it means that the minority of people who actually do own a Sony with Canon glass and thus still contributing to Canon's revenue can effectively be disregarded. This then leaves the majority purchasing xxxD/Rebel cameras with a single kit lens ... how long will this last? A whole heap of 'em have already found that their iPhone is just as good and a whole lot more convenient than an oversized Canon DSLR camera. The P&S market already croaked because of it ... and I tell you as a fact that crippled "entry-level" DSLR's are next in line.

The future lies in (a) mirrorless and (b) high-MP mirrorless ... and the future is NOW.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jun 5, 2014)

R1-7D said:


> traingineer said:
> 
> 
> > R1-7D said:
> ...



Yes you can crop to a 100% to see the soft and mushy lens optics on a 36mp camera. You can see your AF being slightly off, and your camera shake being slightly more apparent. You can see all your lens defects more clearly and the real world resolution being only slightly higher than the 5DIII. Ho hum...but yes you can crop harder....


----------



## Roo (Jun 5, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> The "Metabones" adapter is (a) a stop-gap solution for Sony whilst they build a full stable of lenses, thus (b) enabling Canon/Nikon users to spread out the cost of the transition to Sony over a period of time. Nice of them, huh.



Given Sony's haphazard approach to long term product development I doubt they'll have a 'full stable' of lenses in our lifetime. But you can continue to dream...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jL2DH-nKBeA


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 5, 2014)

*Re: foolish internet trolls*



RLPhoto said:


> You confirmed my original comment to the letter. Your in denial and Sony sensor tech is better at the moment.



Still no facts from you showing a Sony sensor with better performance above ISO 800. Since you're clearly unable to back up your statements, there's no point in further discussion. 




Aglet said:


> DOUBLE-SMACKDOWN!



I post a comparison where a difference is well over a full stop (closer to two), you post a set of comparisons where the lines are nearly touching in most cases, generally with <1/3-stop difference (almost certainly within DxOMark's measurement error, although they don't state their error...or even that they made >1 measurement). Yet somehow, you seem quite impressed with yourself despite your manifestly weak data interpretation skills. 

I suggest you go take more shots with the lens cap on and push the exposures 4 or more stops in post. Something useful like that will occupy your time and keep you from looking silly on the Internet.


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 5, 2014)

Roo said:


> Given Sony's haphazard approach to long term product development I doubt they'll have a 'full stable' of lenses in our lifetime. But you can continue to dream...



Given Canon's lacking approach to long term product development I doubt they'll have a "full stable" of EF-S lenses in our lifetime. (Compare this approach, for example, to Pentax DA Limited primes.) So I have stopped dreaming ...


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 5, 2014)

*Re: foolish internet trolls*



neuroanatomist said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > You confirmed my original comment to the letter. Your in denial and Sony sensor tech is better at the moment.
> ...


I don't really care if Sony or nikon make the sensor. It's the point that canon sensor tech isn't the best anymore and that's what your in denial about. Even the d3s outperforms the 1dx in every measurable way added I find it funny you comparing a 6000$ body's to 3000$ bodys.

Hence your in denial. I'm not afraid to admit that the Canon doesn't have the best sensors because they don't. If sony/nikon are much better below 800 and slightly better above 800 is irrelevant, it's an improvement.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 5, 2014)

R1-7D said:


> Beware of Internet Trolls.
> 
> I was blown away. Had I been using the D800e, with its 30% better sharpness compared to the regular 800...and it's amazing dynamic range, I wouldn't have had to spend so much time figuring out what the sign said.
> 
> Tomorrow I'm going to go back to a creepy looking bridge I found and see what Trolls I can find in the shadows when I post-process.



Look carefully at these two images, and you'll spot the REAL difference that 2 stops of dynamic range makes…


----------



## canon1dxman (Jun 5, 2014)

Advance Photographer Magazine in the UK just published a comparison test 1DX v D4s.....

The winner was the 1DX and the tester is a confirmed Nikon user......

So, you were saying, the D3s is so good....


----------



## sdsr (Jun 5, 2014)

CaiLeDao said:


> I fell for the grass is greener with a higher MP sensor so bought a Sony A7R and mounted my Canon lenses on it.
> 
> My experience so far is this.
> the moire of the Sony A7R is better (less) than a 5D III
> ...



No, of course it isn't; their system is excellent (I would take it over Nikon any day - and have). I somewhat prefer my Sony mirrorless bodies, but it's easy enough to see why someone wouldn't, and either way that's hardly a condemnation of Canon.

As for the rest (I can't comment on your speedlight issue), there's no denying the shutter-shake problem in the A7r (the A7 doesn't have it). The best way to avoid it is to select fast enough shutter speeds, which may not always be possible.

I've no idea what your firmware update problem is, but I'm surprised you can't get manual focus magnification to work; if it's not automatically activated, you should be able to do so easily from a menu, as with focus peaking (the two work together really well), and custom set just about any button you choose to activate it (I use the middle button on the rear control wheel, which may be the default - I can't remember). You don't need to have a Sony lens attached - both features work perfectly with Canon lenses (and any other lenses I've attached - though I've not tried it on my two Sony lenses). Perhaps you were sold a defective one?


----------



## sdsr (Jun 5, 2014)

*Re: DOUBLE SMACKDOWN on Neuro*



Aglet said:


> ....
> 
> So pay attention, YOUR 1DX is the red line, note how IT'S MOSTLY AT THE BOTTOM of every chart.
> 
> ....



Assuming those measurements are accurate, to what extent to any of those gaps in performance result in a visible difference in a photo? I get the low ISO shadow noise thing (I've seen it myself readily enough on the few occasions it's mattered), but the rest?


----------



## sdsr (Jun 5, 2014)

GMCPhotographics said:


> Yes you can crop to a 100% to see the soft and mushy lens optics on a 36mp camera. You can see your AF being slightly off, and your camera shake being slightly more apparent. You can see all your lens defects more clearly and the real world resolution being only slightly higher than the 5DIII. Ho hum...but yes you can crop harder....



Sure; but if your focus isn't slightly off (with mirrorless cameras it's less likely to be), and camera shake isn't apparent (depending on who you are and the circumstances, this may be close to always), and the lenses are good enough (and far more are than some seem to want us to believe).... Are you speaking from personal experience?


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jun 5, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > I don't get one part of this. Sony has the only FF mirrorless body out there now - and it allows those in the canon system to buy it without having to do a complete switch (how many of you are there are using an a7 with canon lenses???). Mirrorless is new and may or may not take off - and if it does who knows what form it will take. Pro grade equipment or mass market equipment. so both Canon and Nikon are letting sony do the market research for them. Canon is actually in a good position considering with this - early adopters aren't selling off their gear to switch, most are keeping their canon gear and adding the sony...
> ...



Mind you, IMO, I see mirrorless differently than you. I see a major issue with mirrorless being the form factor - IE everything smaller and lighter. While that may appeal to some that doesn't apply to all of the market. Did sony put out a decent FF mirrorless? Yeah, they did but it's not without issues. What I absolutely love about the adapter right now is that it does prove a point that many would use mirrorless if it were in the same form factor as the current ecosystem. I'd rather wait until mirrorless jumps a few more steps, until it matures. think of it like this, there is a lot of real estate inside a 5d series body - Plenty of room to have it's native mount be EF (so all the L lenses we currently have work still, it's just another body upgrade then...). Little things like - without a Mirror to "slow things down," I want things like higher flash sync speeds--- little things like that!

Above and beyond all that though - Look at how many are loving the convenience of the adapter, now think of it - if an M5d (mirrorless 5D) were sitting on the shelves, would that not be a compelling product?


----------



## Aglet (Jun 5, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Above and beyond all that though - Look at how many are loving the convenience of the adapter, now think of it - if an M5d (mirrorless 5D) were sitting on the shelves, would that not be a compelling product?


IF it included the operational benefits you describe, then maybe yes. (it didn't work in the case of Pentax' K-01)

From what we see currently, people are using the A7r because it's providing the extra MP and DR you can't get anywhere else but Nikon at the moment and still allowing you to use your EF lenses.
So it's the ONLY option to choose from for a best-of-both-worlds compromise.


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 5, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Above and beyond all that though - Look at how many are loving the convenience of the adapter, now think of it - if an M5d (mirrorless 5D) were sitting on the shelves, would that not be a compelling product?



YES, YES YES! That's what I am waiting for. 

Everything the 5D IV should be ;-) in a mirrorless camera the size of the Sony A7. 
kick-ass FF sensor
kick-ass dual-pixel AF-system 
kick-ass EVF
fully electronic global shutter, no noise, no vibrations, no oil splattering, 
RT-commander built-in, 
WIFI built-in, properly implemented for full-featured wireless remote control apps 
EF-adaptor included in box; no hit in AF-performance using it
Priced like 5D 3 now

Plus launch of new native lens-lineup with matching compact AF-only lenses.


----------



## Aglet (Jun 5, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Actually, Olympus did most of the market research and it is now all done. Sony, Panasonic, Olympus and FUJIFILM are now applying the results of that research and reaping the benefits. By the time Canon (and Nikon and Pentax) finally get going, all those people who are willing to embrace new technology (in the form of mirrorless) will be already using other systems than theirs. Now, you might argue the adapted lens stance, but remember that a company like Canon does not make the bulk of its "photographic" profit from the sale of 600mm lenses ... they make it from the sales of xxxD/Rebel with a single kit lens jobbies.



Agreed, and with more on that
- Canon's so-so M is something of a failure but has niche uses, it could be improved easily enough and was not bad for a first attempt at something they're not sure how to do.

- Pentax' K-01 is a great imaging machine but seriously handicapped by being so large & heavy, and IMO, tied to the current K-mount. they could have made it compact, with a short register distance, and allowed legacy K-mount lenses to be supported to some extent with a simple adapter instead. Kind of like they did with that oddball Q system; another decent and useful little mirrorless system that might just be a bit TOO small to be taken seriously.

- Nikon's 1-system, seems to be well thought out but so far under-appreciated. The extreme performance of the new 1 V3 might change some minds tho. Fully kitted out with a grip and EVF it's kind of tempting but too costly to be justifiable if you don't really need its unique (speed) features.




> The future lies in (a) mirrorless and (b) high-MP mirrorless ... and the future is NOW.



Bang-on!


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jun 5, 2014)

Aglet said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > Above and beyond all that though - Look at how many are loving the convenience of the adapter, now think of it - if an M5d (mirrorless 5D) were sitting on the shelves, would that not be a compelling product?
> ...



That's part of my point --- people like it but only to a point. Case in point is that there is a D800 and it does have an ecosystem of lenses and support but canon folks are using the A7 because it has essentially the same sensor but no lens selling has to go down. I have no issues with using dual systems, and if I had more income I would probably have dual systems but it is a huge investment. 

Either way - a good point to really take note of is the big Q - how many canon folks are buying A7's for the DR/MP points vs how many truly want a mirrorless camera?


----------



## Aglet (Jun 5, 2014)

*Re: foolish internet trolls*



neuroanatomist said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > You confirmed my original comment to the letter. Your in denial and Sony sensor tech is better at the moment.
> ...



Yup, there's the weasel feces. 
Probably took him all night to find a weak angle to strategize to try sounding correct and all we get is semantics and attempts at personal attack, which, if anything, proves my point further.

Neuro, If I really need to explain the meaning of that data to you you're either too dense to get it (I doubt that) or too far in denial (more likely) to comprehend it.

geez, it's trying trying to argue with a borderline
I think RLP's right.
Maybe it's time to convene an intervention for you, maybe something with a 12-stop program?...


----------



## Aglet (Jun 5, 2014)

*Re: DOUBLE SMACKDOWN on Neuro*



sdsr said:


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



probably little in many cases, especially long-lens shots of low DR scenes.

the point is, neuro is trying to sell his brand of kool-ade with a skewed set of information and a poor behavioral attitude which he's always quick to accuse others of.

It's more a SMACKDOWN of neuro than of Canon.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 5, 2014)

*Re: DOUBLE SMACKDOWN on Neuro*



Aglet said:


> sdsr said:
> 
> 
> > Aglet said:
> ...



*Right. Because I was discussing differences above ISO 800, where apparently this is not too significant:
*






*But according to you, this is a 'smackdown':
*










Smackdown. You keep using that word - I do not think it means what you think it means. SHOUTING it doesn't help your arguments, but if helps your ego, that's fine.



Aglet, we know you think low ISO DR is the most important aspect, in some cases the only relevant aspect, of image quality. We know that you don't like Canon sensors becuase you apparently have a constant need to push exposures 4 or more stops in post. As I said, have fun shooting lens caps with your non-Canon sensors.


----------



## sdsr (Jun 5, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> That's part of my point --- people like it but only to a point. Case in point is that there is a D800 and it does have an ecosystem of lenses and support but canon folks are using the A7 because it has essentially the same sensor but no lens selling has to go down. I have no issues with using dual systems, and if I had more income I would probably have dual systems but it is a huge investment.
> 
> Either way - a good point to really take note of is the big Q - how many canon folks are buying A7's for the DR/MP points vs how many truly want a mirrorless camera?



I haven't a clue, but I like mine for both reasons (I was won over by mirrorless with an Olympus OM-D, well before there were any FF mirrorless bodies), and hope that Canon eventually come out with mirrorless options that are better than the M; I wouldn't even mind much if they were more-or-less APS-C size. Camera bodies which are essentially devices for attaching lenses to regardless of which system they were made for (which Sony FE mount bodies almost have to be so far, given the lack of native lenses) appeal to me, and of those I've tried Sony's conjure up the best image quality for my purposes. This does, however, seem almost the definition of a small niche market - the proportion of the camera-buying public interested in doing this is probably even smaller than the market for vintage fountain pens and recordings of classical music (to mention a couple of other tiny minorities I belong to)! 

(Incidentally, there seem to be some Nikon D800/e users who think the Sony A7r provides better image quality and have switched or at least supplemented - so they don't just appeal to non-Nikon users.)


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 6, 2014)

*Re: DOUBLE SMACKDOWN on Neuro*



neuroanatomist said:


> Aglet said:
> 
> 
> > sdsr said:
> ...


Again Nikon uses better sensors at every single ISO setting compared to equivalent canon body. IE: 1dx-d4s

But don't continue to deny Nikon is using better sensor tech. They are but real photogs don't care much about those scores anyway because lens selection is much more important. (Like you mentioned of the hand holding the new lighter vr.II super teles from canon.)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 6, 2014)

*Re: DOUBLE SMACKDOWN on Neuro*



dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > *Right. Because I was discussing differences above ISO 800, where apparently this is not too significant:
> ...



Still having trouble reading, I see. Go back and notice that I specified a use case involving high ISO, which is very common for me.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 6, 2014)

*Re: DOUBLE SMACKDOWN on Neuro*



RLPhoto said:


> Again Nikon uses better sensors at every single ISO setting compared to equivalent canon body. IE: 1dx-d4s



Again you don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 6, 2014)

*Re: DOUBLE SMACKDOWN on Neuro*



neuroanatomist said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Again Nikon uses better sensors at every single ISO setting compared to equivalent canon body. IE: 1dx-d4s
> ...



Again, Don't forget those aps cameras either and the 5d3-d800 and the Df.

Below - the 1dx is outperformed by the d4s at every iso setting (with the d3s besting it mostly too) and neuro is incorrect to say the 1dx is better at high ISO.


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 6, 2014)

*Re: DOUBLE SMACKDOWN on Neuro*



RLPhoto said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



You two continue to talk past each other.

Side 1 restricts the consideration to the parameters of particular interest, and draws a correct conclusion, e.g. 1DX at high ISO.

Side 2 chooses to address the product lines as a whole, judging generally better performance in Nikon sensors, which also seems to be a true statement, but which is not in conflict with Side 1.

Step 1: agree on the question.

Step 2: we'll never get to step 2.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 6, 2014)

*Re: DOUBLE SMACKDOWN on Neuro*



Orangutan said:


> Step 1: agree on the question.
> 
> Step 2: we'll never get to step 2.



We'll never get to step 1, because RLPhoto keeps changing the question. Here's the quick summary:

_*RLP:* Sony sensors are better than Canon, anyone who disagrees is in denial.

*Neuro:* The best Canon sensor is better than the best Sony sensor at higher than ISO 800

*RLP:* You confirmed my statement, Sony sensor tech is better. Check out the D4s.

*Neuro:* Sony doesn't make the sensor in the D4s.

*RLP:* I don't care if Nikon or Sony make the sensor. Nikon uses sensors in their cameras that are better at every ISO setting when you compare equivalent bodies.

*Neuro:* The 6D has better DR at high ISO than the D600.

*RLP:* What about some other cameras?_

It's a tactic that some people trolls like to use on the Internet. When shown information/data that contradict their statements, they pretend those data don't exist and then change their statements. It's a tactic that's also frequently employed by petulant children who refuse to admit when they're wrong.


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 6, 2014)

*Re: DOUBLE SMACKDOWN on Neuro*



neuroanatomist said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Step 1: agree on the question.
> ...



That was kinda my point: if you can't nail down the question, you won't agree on the answer. As a scientist, you're accustomed to being very precise about your questions and assumptions, and you expect readers of your work to do the same. Not so for the general population....



> It's a tactic that some people trolls like to use on the Internet. When shown information/data that contradict their statements, they pretend those data don't exist and then change their statements. It's a tactic that's also frequently employed by petulant children who refuse to admit when they're wrong.



While I agree with the above statements, it's also a typical (and sincere) behavior of perhaps the majority of the human race. I mean damn, you should know this: the human mind is not inherently rational. It takes very careful self-development to learn to overcome our inherent sloppiness and biases.

In this particular argument (actually, in most on this site) I think you're technically in the right. But for some of these folks it's not trolling, it's just a more "intuitive" and less "scientific" approach to debate. It's more "system 1" and less "system 2."


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 6, 2014)

*Re: DOUBLE SMACKDOWN on Neuro*



neuroanatomist said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Step 1: agree on the question.
> ...


You seem like the child here neuro. Sony or Nikon sensor, it was a loose term but instead your egotism can't let you lose an argument so I decided to draw you out and yet you are still wrong.

1. Posting comparisons between incorrect bodies. (1dx-d800?)
2. Then denying the equivalent sensor is better. (D4s>1Dx)
3. Then posting childish images. (Who's the child here?)
4. Cherry picks the one camera in a lineup (6D-d600) and ignores the rest as proof of better sensors.

Quite frankly, I think all these threads have rotted your mind. I find it crazy that such a person as yourself continues to defend what is hopelessly wrong. Canon sensors are behind Nikon sensors.

I don't care if they are but it seems to hurt you very much. That's why I went along with this because again, your in denial.

Since this is all too complicated for you, let me make it real simple.

Who has better sensors canon or nikon?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 6, 2014)

*Re: DOUBLE SMACKDOWN on Neuro*



Orangutan said:


> While I agree with the above statements, it's also a typical (and sincere) behavior of perhaps the majority of the human race. I mean damn, you should know this: the human mind is not inherently rational. It takes very careful self-development to learn to overcome our inherent sloppiness and biases.



True dat.


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 6, 2014)

*Re: DOUBLE SMACKDOWN on Neuro*



RLPhoto said:


> You seem like the child here neuro. Sony or Nikon sensor, it was a loose term but instead your egotism can't let you lose an argument so I decided to draw you out and yet you are still wrong.
> 
> Who has better sensors canon or nikon?



Again, you two simply don't agree on the *question!*

Neuro is arguing specifically about Nikon's best sensor against Canon's best sensor at ISO's above 800, and nothing more. If you limit the question to this, his position is supported by the data.

RLP is arguing across the product lines, regarding which brand has the broadly superior sensor performance. If you make the question as broad as that, then RLP's position is supported by the data.

Each of you is pretending that the other person is asking the wrong question, bu this is wrong: each of you is simply asking the question that's of personal interest to you.

Both of you take a timeout and learn to play nice!


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 6, 2014)

Is it around now that the Great Crested Grebe will make an appearance ?


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 6, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Is it around now that the Great Crested Grebe will make an appearance ?



That, or a giant cartoon foot from a Renaissance painting.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 6, 2014)

*Re: DOUBLE SMACKDOWN on Neuro*



Orangutan said:


> RLP is arguing across the product lines, regarding which brand has the broadly superior sensor performance. If you make the question as broad as that, then RLP's position is supported by the data.



To be clear, I agree that 'broadly' across camera lines, Nikon/Sony sensors have better low ISO dynamic range than Canon sensors. At higher ISOs for the semi/pro FF equivalent models (5DIII/D800, 1D X/D4s) there is no meaningful difference in DR.

Personally, I'd like better low ISO DR, but considering systems as a whole, the trade offs to get it aren't worth it…to me.


[quote author=RLPhoto]
Gear doesn't matter.
[/quote]

You made a blanket statement, I posted data showing that statement was incorrect. Deal with it. Or if you can't, don't. Either way, I'm done with the discussion.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 6, 2014)

*Re: DOUBLE SMACKDOWN on Neuro*



neuroanatomist said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > RLP is arguing across the product lines, regarding which brand has the broadly superior sensor performance. If you make the question as broad as that, then RLP's position is supported by the data.
> ...



You made a blanket statement, I posted data showing that statement was incorrect. Deal with it. Or if you can't, don't. Either way, I'm done with the discussion. 
[/quote]
I see gear is very very emotional and Important to your inner being neuro based on what you've posted. I didn't even have to post data because the data was already there to prove you were wrong. Even to the point where bodies were outperformed at every single ISO setting.

At least you stopped denying the obvious and I agree that sensors are only a miniscule portion of what makes a good camera. I'd personally never choose a d4s over a 1Dx but I'd never deny the advantages of the d4s does have.


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 6, 2014)

*Re: DOUBLE SMACKDOWN on Neuro*



RLPhoto said:


> At least you stopped denying the obvious



He never did deny any such, he simply restricted the question to one that was of interest to him. The problem, all along, was that you two were asking and answering different questions.

Sometimes that hard part of a debate (especially on-line) is knowing when the parties disagree on the question.


----------



## sdsr (Jun 6, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > Above and beyond all that though - Look at how many are loving the convenience of the adapter, now think of it - if an M5d (mirrorless 5D) were sitting on the shelves, would that not be a compelling product?
> ...



= I want it all! I want it now! And I want it cheap!

Well, there's no harm wishing.... (I would buy such a thing too, for that matter - even if it were bigger)


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 7, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Mind you, IMO, I see mirrorless differently than you. I see a major issue with mirrorless being the form factor - IE everything smaller and lighter. While that may appeal to some that doesn't apply to all of the market.



Actually, if you read most of my posts on this forum regarding mirrorless cameras, you'll notice that I in fact do say exactly that: that manufacturers must stop equating mirrorless with tiny.



Chuck Alaimo said:


> Did sony put out a decent FF mirrorless? Yeah, they did but it's not without issues.



I wouldn't know, as I went with FUJIFILM ... full-frame doesn't exactly fry my bacon.



Chuck Alaimo said:


> What I absolutely love about the adapter right now is that it does prove a point that many would use mirrorless if it were in the same form factor as the current ecosystem. I'd rather wait until mirrorless jumps a few more steps, until it matures. think of it like this, there is a lot of real estate inside a 5d series body - Plenty of room to have it's native mount be EF (so all the L lenses we currently have work still, it's just another body upgrade then...). Little things like - without a Mirror to "slow things down," I want things like higher flash sync speeds--- little things like that!
> 
> Above and beyond all that though - Look at how many are loving the convenience of the adapter, now think of it - if an M5d (mirrorless 5D) were sitting on the shelves, would that not be a compelling product?



If the Canon EOS 100D had been a mirrorless camera (even crippled as it is) or if the Canon EOS 70D had been a mirrorless camera, then I would have certainly bought either or both. But they're not and as Canon has given absolutely no indication that they'll ever do something of the sort, I went to another system ... because I needed a new camera *now* and Canon didn't have the goods *now*.


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 7, 2014)

Aglet said:


> Canon's so-so M is something of a failure but *has niche uses* ...



I am actually looking for one with the EF adapter to use on my copy-stand ... provided it can work off an AC adapter and save the (RAW) images directly to a computer ... very niche indeed, huh?


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 7, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Actually, if you read most of my posts on this forum regarding mirrorless cameras, you'll notice that I in fact do say exactly that: that manufacturers must stop equating mirrorless with tiny.



I see it the other way round: Canon AND prosumers need to stop equating "small size" with "inadequate functionality" 

camera industry needs to make the same shift company cars made about 10 years ago. Up to then "small car" meant "cheap car" meant "weak, shitty uninspiring car with poor performance, poor safety, poor acceleration, poors brakes, poor heating, poor lights, poor experience, poor and shitty everything. No advanced functions or luxury whatsoever". Think of a Hyundai Pony 1990s. Or a Vauxhall/Opel Astra. Or a Volkswagen Polo back then. 

And now think of a 2014 BMW Mini Cooper. Yes it is more expenseive than a large car was in 1995. BUT .. it delivers ... without any bulk.

I want a Canon FF-sensored SMALL mirrorless camera ... with FULL FUNCTIONALITY. AT a price that puts it relative to a fat 5D 3 or 1D-X exactly where a BMW Mini Cooper sits compared to a BMW 5-series sedan or 7-series or an X5. 

It can be done. Some Japanese makers have learned the lesson - Sony, Fuji (albeit they try to sell a regular Mini /APS-C at Cooper/FF prices). Canon and Nikon will have to follow soon .. or they will be taught a lesson.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jun 7, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, if you read most of my posts on this forum regarding mirrorless cameras, you'll notice that I in fact do say exactly that: that manufacturers must stop equating mirrorless with tiny.
> ...



See, this is what I don't get. As you (AVTVM) demand for smaller, FF, and mirrorless you - while on the other end you have sella who doesn't need FF and doesn't mind larger form factor. This is all being said in a thread about how canon must respond to the new d800, which isn't a mirrorless camera. 

So that brings me right back to the question I asked - how many canon users are buying A7's because of DR/MP, vs how many do in fact want/desire/need mirrorless? I would be willing to bet the latter is true, most are buying an A7 for DR/MP reasons. I draw this conclusion because the A7 appeals to a segment of folks who like canon and want to stay with canon but want more DR/MP now - folks with 10k in glass that they don't want to sell it all off to switch systems nor do they have the $$$ to add the additional system. these users can flirt with sony until canon does come out with a high MP body- because we all know it's gonna happen it's just a matter of when.


----------



## Roo (Jun 7, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, if you read most of my posts on this forum regarding mirrorless cameras, you'll notice that I in fact do say exactly that: that manufacturers must stop equating mirrorless with tiny.
> ...



You really need to pick better examples A BMW Mini Cooper is a much bigger car than the original Mini Cooper so it has plenty of 'bulk'. Similarly a new Toyota Corolla is now bigger in every dimension than a 1990 Camry and even the current Polo is a little bigger than the Golf Mk2. Hyundai were a developing brand in the 80s and 90s, much like the Japanese manufacturers were during the 60s and 70s, and now their pricing an features are much the same as everyone else. The majority of cars are far superior than those of 10 or more years ago but that doesn't make us better drivers.

I could point out that mobile phones went smaller and smaller but started to grow in size again once we realised we liked the features of a smartphone but then this whole conversation is now so far off the original thread topic now it's ridiculous.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Jun 8, 2014)

johnf3f said:


> Children please stop squabbling!
> If Canon don't make the high MP camera that you think you want/need the go buy from someone who does. It is pointless going on ad infinitum about what they don't make, if you really want 30+mp go buy it and stop whingeing. If there are enough of you then Canon will change their products - though when you discover (as I have) the advantages of more modest MP sensors we will welcome you back.



Yes that's right I am quoting myself!
I wish to retract this post as I feel it detracts from this thread, sorry for posting it folks.

I am having so much fun reading the complete ** here that I don't want it to stop! I am having a great laugh at it - please continue! It is a bit disappointing to read the lack of knowledge/experience of many posters (and I don't claim to be an expert) however it is quite amusing so please don't stop.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jun 8, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, if you read most of my posts on this forum regarding mirrorless cameras, you'll notice that I in fact do say exactly that: that manufacturers must stop equating mirrorless with tiny.
> ...



You think a 2014 Mini Cooper is exactly the same as a BMW 5-series (not even mentioning the other two lines) in a smaller package? How?

On topic: Companies like Canon do a lot of market research before plonking a FF sensor in a mirrorless body (and similar new models). They do not rely on intuition or what a few people might want- because it has to be profitable.
So if Canon isn't bringing out a mirrorless FF (so haven't anyone other than Sony yet) there must be an economically valid reason. 
Tell me, why hasn't Sony brought out those A7/r compatible lenses yet. Only 4 lenses for the world's only FF mirrorless camera, and they are more intent on bringing out a 3rd model. Please tell me this demonstrates an amazing demand of their existing FF models. IMO, it is because Sony is experiencing lower sales than expected in the mirrorless STILLS market and therefore brought out the A7s to give the line a shot in the arm through 4K video. They aren't sure of the viability of this line, so are not investing in new FF E-mount lenses until they see sales take off. 
It's a guess, but an informed one.


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 8, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> On topic: Companies like Canon *do a lot of market research* before plonking a FF sensor in a mirrorless body (and similar new models).



Proof? (And a budget isn't really proof ... it just means that the MR dept. knows how to spend money.)



sagittariansrock said:


> They do not rely on intuition or what a few people might want- because it has to be profitable.



A marketing dept. is "a few people" ... but that is not my point. Rather it is that if you give the "trendsetters" what THEY want, then the sheeple will follow. Basic marketing theory.



sagittariansrock said:


> So if Canon isn't bringing out a mirrorless FF (so haven't anyone other than Sony yet) there must be an economically valid reason.



They don't have the technology for it and purchasing said technology will make it unprofitable. So, yes, there is an economically valid reason.



sagittariansrock said:


> Tell me, why hasn't Sony brought out those A7/r compatible lenses yet. Only 4 lenses for the world's only FF mirrorless camera, and they are more intent on bringing out a 3rd model. Please tell me this demonstrates an amazing demand of their existing FF models.



Yes, Canon has made dozens of lens models, but how many do you actually need? Is the *EF 24-70mm f/2.8 II* and the *EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II* not sufficient for nearly everyone's FF needs?



sagittariansrock said:


> IMO, it is because Sony is experiencing lower sales than expected in the mirrorless STILLS market and therefore brought out the A7s to give the line a shot in the arm through 4K video. They aren't sure of the viability of this line, so are not investing in new FF E-mount lenses until they see sales take off.
> It's a guess, but an informed one.



Good guess, only partially correct. MY guess is that Sony is optimizing the various cameras for the various needs of various photographers. For those people who primarily do video, there's now the A7s; for those who primarily do stills, there's the A7r; and for those on a budget, there's the A7. Is Canon not doing the same with the 1DC, the 5DIII and the 6D cameras, respectively? Yes, they are.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 8, 2014)

*Re: DOUBLE SMACKDOWN on Neuro*



venaflaxine said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Great, another person in denial.


----------



## Roo (Jun 8, 2014)

*Re: DOUBLE SMACKDOWN on Neuro*



venaflaxine said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I'm surprised the found a D600 clean enough to get a reading off ;D


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 8, 2014)

*Re: DOUBLE SMACKDOWN on Neuro*



dilbert said:


> I don't get why people want to shoot with high ISO or case so much.



I disagree. You do get it 



dilbert said:


> At that point you've decided that getting the shot is more important than absolute IQ.



Exactly. It may not be as pretty as a low ISO studio shot, but you can't very well bring birds in flight into a studio setting. Noise > unintended motion blur.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 8, 2014)

dilbert said:


> I don't think it is me that is having trouble reading or comprehending
> 
> Person X: Vendor A's sensor is the best because the graph is better at ISO J
> 
> Person Y: NO! Vendor B's sensor is better because the graph is better at ISO K



If you don't think so, then I question your capacity for metacognition. 

Here's what was actually stated, put in simple statements analogous to yours, which might help you comprehend:

Person R: Vendor Q's sensor is the best. 

Person N: Vendor Q's sensor is not better at higher than ISO X, and here are data to support that claim. 



dilbert said:


> I don't get why people want to shoot with high ISO or case so much. At that point you've decided that getting the shot is more important than absolute IQ.



'Getting the shot' is what photography is all about – getting the shot is ALWAYS more important than 'absolute IQ'. 

If _you_ actually believe that 'absolute IQ', I'd say your a hypocrite unless you own a Phase One IQ280...and despite owning one, you don't use it because you know that soon the IQ380 will be out, then the IQ480, etc., so any pictures you take today will eventually have pretty poor IQ relative to the soon-to-be-current 'absolute IQ'.


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 8, 2014)

*Re: DOUBLE SMACKDOWN on Neuro*



3kramd5 said:


> ... but you can't very well bring birds in flight into a studio setting.



Go tell that to the BBC ... Anyone remember that flying geese setup they did with the bicycle?


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jun 8, 2014)

dilbert said:


> How many lenses a year does Canon introduce as new?
> How many new EF-S lenses has Canon brought out in the last year?
> How many new lenses for EOS-M did Canon announce with the new camera?



1. Canon has a long-term, stable range at the moment. They do not *need* to bring out a bunch every year.
2. Canon has vested interest in APS-C users going for EF lenses, as can be easily deduced. Nevertheless, point # 1 still works in this case.
3. Is it hard to see how much faith Canon has in the mirrorless market (which, ironically, validates my point). Just look at their investment in the last couple of years.



dilbert said:


> Yes, and?
> Do you think Canon developed the entire line of EOS lenses in one year? Or a hand full of years?



There is nothing to think, I believe in cold, hard facts. Canon introduced the EOS range with 12 lenses and an extender. In a couple of years, yes.



dilbert said:


> Or that you have misunderstood how long it takes to develop one new lens, not to forget the cost and difficulty.



As I showed above, I don't rely on subjective understanding but on objective data. It does take a long time to develop a lens from scratch, but not so much to adapt A-mount lenses that already exist to FF E-mounts. It is a more long-term and expensive route than asking users to utilize the adapter, so Sony will do that only if they know the FF E-mount will be worthwhile.
FYI, you think developing the new sensor and tech for the A7s did not take time, money or labor?






Sella174 said:


> Proof? (And a budget isn't really proof ... it just means that the MR dept. knows how to spend money.)



If I have to *prove* to you multi-million dollar firms conduct (effective) market research, then I give up. Do you also ask for proof that the earth revolves around the sun? How about a circumstantial evidence? Sony is down in the stocks and Canon turned a profit. Proof enough for you?



Sella174 said:


> A marketing dept. is "a few people" ... but that is not my point. Rather it is that if you give the "trendsetters" what THEY want, then the sheeple will follow. Basic marketing theory.



Marketing (sic= should be market research) dept doesn't count as the _few people_. They record what people want, they don't impose their _own_ wants.
Trendsetter based marketing is not a basic marketing theory. Is it what they taught you at school? You should ask for your money back. 
This is a very risky technique that will work only under certain conditions: Is the number of trendsetter significantly large? How likely are they to influence the rest of the market? Can the company sustain the slow growth in the beginning until the trend catches? What is the likelihood of competition waiting the initial lag phase and then ramping up just as the log phase is reached.



Sella174 said:


> They don't have the technology for it and purchasing said technology will make it unprofitable. So, yes, there is an economically valid reason.



Yes, that is one possibility. That is why I generalized it to an economically valid reason. However, unlike you I don't have access to Canon's business secrets to state it as a fact.



Sella174 said:


> Yes, Canon has made dozens of lens models, but how many do you actually need? Is the *EF 24-70mm f/2.8 II* and the *EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II* not sufficient for nearly everyone's FF needs?



Don't make such comments that make you look silly just for the sake of arguments. So this is why Sony isn't bringing out FF E-mount lenses? Because very few people need them? 
I am guessing you have never used a macro lens, or shoot small birds with a 70-200 f/2.8? 



Sella174 said:


> Good guess, only partially correct. MY guess is that Sony is optimizing the various cameras for the various needs of various photographers. For those people who primarily do video, there's now the A7s; for those who primarily do stills, there's the A7r; and for those on a budget, there's the A7. Is Canon not doing the same with the 1DC, the 5DIII and the 6D cameras, respectively? Yes, they are.



You are stating the obvious, and acting smug for doing so :. Of course the different A7 cameras cater to different markets; my point was, bringing out the A7s while the A7/r setup is still lacking the lenses might imply that the stills market isn't as profitable as they hoped, so they are trying to boost the entire line by bringing out the video-centric model.


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 8, 2014)

Sony will have a 15 lens lineup for A7, A7R and A7S within a year. They published a roadmap and are sticking to it.
I have yet to see a roadmap from Canon. Would love to know in advance, what they want to bring next.

I also LOVE the way Sony brings a "vdieo-optimized" A7S and charges MORE money for it. Rather than Canon compromising their stills cameras (DSLRs) with video vcrap and not charging anything for it. And then still being whined at all day long by the freakin magic lantern/video folks to give them even more video crap for free ... more zebra stripes, more peaking, more audio levels, more 4k, more mic inputs and other crap I do not want to have on my cameras and I do not want to pay for. I want video folks to buy freakin video cams .. Sony A7s or Canon C100, 200, 300, 400, 500 ... as they please. And PAY for it. Rather than trying to freeriding on bloody stills cameras all the time.

And I would want to buy a Sony A7/R because it is a COMPACT, CAPABLE and MIRRORLESS camera. Unfortunately it is NOT GOOD enough for me. Because Sony chose to put a 200 shot battery into that thing. Because Sony choose to put an inadequate AF-system into it. And most of all, beacause SOny did not get rid of all mechanical crap in i-t and chose to put a sub-par, vibration-inducing cheapo shutter MECHANISM into it, rather than a fully electronic, silent and vibration-free electronoc/global shutter. If they bring an improved A8R, I am going to buy it. Although I really prefer the Canon user interface and own a number of great Canon lenses.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jun 8, 2014)

AvTvM said:



> Sony will have a 15 lens lineup for A7, A7R and A7S within a year. They published a roadmap and are sticking to it.
> I have yet to see a roadmap from Canon. Would love to know in advance, what they want to bring next.
> 
> I also LOVE the way Sony brings a "vdieo-optimized" A7S and charges MORE money for it. Rather than Canon compromising their stills cameras (DSLRs) with video vcrap and not charging anything for it. And then still being whined at all day long by the freakin magic lantern/video folks to give them even more video crap for free ... more zebra stripes, more peaking, more audio levels, more 4k, more mic inputs and other crap I do not want to have on my cameras and I do not want to pay for. I want video folks to buy freakin video cams .. Sony A7s or Canon C100, 200, 300, 400, 500 ... as they please. And PAY for it. Rather than trying to freeriding on bloody stills cameras all the time.
> ...



A. I saw the roadmap. If Sony does stick to it then we will see. Till then, they will keep losing customers who don't want to wait. On the other hand, maybe they aren't sure there are so many customers to be had, and hence the slow, staggered roadmap- hedging bets.

B. Canon makes a lot of money selling dSLRs to videographers. That reduces cost for everyone, allows development of technology and provides excellent films made inexpensively to consumers. As a person who has personally never used his dSLR for videos, I congratulate the camera manufacturers on adding the excellent video features that don't _*compromise*_ anything for stills.

C. The battery capacity is hampered by an EVF. You cannot expect all the bells and whistles on a small camera, and also expect great battery life. What would Sony do, put solar panels on the camera to generate electricity? And you talk of shutter shock. The A7 doesn't have it. The megapixels not enough for you?


----------



## eml58 (Jun 9, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Sony will have a 15 lens lineup for A7, A7R and A7S within a year. They published a roadmap and are sticking to it.
> I have yet to see a roadmap from Canon. Would love to know in advance, what they want to bring next.



Was trying to stay out of this, but.

AvTvM, comparing Canon's & Sony's current & future Lens line up (by the inference of Canon/Sony roadmaps), is a little laughable.

Canon have perhaps ?? the best overall offering of Lenses in the current market, it's arguable I know, but if it's not the best, it's as close as any Canon user really needs, although we are a hard bunch to truly satisfy us Photographers. On release of the 5DMK III & 1Dx I believe Canon had something in the order of +60 EF lenses available to the Market, excludes anything that is EF but not Current, no idea what that number is.

I bought the a7r when released, I'm happy with the Camera for what I purchased it for, but Lenses ?? Sony just did an abysmal job for the future of the a7r in this area, they had 3 ?? Lenses available (excluding crop lenses not made for the a7r specifically), 3 lenses, maybe they had 4, that's it, and the best of those were the ones made by Zeiss, the 35 & later the 55.

Roadmap ?? next 12 months ??, the a7r has been in my hands for getting close to 12 months, and your talking in wondrous terms of "The Roadmap" to 15 lenses in the Next ?? 12 months ??

Personally I believe Sony put together a reasonably good product with the a7r, it's no 1Dx killer, but it will have it's share of a Market area, but with currently 4 to 6 Lenses available that do it justice, and I'm talking about Camera specific lenses made for the a7r, you know, like the EF lenses from Canon that are built specific to FF, specific to the current range of FF cameras that Canon put into the Market, what real future can the a7r have ??, wait 2 years for a choice of 15 Lenses ??

I imagine Sony will do what they unfortunately always do, another year down the road, 15 Lenses available to the a7r system, Sony will ditch the a7r manufacture & you will need to choose the new Sony whatever, maybe the 15 Lenses will fit the new Whatever, maybe not.


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 9, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> If I have to *prove* to you multi-million dollar firms conduct (effective) market research, then I give up.



I study what people/societies/companies/governments do, instead of what they say they do. My observations clearly show that Canon is marking time, because they have either absolutely no idea what the market wants, or they are incapable of providing it. Either way, a failure of effective market research.



sagittariansrock said:


> Do you also ask for proof that the earth revolves around the sun?



Depends on the point of reference: since the centre of the universe is unknown, everything revolves around everything else.



sagittariansrock said:


> How about a circumstantial evidence? Sony is down in the stocks and Canon turned a profit. Proof enough for you?



Those two "facts" are not equal: either directly compare stocks to stocks, or profit margins to profit margins.



sagittariansrock said:


> Marketing (sic= should be market research) dept doesn't count as the _few people_. They record what people want, they don't impose their _own_ wants.



Then (a) why does Canon cripple their cameras, and (b) doesn't bring out EF-S L-primes?



sagittariansrock said:


> Trendsetter based marketing is not a basic marketing theory. Is it what they taught you at school? You should ask for your money back.



The fashion industry, Apple, Microsoft, BMW ... you listening, 'cause you're wrong ... not.



sagittariansrock said:


> This is a very risky technique that will work only under certain conditions: Is the number of trendsetter significantly large? How likely are they to influence the rest of the market? Can the company sustain the slow growth in the beginning until the trend catches? What is the likelihood of competition waiting the initial lag phase and then ramping up just as the log phase is reached.



Is that not why marketing dept. receive the big bucks, to negate the risks?



sagittariansrock said:


> Yes, that is one possibility. That is why I generalized it to an economically valid reason. However, unlike you I don't have access to Canon's business secrets to state it as a fact.



See above.



sagittariansrock said:


> Don't make such comments that make you look silly just for the sake of arguments. So this is why Sony isn't bringing out FF E-mount lenses? Because very few people need them?



Haha!



sagittariansrock said:


> I am guessing you have never used a macro lens, or shoot small birds with a 70-200 f/2.8?



Macro lens: almost every week. 70-200mm f/2.8: I preferred my 400mm for LBJ's, and now use a Minolta RF 500mm with 2X converter.



sagittariansrock said:


> You are stating the obvious, and acting smug for doing so :. Of course the different A7 cameras cater to different markets; my point was, bringing out the A7s while the A7/r setup is still lacking the lenses might imply that the stills market isn't as profitable as they hoped, so they are trying to boost the entire line by bringing out the video-centric model.



And you're stating your same argument ...


----------



## 100 (Jun 9, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Sony will have a 15 lens lineup for A7, A7R and A7S within a year. They published a roadmap and are sticking to it.
> I have yet to see a roadmap from Canon. Would love to know in advance, what they want to bring next.


Can you provide a link to a roadmap published by Sony? 
I saw the one below, but the people at SonyAlpha rumors say it's "almost certainly fake". 







source: http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/almost-certainly-fake-but-i-love-it-the-super-sony-fe-lens-roadmap/


----------



## 100 (Jun 9, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > Do you also ask for proof that the earth revolves around the sun?
> ...



Unless your opinion is the center of the universe the sun doesn’t revolve around the earth.


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 9, 2014)

100 said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > sagittariansrock said:
> ...



It is always nice when people react in a predictable manner. (Did you even remotely understand what I wrote ... about relativity?)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 9, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> I study what people/societies/companies/governments do, instead of what they say they do. My observations clearly show that Canon is marking time, because they have either absolutely no idea what the market wants, or they are incapable of providing it. Either way, a failure of effective market research.
> 
> ...
> 
> Then (a) why does Canon cripple their cameras, and (b) doesn't bring out EF-S L-primes?



In fact, (a) is merely your personal, biased viewpoint. Canon produces cameras that meet the needs of the majority of dSLR buyers worldwide, and they've done so for well over 10 years. Regarding (b), obviously Canon has determined that a line of L-series lenses which work only on APS-C cameras would not add to overall profits. Most dSLR buyers have only the kit lens (sometimes two) that came with the camera. Many (most?) of those who buy multiple lenses aspire to a FF body, meaning less motivation to buy expensive lenses that would be incompatible (and from Canon's point of view, the converse is good – having EF lenses makes it easier for crop users to buy a more expensive, higher profit margin FF camera). 

My observations clearly show that you haven't got a clue about Canon's marketing strategy, most likely because you can't seem to accept that your own personal viewpoint is not aligned with the viewpoint of the *majority* of camera buyers. You're part of a very small minority of the camera market – deal with it.


----------



## 100 (Jun 9, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > Sella174 said:
> ...



No matter what other people say, you have to disagree, even about things like the earth revolving around the sun… 
Gravity is also pretty predictable, but in your relative reality Canons marketing department is probably an ignorant black hole with a mass far greater than the mass of the G-type main-sequence star we usually just call "sun".


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 9, 2014)

*Re: DOUBLE SMACKDOWN on Neuro*



dilbert said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly. It may not be as pretty as a low ISO studio shot, but you can't very well bring birds in flight into a studio setting. Noise > unintended motion blur.
> ...


LOL! I'd love me something like that


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 9, 2014)

eml58 said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Sony will have a 15 lens lineup for A7, A7R and A7S within a year. They published a roadmap and are sticking to it.
> ...



Just want to add to eml58's comment. I'm still waiting for FE UWA from zeiss/sony :


----------



## sdsr (Jun 9, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > If I have to *prove* to you multi-million dollar firms conduct (effective) market research, then I give up.
> ...



How do you know what "the market" wants, that Canon doesn't know what "the market" wants, or that Canon knows but can't or won't comply? Through your "observations" of what, exactly?


----------



## unfocused (Jun 9, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> I study what people/societies/companies/governments do, instead of what they say they do. My observations clearly show that Canon is marking time, because they have either absolutely no idea what the market wants, or they are incapable of providing it. Either way, a failure of effective market research.



Here we go again. What metric are you using to determine what the market wants? Because sales figures show Canon is doing a far better job than either Nikon or Sony of satisfying what the market wants. 



> Then (a) why does Canon cripple their cameras, and (b) doesn't bring out EF-S L-primes?



(a) I love it when people talk about "crippling" a product. This is simply code for saying that you want to pay for a t3i and get a 1Dx. Every company with every product line differentiates their products and models. 

(b) Prime lenses are a niche market. APS-C cameras are mass market products. It's likely that Canon's marketing department has done the research and found that there simply isn't a large enough market for "L" primes that function only on APS-C cameras. More importantly, this is only relevant with wide-angle lenses. Every prime lens Canon makes will fit on an APS-C body, including all the "L" versions. 

What doesn't exist are equivalent EF-S primes for common wide-angle focal lengths, and even in that case, you could argue that a 24mm prime is close enough to a 35mm to cover at least that range. Now, 24mm and 28mm you can't cover. But for every other focal length, existing Canon EF lenses are more than sufficient. 

In fact, one could easily argue that the existing range offers very good value for APS-C users. For $800 you can buy a 200mm f 2.8 prime that scales out to the same focal length as a $7,000 full frame lens (although admittedly you lose IS). Or, for $1,500 a 300mm F4 with IS that scales out somewhere between a $6,000 400mm and a $10,000 500mm.


----------



## Radiating (Jun 9, 2014)

Jglaser757 said:


> I've waited a long time for Nikon to recapture the lead on Nikon and their 36 mp camera. And now I read that Nikon will introduce an upgrade to the 800e in June. Why am I not jumping ship? I do have a lot of canon glass and have been a local customer. I own the mk III and 6d and I love the images .BUTT, COME ON ALREADY cCanon. Get your stuff together!



You do realize that there are only 6 lenses made in the world that can take advantage of more than 22.3 megapixels right? And then only when they are perfectly stopped down on a tripod.

Canon is not releasing a camera that has more than 22.3 megapixels because it is stupid to do so. It is like releasing a 8k TV when our content is barley HD, with a few 4k options, and a very small hand full of 8k options.

This is not a hard concept to understand. When your input for your device is around 10-25 megapixels in 99% of cases, having a much higher resolution is stupid.

If you still don't understand here's a photo with a Sigma 70mm Macro, taken on a tripod, this is one of the sharpest lenses in the world. One of the images is from a 5D Mark III, the other is from a D800. The 5D Mark III image has been scaled up to 36 megapixels.

100% crop






There is no difference.

If you are doing the kind of work that really does require 36 megapixels, and you have the technique and lenses to back it up then canon will soon be releasing a 40 megapixel specialty use camera for you, but for 99% of photographers anything more than 22 megapixels is a waste and a burden and makes your camera a worse tool.


----------



## sdsr (Jun 9, 2014)

eml58 said:


> I bought the a7r when released, I'm happy with the Camera for what I purchased it for, but Lenses ?? Sony just did an abysmal job for the future of the a7r in this area, they had 3 ?? Lenses available (excluding crop lenses not made for the a7r specifically), 3 lenses, maybe they had 4, that's it, and the best of those were the ones made by Zeiss, the 35 & later the 55.



If Sony's mirrorless cameras, like their Alpha-mounts, had IBIS, there would be a fairly easy temporary (or even permanent) solution courtesy of their best Alpha-E adapter, which provides AF for both their AF mechanisms and which evidently works at least as well as the AF on their Alpha-mount cameras. Apparently there are lots of excellent Alpha and Minolta lenses out there, but because they were designed for bodies with IBIS none of them have IS, which reduces their appeal somewhat (esp. the longer ones). What's more, the adapter removes one of the big advantages of mirrorless cameras - on-sensor focusing, with focus points all over the image area. 

So, no matter what, unless you're happy with the small number of FE lenses, the appeal of these cameras is limited to those who are willing to fool around with adapters, manual focusing, etc. I am (I rather like the manual process anyway, and it's far easier on mirrorless bodies), but I rather doubt many are - surely not enough to make this line a commercial success.


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 9, 2014)

sdsr said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > sagittariansrock said:
> ...



He has a full-length couture mirror.


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 9, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> In fact, (a) is merely your personal, biased viewpoint. Canon produces cameras that meet the needs of the majority of dSLR buyers worldwide, and they've done so for well over 10 years.





unfocused said:


> (a) I love it when people talk about "crippling" a product. This is simply code for saying that you want to pay for a t3i and get a 1Dx. Every company with every product line differentiates their products and models.



Kelvin WB is not available on the "entry-level" cameras, yet it is simply a piece of coding that is deliberately disabled/not included. Or the (apparent - I don't own one, just read about it on the forums) throttling of the SD slot in the 5D3 camera. Why is this done, as neither of these examples will turn said camera into a cheap-o 1DX equivalent camera?



neuroanatomist said:


> Regarding (b), obviously Canon has determined that a line of L-series lenses which work only on APS-C cameras would not add to overall profits. Most dSLR buyers have only the kit lens (sometimes two) that came with the camera. Many (most?) of those who buy multiple lenses aspire to a FF body, meaning less motivation to buy expensive lenses that would be incompatible (and from Canon's point of view, the converse is good – having EF lenses makes it easier for crop users to buy a more expensive, higher profit margin FF camera).



So what you are saying is that (a) Canon is primarily interested in the lucrative "entry-level", one kit lens-only market, thus per implication that the enthusiast with three or so lenses is unimportant; and that (b) the objective is to get everyone to eventually "upgrade" to FF gear, where the profit margin for Canon is ludicrously high. Are you serious? And are you genuinely OK with this?



unfocused said:


> (b) Prime lenses are a niche market. ...



Here we run again around the niche marketplace ... no thanks.


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 9, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> He has a full-length couture mirror.



No, because it wouldn't work ... my kind doesn't reflect in mirrors.


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 9, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Kelvin WB is not available on the "entry-level" cameras, yet it is simply a piece of coding that is deliberately disabled/not included.


Some advanced features are left out, in part, because they generate expensive support calls. E.g.. AFMA is not useful to many Rebel Users, but would probably generate a lot of self-inflicted focus wounds.



> Or the (apparent - I don't own one, just read about it on the forums) throttling of the SD slot in the 5D3 camera. Why is this done, as neither of these examples will turn said camera into a cheap-o 1DX equivalent camera?


If true, this would be a legitimate gripe: a 5D should not be throttled.



> So what you are saying is that (a) Canon is primarily interested in the lucrative "entry-level", one kit lens-only market high volume market and thus per implication that the enthusiast with three or so lenses is unimportant; another market segment to be addressed separately, and that (b) the objective is to get everyone to eventually "upgrade" to FF gear, where the profit margin for Canon is ludicrously high almost as high as Apple's profits on the iPhone.



FTFY



> Are you serious? And are you genuinely OK with this?


Last time I checked, the Universe didn't care whether I'm OK with profit-seeking behavior on the part of a faceless multi-national corporation who sell a product I can live without.


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 9, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > He has a full-length couture mirror.
> ...


I've noticed


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 9, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> Some advanced features are left out, in part, because they generate expensive support calls. E.g.. AFMA is not useful to many Rebel Users, but would probably generate a lot of self-inflicted focus wounds.



Classifying a "feature" as "advanced" is irrelevant. What matters is whether it is purely firmware-based and excluded. If so, then the camera IS deliberately crippled ... and thus both *neuroanatomist* and *unfocused* are wrong. So what do YOU want to be: right or wrong?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 9, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Kelvin WB is not available on the "entry-level" cameras, yet it is simply a piece of coding that is deliberately disabled/not included. Or the (apparent - I don't own one, just read about it on the forums) throttling of the SD slot in the 5D3 camera. Why is this done, as neither of these examples will turn said camera into a cheap-o 1DX equivalent camera?



If you ask a typical 'entry level' user (those who buy the majority of cameras), may very well think "Kelvin" is a character on the TV show Lost, or an offensive guard for the Pittsburgh Steelers. Of those who know that it's a unit of temperature (albeit one they've never seen on a thermometer), almost none of them will associate it with _color_ temperature for white balance (assuming they even set WB to anything other than Auto, assuming they even get their cameras out of fully automatic mode). Maybe you feel the need for Kelvin WB on an entry-level dSLR…but once again, you are in the *minority* (an even more miniscule minority than usual, in this case).

As for the SD slot in the 5DIII, most likely the camera had simply entered the design-locked period of development when the Secure Digital UHS-I standard came out. Perhaps it escaped your notice that the SD slots in the 1DsIII and 1D IV are similarly 'throttled'. The 6D is compliant with UHS-I and supports faster SD card writes, as are all cameras of a more recent design age than the 5DIII (e.g. 70D, T5i/650D, EOS M). 



Sella174 said:


> So what you are saying is that (a) Canon is primarily interested in the lucrative "entry-level", one kit lens-only market, thus per implication that the enthusiast with three or so lenses is unimportant; and that (b) the objective is to get everyone to eventually "upgrade" to FF gear, where the profit margin for Canon is ludicrously high. Are you serious? And are you genuinely OK with this?



For the 'enthusiast with three or so lenses' there are EF-S lenses that deliver excellent IQ (10-22, 17-55/2.8, 15-85), and there are L-series lenses. Canon has provided those folks with plenty of options. 

Canon is primarily interested *making a profit*. A market segment is important to them only insofar as it has the potential to generate that profit. Whether or not you, me, or anyone else is 'genuinely OK with' that is totally irrelevant to Canon.


----------



## traingineer (Jun 9, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> If you ask a typical 'entry level' user (those who buy the majority of cameras), may very well think "Kelvin" is a character on the TV show Lost, or an offensive guard for the Pittsburgh Steelers. Of those who know that it's a unit of temperature (albeit one they've never seen on a thermometer), almost none of them will associate it with _color_ temperature for white balance (assuming they even set WB to anything other than Auto, assuming they even get their cameras out of fully automatic mode).



Very true, my tech class had a few lessons on photography, how to use a DSLR (a bunch of 1000D cameras) and how to use the cameras as an "art" tool. The big problem though, was that no one knew how to turn on the DSLRs, or put it into full auto mode. ;D (BTW this was when I was in the 9th grade)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 9, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Classifying a "feature" as "advanced" is irrelevant. What matters is whether it is purely firmware-based and excluded. If so, then the camera IS deliberately crippled ... and thus both *neuroanatomist* and *unfocused* are wrong. So what do YOU want to be: right or wrong?



So…Canon should put every possible feature under the sun into every camera model, even if they won't be used by 99% of the owners? When trying to help someone AFMA their Nikon body+lenses, we had to scroll down through 3-4 screens of menu options in one of the several available categories (and it was not in the most logical category, the one to do with focusing) to find the AF Fine Tune option. That level of menu complexity is pointless and even detrimental to the majority users. 

You can call that crippled if you want, but it may be more appropriate to describe it as an optimized user interface. That was one reason for the initial success of the Mac OS, and the subsequent attempts of Microsoft and others to copy many elements of that intuitive, user-friendly interface.


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 9, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Some advanced features are left out, in part, because they generate expensive support calls. E.g.. AFMA is not useful to many Rebel Users, but would probably generate a lot of self-inflicted focus wounds.
> ...



I always find your black/white thinking amusing...or something.

You're pulling out your personal definition of "crippled:" to my mind, it's not merely a matter of whether a no-cost feature was removed, but whether that feature would be expected to be used by the vast majority of users of the product.

For example, removing the "Japanese" language features from a product that's being marketed in China, but not in Japan, can't really be considered crippling since one can't reasonably expect that feature to be used.

You should re-examine your logic when you find yourself mincing words to manufacture a "win."


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jun 9, 2014)

@Sella174:

Most of your points have been properly addressed by other forum members, so I shall just add a few points:

1. You say you study people/societies/companies/governments: Do you mean professionally (for your sake, I rather hope not)? If not, what is the method of observation? What parameters or metrics do you use, for example, to say Canon is clueless about what the market wants. An experienced analyst will have access to the market demands as well as evidence of Canon's ignorance in this case. Do you? 
It is okay if you do not know, but to not know and pretend to is not going to work in a forum filled with intelligent people.

2. The fact that earth revolves around the sun does not depend on the point of reference. Even if sun and earth are revolving around something, still the statement is true. For example, even though the earth and the moon are both encircling the sun, it is correct to say the moon revolves around the earth.

3. Profit margins and stocks aren't equal, but they are connected. In either case you aren't comparing any tangible parameters at all, just blowing hot air, so you should be one to talk!

4. Crippling cameras: IMO putting a low-speed SD card slot on the 5DIII was a mistake. Maybe they didn't have enough stocks of a high-speed slot and decided to go with what they had (just an example). Whatever the reason, no one is arguing every single move by Canon is a well-thought out one. Just that most are, all the big ones are. I think the same is true for illumination (or lack thereof) of AF points on the 5DIII. However, AFMA on Rebels: it is standard for entry level items not to come with luxury extras (yes, AFMA is a luxury that you only need with fast, accurate lenses- on a f/3.5-5.6 zoom it does not matter). When you want regular coffee, all you get with it is cream. You buy a latte for twice the price, you get steamed milk. That's how all companies serve- you pay a premium for premium services. Doesn't matter how much it costs to offer it.

L EF-S prime: Who will an EF-S L prime serve? Every single person who wants to buy a crop camera is either someone who never plans to upgrade and will be happy with kit lenses OR has an eye on upgrading in the near future. The former do not care about primes, and the latter will benefit from buying FF-compatible lenses. And you must agree, Canon has brought out excellent non-L primes for very reasonable prices (ok, eventually reasonable). A friend of mine, quite well off, didn't buy the 35/1.8 because it wasn't part of a kit. Even though she specifically wanted to shoot low-light images of her toddler. She settled for the 50/1.8 just because it is cheaper. So, where is the market for an L EF-S prime?

5. You cite some random companies- does that imply trendsetter-based marketing is the usual strategy. Yes, it is occasionally applied (under the situations I mentioned), but generally marketing strategy is very conservative and incremental. Even then, your examples show nothing. How about one single proper illustration of the concept (there are many examples out there, I just want to see if you know what you are talking about).

6. You use macros and telephotos and yet say the two f/2.8 zooms serve everyone. Good one, I think I shall stop wasting my time arguing with you at this point.


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 9, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> If you ask a typical 'entry level' user (those who buy the majority of cameras), may very well think "Kelvin" is a character on the TV show Lost, or an offensive guard for the Pittsburgh Steelers. Of those who know that it's a unit of temperature (albeit one they've never seen on a thermometer), almost none of them will associate it with _color_ temperature for white balance (assuming they even set WB to anything other than Auto, assuming they even get their cameras out of fully automatic mode). Maybe you feel the need for Kelvin WB on an entry-level dSLR…but once again, you are in the *minority* (an even more miniscule minority than usual, in this case).



The Kelvin scale is part of the science curriculum taught in secondary schools over here in southern Africa.

But given what you've written, why does Canon then include that colour-shift graph thing in ALL THEIR CAMERAS?



neuroanatomist said:


> As for the SD slot in the 5DIII, most likely the camera had simply entered the design-locked period of development when the Secure Digital UHS-I standard came out. Perhaps it escaped your notice that the SD slots in the 1DsIII and 1D IV are similarly 'throttled'. The 6D is compliant with UHS-I and supports faster SD card writes, as are all cameras of a more recent design age than the 5DIII (e.g. 70D, T5i/650D, EOS M).



I said I just wrote what I've read ... yet you pounce ... on nothing!



neuroanatomist said:


> For the 'enthusiast with three or so lenses' there are EF-S lenses that deliver excellent IQ (10-22, 17-55/2.8, 15-85), and there are L-series lenses. Canon has provided those folks with plenty of options.



None of those three are primes. All L-primes are "full-frame" and a thus "wasted" on a "crop-frame" camera.



neuroanatomist said:


> Canon is primarily interested *making a profit*. A market segment is important to them only insofar as it has the potential to generate that profit. Whether or not you, me, or anyone else is 'genuinely OK with' that is totally irrelevant to Canon.



In order to make a profit, COMPANY must sell stuff to consumers. If the consumers do not like what COMPANY offers, then COMPANY doesn't sell stuff and thus COMPANY doesn't make a profit. Irrelevant indeed.


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 9, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> @Sella174:
> 
> Most of your points have been properly addressed by other forum members, so I shall just add a few points:
> 
> 1. You say you study people/societies/companies/governments: Do you mean professionally (*for your sake, I rather hope not*)?



The bold part is as far as I read your post. If you cannot post without making personal remarks, then whatever you have to say is not worth it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 9, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> The Kelvin scale is part of the science curriculum taught in secondary schools over here in southern Africa.
> 
> But given what you've written, why does Canon then include that colour-shift graph thing in ALL THEIR CAMERAS?



Yes, it's taught here, too. Being taught about something in the past (in some cases many years ago) does not guarantee that it will be remembered today, much less that it will be applied in a totally different context from that in which it was originally presented. 

Who knows why the WB shift is in all cameras? Perhaps it was coded by a sloppy programmer with multiple hooks in and out, and would be a PITA to remove the code. 



Sella174 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > As for the SD slot in the 5DIII, most likely the camera had simply entered the design-locked period of development when the Secure Digital UHS-I standard came out. Perhaps it escaped your notice that the SD slots in the 1DsIII and 1D IV are similarly 'throttled'. The 6D is compliant with UHS-I and supports faster SD card writes, as are all cameras of a more recent design age than the 5DIII (e.g. 70D, T5i/650D, EOS M).
> ...



Oh, ok…so you just parroted back a criticism written by others, without any thought on your part (other than to present it as your own argument), and when shown there's a perfectly logical explanation for the feature being absent in the 5DIII and present in newer cameras, yoy make excuses and it suddenly becomes 'nothing'.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 9, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> In order to make a profit, COMPANY must sell stuff to consumers. If the consumers do not like what COMPANY offers, then COMPANY doesn't sell stuff and thus COMPANY doesn't make a profit. Irrelevant indeed.



Well...at last we have come full circle. 

Canon is making a profit. It is in fact, performing better than its competitors. It is also selling more product than its competitors. So: more profit.. more sales. 

By your own admission, that would prove that consumers do like what the company offers. Because who would be buying these products if it isn't consumers?

So, we are really back to where we began. No company is going to pursue 100% of the market. The incremental cost to do so far exceeds the rewards. Apparently, your wants/needs fall into the area where, at least to date, Canon does not see sufficient profit to pursue recapturing you as a customer. 

Perhaps at some point in the future they will offer a product you personally want. 

Glad to see you finally agree with the points that most everyone else here has already made numerous times.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jun 9, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > @Sella174:
> ...



It's an objective statement. If someone is poor at studying markets and that is what he has taken up as his profession, then it's not going to work out very well, is it? Your tall claims make it sound like you are a market strategist, but your observations are vague and unfounded. What do you expect one to conclude? Either you are a very ineffectual market analyst, or someone without the expertise, making comments based on nothing.
In any case, any impression of personal attack was unintentional and I extend my apologies.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jun 9, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > If you ask a typical 'entry level' user (those who buy the majority of cameras), may very well think "Kelvin" is a character on the TV show Lost, or an offensive guard for the Pittsburgh Steelers. Of those who know that it's a unit of temperature (albeit one they've never seen on a thermometer), almost none of them will associate it with _color_ temperature for white balance (assuming they even set WB to anything other than Auto, assuming they even get their cameras out of fully automatic mode). Maybe you feel the need for Kelvin WB on an entry-level dSLR…but once again, you are in the *minority* (an even more miniscule minority than usual, in this case).
> ...



I kind of think you want canon to go bankrupt with this idea that a few want it so it must be so because the logical points are on the contrary to what your saying. EF lenses are designed for FF, yes, but that doesn't mean that they don't work and that doesn't mean that they don't work quite well. Also, you seem to not understand that the vast majority of cop users don't want a lens that doesn't zoom, nor do they want to pay more than $300 for a lens. It would be mostly wasted money putting out a line of 'L' series EF-S lenses. It makes way more sense to have all the L's EF - L lenses are not eveyone lenses - for one they are specialized and 2 they are pricey - 1 L lens is likely to cost more than the average user is willing to pay for their whole kit. And then add that what if, what if they decide to take it to the next level but they've already spent a ton of $$$ on expnsive EF-s lenses - that's a disgruntled customer who will be more liklely to switch systems because they have to replace EVERYTHING anyways. 

and yes, I do have to side with the rest of folks here - the average slr user will never learn anything about photography. I just recently had one of those average users asking me a ton of questions at a gathering. I showed her the modes, explained what the manual controls did, showed her how to manipluate it. I'd watch her walk off and snap some shots...within a minute she's back on auto, pop up flash and all. 

the average user just doesn't get it, nor do they really want to - it's that idea of if i pay more then i have to do less - hence why so many people look at a pro's work and say --- wow, you must have a nice camera. LOL, for a while I got really pissed everytime that got said to me, I immediately took it as an insult - that there's no skill involved - just a nice camera and any monkey can push the button. Then I realized that it isn't an insult - they just don't know any better - nor do they really want to. Now I am not saying every entry level slr user falls into these categories, but, that is what drives the market - soccer moms buying an slr at bestbuy...so yeah, advanced features like WB and other things like that would be lost on the vast majority of users ---

while kelvin may be tough in science class, science class doesn't relate it to colors - this is what I leanred of Kelvin in high school - "The kelvin is a unit of measurement for temperature. It is one of the seven base units in the International System of Units (SI) and is assigned the unit symbol K. The kelvin scale is an absolute, thermodynamic temperature scale using as its null point absolute zero, the temperature at which all thermal motion ceases in the classical description of thermodynamics. The kelvin is defined as the fraction 1⁄273.16 of the thermodynamic temperature of the triple point of water (exactly 0.01 °C or 32.018 °F).[1] In other words, it is defined such that the triple point of water is exactly 273.16 K." Basically, science class was not a photography class for us. Hell, I don't even remember it being brought up in the photography classes I did take.


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 9, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> In any case, any impression of personal attack was unintentional and I extend my apologies.



Accepted, and therefore a shall read the rest of your post.



sagittariansrock said:


> 1. You say you study people/societies/companies/governments: Do you mean professionally (...)? If not, what is the method of observation? What parameters or metrics do you use, for example, to say Canon is clueless about what the market wants. An experienced analyst will have access to the market demands as well as evidence of Canon's ignorance in this case. Do you?
> It is okay if you do not know, but to not know and pretend to is not going to work in a forum filled with intelligent people.



I look at what others do, try to determine why they do it, then look whether it succeeds or not. Then, when I see somebody else doing the same that has already failed, I conclude that else isn't exactly thinking.



sagittariansrock said:


> 2. The fact that earth revolves around the sun does not depend on the point of reference. Even if sun and earth are revolving around something, still the statement is true. For example, even though the earth and the moon are both encircling the sun, it is correct to say the moon revolves around the earth.



I said, and I quote, "everything revolves around everything else". It was *100* who unfortunately misinterpreted that to mean that the sun revolves around the earth.



sagittariansrock said:


> 3. Profit margins and stocks aren't equal, but they are connected. In either case you aren't comparing any tangible parameters at all, just blowing hot air, so you should be one to talk!



Yes, they are connected ... only not in the way you connected them. You cannot directly compare the profit margin of Company A to the value of the stocks of Company B, and then draw conclusions based on it.



sagittariansrock said:


> 4. Crippling cameras: ... However, AFMA on Rebels: it is standard for entry level items not to come with luxury extras (yes, AFMA is a luxury that you only need with fast, accurate lenses- on a f/3.5-5.6 zoom it does not matter). When you want regular coffee, all you get with it is cream. You buy a latte for twice the price, you get steamed milk. That's how all companies serve- you pay a premium for premium services. Doesn't matter how much it costs to offer it.



That is a very condescending attitude towards owners of "Rebel" cameras. It is also, IMO, a shortsighted one if you are in the business of selling cameras AND LENSES. Basically, you are excluding an owner of a "Rebel" camera from purchasing an L-prime; from which this person will probably migrate to FF as and when the ol' wallet permits.

It is very interesting when we compare this attitude of removing "advanced" features by certain camera manufacturers with what other companies do. Take, for example, Microsoft and how they are packaging their Office program. Oh, yes, they have various different packages containing different combinations of the programs. But Word is Word, irrespective of whether it is the Student or the Full version. And how many features of Word or Excel does the average user use? I've read figures of 20% ... but it is not the same 20% for everyone. Thus Word is usable by a really wide audience, i.e. big market.



sagittariansrock said:


> L EF-S prime: Who will an EF-S L prime serve? Every single person who wants to buy a crop camera is either someone who never plans to upgrade and will be happy with kit lenses OR has an eye on upgrading in the near future. The former do not care about primes, and the latter will benefit from buying FF-compatible lenses. And you must agree, Canon has brought out excellent non-L primes for very reasonable prices (ok, eventually reasonable). A friend of mine, quite well off, didn't buy the 35/1.8 because it wasn't part of a kit. Even though she specifically wanted to shoot low-light images of her toddler. She settled for the 50/1.8 just because it is cheaper. So, where is the market for an L EF-S prime?



Are you not now doing what you are accusing me of doing: basing a statement of fact on a single person? But that aside, yes, "eventually reasonable" because nobody bought them and Canon HAD TO LOWER the price to get units moving off shelves.

Also, really, not everyone aspires towards a FF camera ... well, at least not until Canon gets the pixel density up to the same as their current APS-C sensors.



sagittariansrock said:


> 5. You cite some random companies- does that imply trendsetter-based marketing is the usual strategy. Yes, it is occasionally applied (under the situations I mentioned), but generally marketing strategy is very conservative and incremental. Even then, your examples show nothing. How about one single proper illustration of the concept (there are many examples out there, I just want to see if you know what you are talking about).



One single example, huh? How about the fashion industry? Who sets the trends? Definitely those folks at Cannes, the Oscars and, in Europe, of the royal families. Who does not set the trend? Sods like me who wear functional clothes ... usually mud encrusted and grime smeared.



sagittariansrock said:


> 6. You use macros and telephotos and yet say the two f/2.8 zooms serve everyone. Good one, I think I shall stop wasting my time arguing with you at this point.



The point of debate was that Sony only has four lenses for the FE-mount, but Canon has a gazillion and one. My point was simply that of all the available Canon lenses, those two (the 24-70mm and the 70-200mm) are the lenses most recommended BY MEMBERS OF THIS FORUM to others seeking advice on purchasing a lens (of the L-zoom-type). So, the deduction is that if everyone recommends them, then, on the assumption that they also actually own them, those two lenses are the lenses that suffices in most consumers' needs.


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 9, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> ...



OK, I get it. Canon is playing the numbers game: the once-off sale of a "Rebel" camera to a "soccer mom" is sustainable because there are 4 billion people on earth. No way that market is ever going to dry up.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jun 9, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



4 billion, yup, and those 4 billion are making more babies too. These are the folks that buy camera kits like they buy phones - next model, gotta get it. 

Canon and nikon both do this same game - they have their pro gear and the prosumer gear then the rest of it. People looking to get a decent camera for under $1000 aren't buying L lenses!!!!!! - whether their prime or not, they won't be buying them unless they learn a thing or 2 and want to learn more about photography - and even then they may opt for something like the 50 1.4 because it's close to 1k cheaper.



Sella174 said:


> That is a very condescending attitude towards owners of "Rebel" cameras. It is also, IMO, a shortsighted one if you are in the business of selling cameras AND LENSES. Basically, you are excluding an owner of a "Rebel" camera from purchasing an L-prime; from which this person will probably migrate to FF as and when the ol' wallet permits.



Gotta say something about this ---Rebel owners aren't excluded from any of L lenses - in fact, it's FF owners who are excluded from using EF-S lenses. Hell, some even LIKE using L glass on crop cameras because of the crop factor - one can make a very valid argument that things like soft corners aren't an issue as much using L glass (not just primes) on crop because your getting the sweet spot of the lens! Either way, on any given day if you followed the path of 100 first time slr buyers, how many of them will actually pursue photography in more than a very casual manner? My guess is not that many. I am not saying that in spite, or to be insulting - whats wrong with just wanting a nice camera to take pics of the kids????


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 9, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > Chuck Alaimo said:
> ...



Chuck, you sound like you have an understanding of the viewpoint of the *majority* of dSLR buyers. Fortunately for Sella174 (and unfortunately for the rest of us), I don't think comprehension is contagious…


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 9, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Gotta say something about this ---Rebel owners aren't excluded from any of L lenses - in fact, it's FF owners who are excluded from using EF-S lenses. Hell, some even LIKE using L glass on crop cameras because of the crop factor - one can make a very valid argument that things like soft corners aren't an issue as much using L glass (not just primes) on crop because your getting the sweet spot of the lens! Either way, on any given day if you followed the path of 100 first time slr buyers, how many of them will actually pursue photography in more than a very casual manner? My guess is not that many. I am not saying that in spite, or to be insulting - whats wrong with just wanting a nice camera to take pics of the kids????



I completely agree with that in general.

However, why do the "higher-end" cameras have (or should that be, need) AFMA? Whatever the reason (manufacturing tolerances or deliberate), just because the "Rebel" jobbies lack said functionality, an L-prime in all probability will not work/focus 100% (or even 98%) on said "Rebel" camera(s). This effectively prevents "Rebel" owners from using L-primes on their cameras ... or the other way around, preventing people already owning L-primes from using "Rebel" cameras. (To prove last statement, the 700D is a better camera than my ancient 30D ... in most respects. It thus prevents upgrading through downgrading.)


----------



## 100 (Jun 9, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> I said, and I quote, "everything revolves around everything else". It was *100* who unfortunately misinterpreted that to mean that the sun revolves around the earth.



If everything revolves around everything else, the sun must also revolve around the earth unless the sun and/or the earth aren’t part of everything.
So what’s next? Your “expertise” on the subject of semantics?


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 9, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Chuck, you sound like you have an understanding of the viewpoint of the *majority* of dSLR buyers. Fortunately for Sella174 (and unfortunately for the rest of us), I don't think comprehension is contagious…



But why, o great *neuroanatomist*, do you not then conform to the majority of DSLR owners and own only a "Rebel" with a single kit lens. Why, oh, why have you turned your back on the majority ... and joined the minority by purchasing a 1DX and heaps of L-glass?


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jun 9, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > Gotta say something about this ---Rebel owners aren't excluded from any of L lenses - in fact, it's FF owners who are excluded from using EF-S lenses. Hell, some even LIKE using L glass on crop cameras because of the crop factor - one can make a very valid argument that things like soft corners aren't an issue as much using L glass (not just primes) on crop because your getting the sweet spot of the lens! Either way, on any given day if you followed the path of 100 first time slr buyers, how many of them will actually pursue photography in more than a very casual manner? My guess is not that many. I am not saying that in spite, or to be insulting - whats wrong with just wanting a nice camera to take pics of the kids????
> ...



What I really don't get is ----outside of the the majority of the market, people who learn and want to step up and buy nicer gear ---if they are at that place then they would know what bodies can be calibrated and which can't. And sorry, if your at that stage and want to keep the budget low then you have to make compromises. You go with a used body, and rock your L prime on that. Or, accept the limitations and turn lemons into lemonade. 

Again, nothing is preventing anyone from using an L prime on a rebel - yes you won't get the same functions as some of the higher end bodies but that isn't stopping you from using them.


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 9, 2014)

100 said:


> If everything revolves around everything else, the sun must also revolve around the earth unless the sun and/or the earth aren’t part of everything.



Basic physics. Perhaps read a book about it ... or go watch Takalani Sesame.


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 9, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> What I really don't get is ----outside of the the majority of the market, people who learn and want to step up and buy nicer gear ---if they are at that place then they would know what bodies can be calibrated and which can't. And sorry, if your at that stage and want to keep the budget low then you have to make compromises. You go with a used body, and rock your L prime on that. Or, accept the limitations and turn lemons into lemonade.
> 
> Again, nothing is preventing anyone from using an L prime on a rebel - yes you won't get the same functions as some of the higher end bodies but that isn't stopping you from using them.



Again, I agree in essence with everything. From the perspective of the user/consumer it makes perfect sense to compromise and perhaps purchase secondhand.

However, for a company like Canon who is in the business of making a profit, nudging a customer towards purchasing a secondhand camera instead of a new one, is anathema ... or at least it should be.

OK, you could argue that A bought the camera from B, because B bought a new camera - this is one sale for Canon. But if A rather buys new, because the latest "Rebel" is better than what B is selling; and B anyway buys a new camera, then it is two sales for Canon ... and C buys B's camera, thus pulling in a third potential repeat customer. Next round we might see three sales for Canon and a fourth, fifth and sixth entrant. However, in the first scenario, only B ever buys a new camera and the rest buy secondhand (A from B, C from A, and so on) - it thus sticks to one sale for Canon, forever.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 9, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> However, why do the "higher-end" cameras have (or should that be, need) AFMA? Whatever the reason (manufacturing tolerances or deliberate), just because the "Rebel" jobbies lack said functionality, an L-prime in all probability will not work/focus 100% (or even 98%) on said "Rebel" camera(s). This effectively prevents "Rebel" owners from using L-primes on their cameras ... or the other way around, preventing people already owning L-primes from using "Rebel" cameras.



Lack of AFMA *prevents* Rebel/xxxD owners from using L-series primes on their cameras?!? Do you honestly believe that tripe? Wow. Just...wow. 

How many casual users pixel peep, much less conduct careful focus testing? I suspect not many, and what standard of comparison would a new L prime owner have? 

Most lenses (as judged by my testing of many and FoCal's aggregated data) seem to require just a few units of adjustment. That means half the depth of focus or less. Consumer lenses (slower than f/2.8 ) are accurate within one full depth of focus. An f/2.8 or faster lens (like most L-series primes...well, not my 600/4) is accurate to within 1/3 the depth of focus, so even needing (and not able to get) a 4-unit AFMA, the fast L-series prime will still fall within the precision range of the slower consumer lens that came with the Rebel. Then...there's noticing the problem in the first place. If the user shoots wide open, a slightly misfocused L prime may still appear sharper than the wide open kit lens (they can be great stopped down, but wide open isn't their forte). Finally, if the person does notice a problem, if the lens was bought new, Canon will calibrate it for free.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 9, 2014)

I would love to see actual numbers on the percentage and demographics of people who actually use AFMA. I would be willing to bet that among professionals, it is a very small minority. 

I suspect it is one of those features that camera forum readers obsess about, but photographers in the real world...not so much.


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 9, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Most lenses (as judged by my testing of many and FoCal's aggregated data) seem to require just a few units of adjustment. That means half the depth of focus or less. Consumer lenses (slower than f/2.8 ) are accurate within one full depth of focus. An f/2.8 or faster lens (like most L-series primes...well, not my 600/4) is accurate to within 1/3 the depth of focus, so even needing (and not able to get) a 4-unit AFMA, the fast L-series prime will still fall within the precision range of the slower consumer lens that came with the Rebel. Then...there's noticing the problem in the first place. If the user shoots wide open, a slightly misfocused L prime may still appear sharper than the wide open kit lens (they can be great stopped down, but wide open isn't their forte). Finally, if the person does notice a problem, if the lens was bought new, Canon will calibrate it for free.



So what you are saying is that AFMA is not really that much of a necessary feature ... that it is more of a plaything for gearheads? Or a gimmick to sell expensive cameras to gearheads?


----------



## 100 (Jun 9, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > If everything revolves around everything else, the sun must also revolve around the earth unless the sun and/or the earth aren’t part of everything.
> ...



“everything revolves around everything else” is basic physics? 
You mean like one of the Newton's laws of motion, or Kepler's laws of planetary motion?


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 9, 2014)

100 said:


> You mean like one of the Newton's laws of motion, or Kepler's laws of planetary motion?



Ain't Google great? Punch, punch, click ... and you have a plethora of cool names to amaze and impress all with.


----------



## 100 (Jun 9, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > You mean like one of the Newton's laws of motion, or Kepler's laws of planetary motion?
> ...



Sure, but please do explain which basic physics you are talking about when you say “everything revolves around everything else”.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 9, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> So what you are saying is that AFMA is not really that much of a necessary feature ... that it is more of a plaything for gearheads? Or a gimmick to sell expensive cameras to gearheads?



Of course not. Please don't try to put words in my mouth, especially not asinine ones. They taste bad. 

AFMA allows users to critically optimize the performance of their system. A bicycle used for competition racing needs to be meticulously tuned. The bike I ride to the store and back to pick up a few groceries...not so much. Maybe I'd like it to be, but honestly, in all likelihood I would even notice the difference. My bike ride for groceries is like dSLR use by the vast majority of Rebel/xxxD shooters.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 9, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> So what you are saying is that AFMA is not really that much of a necessary feature ... that it is more of a plaything for gearheads? Or a gimmick to sell expensive cameras to gearheads?



That is a distinct possibility.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 10, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> None of those three are primes. All L-primes are "full-frame" and a thus "wasted" on a "crop-frame" camera.



Obviously they are not wasted. A great many people shoot primes designed for 135 format image circles on smaller platforms (APS-H and -C). But I'm struggling with why you put the word in quotation marks. Are you purposefully arguing a point which you don't believe?




There was another post (not sure by whom, can't find it, maybe it was in a different thread) about a lack of frame-equivalent primes for small sensors. I have to ask the question: why would someone with no interest in a different sensor platform (e.g. a fully satisfied APS-C customer) care one iota about how his lenses frame on a different sensor platform? Gone, I think, are the days when long-time 135 format shooters made the transition to digital and would have experienced culture shock via crop factor." In the coming years, many or most new DLSR consumers will have no inkling of what a certain focal length would look like on a 35mm sensor, or larger formats for that matter. Crop factor is a useful tool for people like me who occasionally shoot with two platforms simultaneously. For folks who tend to stick with one, it's trivial information to relate one arbitrarially to another. Just buy the focal length you want for your subject and don't worry about what your subject would have looked like had you strapped your 200mm lens on an iphone.


This thread has really jumped the shark. It's devolved (amusingly so) into a series of skirmishes about "why doesn't Canon" or "why does Canon," all of which can be answered at once: because Canon doesn't / does think it worthwhile to the bottom line.


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 10, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> Obviously they are not wasted.



Yes, L-primes are wasted on a "crop-frame" camera, because one of the characteristics of L-primes - and also that which makes them more costly - is the better corner performance. Only on a "crop-frame" sensor these, shall we say, quality corners are discarded/disregarded/wasted.



3kramd5 said:


> But I'm struggling with why you put the word in quotation marks. Are you purposefully arguing a point which you don't believe?



Because terms like "full-frame" and "crop-frame" mean absolutely zip ... unless your point of reference is the old 35mm films and the lenses made for that size, like L-primes.



3kramd5 said:


> There was another post (not sure by whom, can't find it, maybe it was in a different thread) about a lack of frame-equivalent primes for small sensors. I have to ask the question: why would someone with no interest in a different sensor platform (e.g. a fully satisfied APS-C customer) care one iota about how his lenses frame on a different sensor platform? Gone, I think, are the days when long-time 135 format shooters made the transition to digital and would have experienced culture shock via crop factor." In the coming years, many or most new DLSR consumers will have no inkling of what a certain focal length would look like on a 35mm sensor, or larger formats for that matter. Crop factor is a useful tool for people like me who occasionally shoot with two platforms simultaneously. For folks who tend to stick with one, it's trivial information to relate one arbitrarially to another. Just buy the focal length you want for your subject and don't worry about what your subject would have looked like had you strapped your 200mm lens on an iphone.



Yes. I am of that singular crowd who would really like manufacturers to rather state the magnification factor of the lens, instead of the silly field of view equivalent.



3kramd5 said:


> This thread has really jumped the shark. It's devolved (amusingly so) into a series of skirmishes about "why doesn't Canon" or "why does Canon," all of which can be answered at once: because Canon doesn't / does think it worthwhile to the bottom line.



Or as we say: gone totally pear-shaped.


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 10, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Obviously they are not wasted.
> ...



FP. 

Do you measure your food to 0.1 gram accuracy to make sure all your meals are perfectly in accord with the recipes?

Dude, you worry too much about stuff that's just not worth worrying about.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 10, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Obviously they are not wasted.
> ...



One facet of a good lens can be corner performance (unless that's not what you want, e.g. 50L), but I don't know if it's fair to say that a lens is wasted because the sensor can't see the edges. I think most people using primes do so for speed. Not having zoom glass generally improves optical performance and weight too, but it's the max aperture that draws me to primes. YMMV.





Sella174 said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > But I'm struggling with why you put the word in quotation marks. Are you purposefully arguing a point which you don't believe?
> ...



It was the quotes around the word wasted that got me curious.


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 10, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> Dude, you worry too much about stuff that's just not worth worrying about.



You pay for those excellent corners, but don't use them on a "crop-frame" camera. Bad economy and a waste of good money ... like driving grandma to church in your Ferrari. It does the job, but at what expense?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 10, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Dude, you worry too much about stuff that's just not worth worrying about.
> ...



What you're doing seems more like suggesting a Ferrari is a waste of money because you can't hear the stereo over the engine noise...


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 10, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> It was the quotes around the word wasted that got me curious.



I placed the "wasted" in quotes because an L-lens has other properties than excellent corners that makes it better than non-L's. Thus the lens is not totally wasted, just one of its greatest attributes.


----------



## traingineer (Jun 10, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Dude, you worry too much about stuff that's just not worth worrying about.
> ...



Well a lot more can happen in that trip to the church with a Ferrari, especially if it's a 458 Speciale.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jun 10, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



your drawing thin on valid points here --- so yeah, the extra you pay you lose the corners in the crop --- but you also get a fast lens, and of course (on EF-S the fasted you get is 2.8, and the price is fairly high to get that too) ---- L lenses are desired not only due to their IQ but also because of their more rugged build quality - one of the reasons why you buy L you own and use it for quite a few years. 

That's I think the key you are missing - you buy a body to get you through, but you buy lenses to last. IMO, buying an L prime for a rebel is like making a downpayment on an upgraded body at some point in the future...


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 10, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Dude, you worry too much about stuff that's just not worth worrying about.
> ...



You're suggesting that Ferrari needs to make an SUV, minivan, economy car (like a Honda Civic) and a commuter bike with saddle-bags, so I can always use precisely the correct transport for my needs. Ferrari makes Ferraris; other people make SUVs, minivans, economy cars and bicycles.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jun 10, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > It was the quotes around the word wasted that got me curious.
> ...



Again, with all things in photography unless you have an unlimited budget you make compromises. The real waste would be to spend 1K or more for an EF-S prime then realize you want to upgrade to a FF camera cause then your stuck. Better to make the investment in glass. 

also, the same argument can be made as you upgrade. If you shoot sports and are on a budget, you get a 7d instead of a 5d3 because the frame rate is higher and you get the reach. You buy the 100 macro 2.8 instead of the L because you know your not actually doing enough macro work to justify it. You buy a 6d instead of a 5d3 because you want to move to FF but don't have the budget for a 5d3 and you also want a pair of 600 Rt's. Compromise goes on all the time because all of these things are EXPENSIVE.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jun 10, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



it's more like putting racing tires on your honda civic (L glass on a rebel) then complaining that you can't get the speed of a ferrari (1dx with L glass)....


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 10, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Sella174 said:
> ...



I thought his point was that he wanted L-quality EF-S glass, rather than put FF L-glass on a crop. But Canon doesn't make that.


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 11, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> ... L lenses are desired not only due to their IQ but also because of their more rugged build quality - one of the reasons why you buy L you own and use it for quite a few years.



Exactly why I wanted Canon to make EF-S L-primes.



Chuck Alaimo said:


> That's I think the key you are missing - you buy a body to get you through, but you buy lenses to last. IMO, buying an L prime for a rebel is like making a downpayment on an upgraded body at some point in the future...



Not everybody aspires to "full-frame" ... in fact, I'd say that the majority of Canon users don't really care for "full-frame", as indicated by sales.


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 11, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> I thought his point was that he wanted L-quality EF-S glass ...



Not anymore.



Orangutan said:


> ... rather than put FF L-glass on a crop.



No choice ... had to do it.



Orangutan said:


> But Canon doesn't make that.



Basic economic principle at work ... when the exec's at Canon ask why a certain highly-lucrative niche market isn't using/buying their (Canon's) products, that's the answer.


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 11, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Again, with all things in photography unless you have an unlimited budget you make compromises. The real waste would be to spend 1K or more for an EF-S prime then realize you want to upgrade to a FF camera cause then your stuck. Better to make the investment in glass.



Again, not everyone aspires to "full-frame". Fact is that beyond a certain point, "full-frame" offers no real advantage over "crop-frame".



Chuck Alaimo said:


> Compromise goes on all the time because all of these things are EXPENSIVE.



Which is exactly why, for people who have no desire towards "full-frame", "full-frame" lenses are bad economy. You have to pay for quality in areas where you can't even use it ... money that could rather have been spent on perhaps another lens?


----------



## hemanthforcanonrumors (Jun 11, 2014)

It's will be a very brilliant idea of having this Crop factor controlled b/w say a 1.6 and Full Frame Types. if they can control this with the help of a S/W driving the view finder and the mirror behaviour, it will be the most versatile camera ever.. i think. !! I think its technically too complex to mimic the behaviour of a Full frame and a crop frame in 1 single body.


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 11, 2014)

Canon makes excellent lenses for APS-C DSLRs.

17-55, 10-22, 15-85, 60/2.8 Macro ... all good and optically fully "L-worthy". Price is right too, if purchased using cash-back/special offers. The 17-55 IS is on of the main reasons I never switched to Nikon in the past. 

10-18, 55-250 STM, 18-55 STM ... very good and very decently priced (if not "dirt cheap"). Rella good IQ, excellent price/value.

Primes? yes ... 40/2.8 pancake. Dirt cheap, and optically fully "L-worthy". Oh, it can even do FF? The better!

Something mising? Not really. Tele lenses are same size irrespective of APS-C or FF image circle ... only dependent on focal length and f-stop, so no point to make or purchase APS-C tele lenses. 

Other than that .. I would buy an optically great & very compact 16mm/4.0 pancake for landscape. 

The last thing I would ever buy would be EF-S "L" primes ... say something like a Fujinon 56/1.2 @ 1000 USD/Euro ... never ever. I don't spend a grand on FF prime lenses. Once the Sigma 50 ARt comes down to 500 Euro I might consider it.


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 11, 2014)

AvTvM said:


> Canon makes excellent lenses for APS-C DSLRs.
> 
> 17-55, 10-22, 15-85, 60/2.8 Macro ... all good and optically fully "L-worthy". Price is right too, if purchased using cash-back/special offers. The 17-55 IS is on of the main reasons I never switched to Nikon in the past.
> 
> 10-18, 55-250 STM, 18-55 STM ... very good and very decently priced (if not "dirt cheap"). Rella good IQ, excellent price/value.



Yes, those are all excellent lenses ... but apart from the macro, all of them are also zoom lenses with rotten apertures.



AvTvM said:


> Primes? yes ... 40/2.8 pancake. Dirt cheap, and optically fully "L-worthy". Oh, it can even do FF? The better!



Semi-true ... the 40mm flapjack lens isn't really very suited on a "crop-frame" camera for the same job it would have shined at on a "full-frame" camera if the latter cameras weren't so darned big, i.e. discretion.



AvTvM said:


> Something mising? Not really.



An EF-S 35mm f/1.8 lens that actually takes advantage of the ability to be deeply recessed into the camera.



AvTvM said:


> Tele lenses are same size irrespective of APS-C or FF image circle ... only dependent on focal length and f-stop, so no point to make or purchase APS-C tele lenses.



True.



AvTvM said:


> Other than that .. I would buy an optically great & very compact 16mm/4.0 pancake for landscape.



You can't, because Canon doesn't make it.



AvTvM said:


> The last thing I would ever buy would be EF-S "L" primes ... say something like a Fujinon 56/1.2 @ 1000 USD/Euro ... never ever. I don't spend a grand on FF prime lenses.



That FUJIFILM 56mm is the next lens on my purchase list. To me, spending a "grand" on something that I'll use for the next eight to twelve years is good economy.


----------



## Synkka (Jun 11, 2014)

Wow this thread keeps on giving.

Couple of thoughts from this thread. I would highly doubt that Canon would rely on the marketing department for risk analysis, that would typically be done by the risk or legal departments. My dealing with Japanese businesses is they are traditionally conservative particularly the legal departments.

At first I thought the car analogy was silly but it's actually pretty good at demonstrating how different features matter to different people, ie to me a mini will never compare to a 5 series bmw as one fits 5 adults the other fits two with a rear seat that is better served as a parcel shelf.

I have never understood the demand for more ef-s lenses. There is a good current range and plenty of non L glass to supplement the gap. And wide angles are just not for aps-c as FF gets wider just buy it's sensor size.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 11, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Not everybody aspires to "full-frame" ... in fact, I'd say that the majority of Canon users don't really care for "full-frame", as indicated by sales.



You might want to look up the definition of the word "aspiration." Many people aspire to own a better car, a bigger house, or even a newer tractor. The fact that they do not buy them does not indicate a lack of aspiration, but rather insufficient means.

Is it your contention that the 'majority of Canon users' who do not buy an expensive full frame camera would constitute the target market for an expensive L-series APS-C prime lens? (Actually, it's a moot point since we've already established that you don't have a clue about the desires of the majority of Canon users.)



Sella174 said:


> Again, not everyone aspires to "full-frame". Fact is that beyond a certain point, "full-frame" offers no real advantage over "crop-frame".



What point is that? Fact is that beyond a certain point "crop-frame" offers no real advantage over a cell phone camera. You should skip all this talk about dSLRs this and mirrorless that, and just use your phone.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 11, 2014)

Sella ! Since selling most of your Canon gear and saying 'bye' you're spending _more_ time posting on CR ! 

A 6D is only a few clicks away. Return that Fuji XT500 and get into a thoroughly modern FF camera. You won't be disappointed.


----------



## dgatwood (Jun 11, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Again, with all things in photography unless you have an unlimited budget you make compromises. The real waste would be to spend 1K or more for an EF-S prime then realize you want to upgrade to a FF camera cause then your stuck. Better to make the investment in glass.



Of course, when you upgrade to FF, you'll likely want to move to longer focal lengths, so you'll probably replace at least some of your glass anyway, even if you don't own any EF-S glass.

Besides, the reason that they make EF-S glass is precisely because the crop factor results in EF lenses (particularly zoom lenses) being less than ideal choices in terms of having to swap lenses constantly. The 24mm end of a 24–105 or 24–70 lens represents a decent wide angle view. The 15mm end of a 15–85 represents the equivalent on crop. Stick a 24–105 on a crop body, though, and your widest shot is approximately equivalent to sticking a shorty 40 on a full-frame. That's just not very wide. I can't imagine trying to shoot like that.

I realize primes are something of a different story, but the lack of an ultra-wide EF-S prime means that on EF-S, you're pretty much stuck with the 10–22 for ultrawide, whereas FF folks have a lot more options.




hemanthforcanonrumors said:


> It's will be a very brilliant idea of having this Crop factor controlled b/w say a 1.6 and Full Frame Types. if they can control this with the help of a S/W driving the view finder and the mirror behaviour, it will be the most versatile camera ever.. i think. !! I think its technically too complex to mimic the behaviour of a Full frame and a crop frame in 1 single body.



Not too complex, although Canon's decision to allow the rear elements of EF-S lenses to stick farther back past the flange does make it harder than, for example, the Nikon design.

To do this with the Canon system would require a lens that pivots at the midpoint after sliding. You'd do this by having a track along both sides of the mirror, but only for the last few millimeters, with a shallower track for the rotation pin that extends the entire height of the mirror. Use one solenoid to pulls the lens down that track until the pin hits the end of the track, at which point the midpoint of the mirror is at the top of the viewfinder, and the bottom of the mirror has cleared the edge guides. Use a spring to rotate the mirror.

At the pivot point, add a curved piece and an appropriate guide on the body so that the mirror cannot slide back until it has rotated back to a position where the mirror would slide into its track. Then, to return the mirror to the normal position, just release the solenoid that pulled the lens down the track and use a second solenoid to push/pull the mirror back into the 45 degree position. When it reaches that position, it slides back down the track and into the edge guides. Be sure that the end of the edge guides slopes outwards a little bit so that if the slide preventing piece at the pivot wears down and the solenoid gets weak and doesn't quite slam the mirror back quickly enough, the mirror won't jam halfway through its slide.

Mechanically, it is certainly more complex than a flip mirror, but if it is simple enough that I can crudely design it in my head in thirty seconds, I'm sure Canon could do it precisely without too much effort.


----------



## dgatwood (Jun 11, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > Again, not everyone aspires to "full-frame". Fact is that beyond a certain point, "full-frame" offers no real advantage over "crop-frame".
> ...



I was about to say the same thing. I guess if you never shoot indoors, a full-frame offers no advantages....


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 11, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Yes, those are all excellent lenses ... but...



Since you seem so adept at _moving the goalposts_, Sella, why don't you give us your "top 5" list of crop lenses that Canon should make because you want them.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 11, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > ... L lenses are desired not only due to their IQ but also because of their more rugged build quality - one of the reasons why you buy L you own and use it for quite a few years.
> ...



Out of curiosity, what do you expect to get from an EF-S L prime that you can't get from an EF prime? Lighter? Probably. Maybe it will be cheaper to manufacture, but if they brand it as Luxury it's anyone's guess how much if any of that savings will be passed to the consumer.


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 11, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> You might want to look up the definition of the word "aspiration." Many people aspire to own a better car, a bigger house, or even a newer tractor. The fact that they do not buy them does not indicate a lack of aspiration, but rather insufficient means.



So the majority buy "crop-frame" xxx(x)D/Rebel cameras with the aspiration of later buying a "full-frame", yet they also never purchase a second lens. Mmmmmm ... huh?



neuroanatomist said:


> Is it your contention that the 'majority of Canon users' who do not buy an expensive full frame camera would constitute the target market for an expensive L-series APS-C prime lens? (Actually, it's a moot point since we've already established that you don't have a clue about the desires of the majority of Canon users.)



You are one of the minority who bought lenses beyond the kit jobbie, including L-primes. This means it is A-OK for Canon to cater to YOUR desires, but not to mine. Again ... huh?



neuroanatomist said:


> What point is that? Fact is that beyond a certain point "crop-frame" offers no real advantage over a cell phone camera. You should skip all this talk about dSLRs this and mirrorless that, and just use your phone.



My phone doesn't have a camera. The point, however, is that "full-frame" is not the all and everything; with decent lenses "crop-frame" is on par with it.


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 11, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Sella ! Since selling most of your Canon gear and saying 'bye' you're spending _more_ time posting on CR !



I said "bye" to Canon as my primary camera gear. And also, CR is fun.



Sporgon said:


> A 6D is only a few clicks away. Return that Fuji XT500 and get into a thoroughly modern FF camera. You won't be disappointed.



I had a look at the 6D before purchasing the X-T1 ... the mediocre AF-system of the 6D killed it for me; which means if Canon had put a decent AF-system in that camera (perhaps that of the 7D) and offered it at the same price, I would have bought it. (Now before anyone jumps on THAT, let me just say that Canon could simply have kept the frame-rate of the 6D rather low - something like 4 fps - and it would not have competed with either the 5DIII or the 1DX ... and I still would have bought it.)


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 11, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> You are one of the minority who bought lenses beyond the kit jobbie, including L-primes. This means it is A-OK for Canon to cater to YOUR desires, but not to mine. Again ... huh?



Quick business lesson for you:

Total profit = (profit per unit) * (number of units sold)

At the extreme ends of profitability, we have:

Mass market: (profit per unit) is small, and (number of units sold) is large

Niche: (profit per unit) is large, and (number of units sold) is small

*Key point:* The manufacturer gets to decide where in that range is "A-OK" for their business goals and capabilities.


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 11, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> ... Sella, why don't you give us your "top 5" list of crop lenses that Canon should make because you want them.



I have already ... just search for them on the forum.


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 11, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > ... Sella, why don't you give us your "top 5" list of crop lenses that Canon should make because you want them.
> ...



Nice dodge.


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 11, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> Out of curiosity, what do you expect to get from an EF-S L prime that you can't get from an EF prime? Lighter? Probably. Maybe it will be cheaper to manufacture, but if they brand it as Luxury it's anyone's guess how much if any of that savings will be passed to the consumer.



I have found that L-lenses generally have better colour and more pleasing image rendition than non-L-lenses (made by Canon). But I suspect you don't view lenses in this light.


----------



## NancyP (Jun 11, 2014)

Canon does not give any EF-S lens the "L" designation. There are excellent EF-S lenses out there with optics of "L" grade, though the build may or may not be as robust.


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 11, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > You are one of the minority who bought lenses beyond the kit jobbie, including L-primes. This means it is A-OK for Canon to cater to YOUR desires, but not to mine. Again ... huh?
> ...



So what is your point?

How many Canon DSLR owners actually purchase a prime lens - excluding the macro lenses, 'cause that's all the rage nowadays? Yet Canon makes them. Thus, are they mass or niche?

So when, when playing the numbers game of a 4 billion world-population, does a niche product become a mass product?



Orangutan said:


> *Key point:* The manufacturer gets to decide where in that range is "A-OK" for their business goals and capabilities.



Quick business lesson for you: Customers decide whether or not the manufacturer's A-OK'ed range of products caters to their personal requirements: whether and they buy, not and they buy another brand.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jun 11, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > You might want to look up the definition of the word "aspiration." Many people aspire to own a better car, a bigger house, or even a newer tractor. The fact that they do not buy them does not indicate a lack of aspiration, but rather insufficient means.
> ...



No, wow you need to take a moment and actually read. What we're saying is the majority of crop users will buy the kit and no more. Then there's few who like photography enough to take things to the next level, those are the people that buy L glass and aspire to FF - those are your hobbyists, enthusiasts and maybe future pros.


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 11, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> Nice dodge.



Yeah, but I prefer Opel.

A 35mm macro would have been nice, and a fisheye. Maybe an internal-zoom 50~200mm, as well (you said crop lenses, not just primes). Perhaps a 10mm, for landscapes and interiors. All of 'em weather-sealed, to go with the 7D and the (apparently) upcoming 7DII.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 11, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> You are one of the minority who bought lenses beyond the kit jobbie, including L-primes. This means it is A-OK for Canon to cater to YOUR desires, but not to mine. Again ... huh?



Perfectly ok, yes. I have a FF body and many L-lenses, and it seems I'm in the part of the minority that Canon cares about. I don't recall if you've sold all your Canon gear, or you've just got really outdated Canon gear, but either way you're in the part of the minority about which Canon doesn't care. As I've stated – deal with it. 



neuroanatomist said:


> The point, however, is that "full-frame" is not the all and everything; with decent lenses "crop-frame" is on par with it.



Try putting decent lenses like a 24-70/2.8L II, a 135/2L, or a Sigma 35/1.4A on a 70D, then shooting moving subjects indoors in a gymnasium, theater, or even typical living room. You'll likely be at ISO 3200 or higher...and the resulting image quality will be nowhere even close to 'on par' with the same lenses on a FF camera.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 11, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Maybe a good measure of that would be someone that still owns and uses a 20D or 30D. Do they buy a 6D today (which requires similar purchasing power today as those cameras did when they were brought to market) or do they buy a 70D?
> 
> Whilst they may be able to afford a FF camera, they may also decide that "I'm ok with shooting with APS-C, I can buy a replacement for my camera that works with all my lenses and it is cheaper than my original camera so I save money!"



Completely anecdotal, but coincidentally a colleague who has a 20D told me yesterday that he looked at the 70D and 6D, and has decided to buy the 6D. In his words, "The 6D's AF is basically the same as my 20D, but the full frame sensor is much better."


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 11, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> No, wow you need to take a moment and actually read. What we're saying is the majority of crop users will buy the kit and no more. Then there's few who like photography enough to take things to the next level, those are the people that buy L glass and aspire to FF - those are your hobbyists, enthusiasts and maybe future pros.



And I am also saying that you should take a moment and read (...). The "next level" and "buy L glass" does not per definition also include "aspire to FF". I know that that is how Canon has been marketing their DSLR system for years now, and that that is how nearly everyone on this forum understands it, but it is simply not written in stone.

Think about this: if all/most hobbyists, enthusiasts and maybe future pros are only shooting for "full-frame", then why are "crop-frame" systems like micro-4/3 and X even selling? Granted, sales are not anywhere near that of Canon's Rebel jobbies, but that is not their intended target market. Look at how good those systems sell and some of the lenses aren't exactly cheap, e.g. the D.ZUIKO 75mm and the FUJIFILM 56mm? It simply means that "full-frame" is not as important as Canon has led you to believe; but that quality is important, irrespective of the form-factor of the sensor/system.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jun 11, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > ... L lenses are desired not only due to their IQ but also because of their more rugged build quality - one of the reasons why you buy L you own and use it for quite a few years.
> ...



Your just going in circles now. Basically you want a crop 1dx in a rebel body with a rebel price and EF-S primes to go along with that????

Yes, the majority of canon users may not want to move to full frame - those are your soccer moms, casual shooters, the ones who would stare at you blankly like your speaking a foreign language when you say crop vs FF. For most who know more than the basics and take photography even a tiny bit seriously, they stay on crop for the reach factor with tele's - or, they stay on crop for budget reasons. If your the Later, you probably don't really care if there's an ef-s prime cause your rocking long lens with a 1.4 TC to get the most range you can. Of those who stay for budget reasons, then its a game of compromise - you get the best body and lens combo your budget can afford and rock it (and the combinations there are still pretty endless).

Either way, canon is selling a lot of rebels to that first group of soccer moms, enough that that drives the entry level market. You want more than that, there are options.


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 11, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Try putting decent lenses like a 24-70/2.8L II, a 135/2L, or a Sigma 35/1.4A on a 70D, then shooting moving subjects indoors in a gymnasium, theater, or even typical living room. You'll likely be at ISO 3200 or higher...and the resulting image quality will be nowhere even close to 'on par' with the same lenses on a FF camera.



Wrong, because you are using the characteristics of the sensors in order to draw a conclusion about the size of the sensors. Question: would your comparison still hold true if Canon placed a cropped version of the 1DX sensor in the (eventually) upcoming 7DII camera; or the inverse, if Canon placed an upscaled version of the 70D sensor into a (hypothetical) 1DXs camera?


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 11, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> ... but coincidentally a colleague who has a 20D told me yesterday that he looked at the 70D and 6D, and has decided to buy the 6D. In his words, "The 6D's AF is basically the same as my 20D, but the full frame sensor is much better."



This is too good to pass up on ... *Consumer opinion:* the AF-system of the 6D is basically the same as ancient technology.


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 11, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Your just going in circles now.



No, it only looks like it because you are standing still.



Chuck Alaimo said:


> Basically you want a crop 1dx in a rebel body with a rebel price and EF-S primes to go along with that????



No and I have never said this.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jun 11, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > No, wow you need to take a moment and actually read. What we're saying is the majority of crop users will buy the kit and no more. Then there's few who like photography enough to take things to the next level, those are the people that buy L glass and aspire to FF - those are your hobbyists, enthusiasts and maybe future pros.
> ...



I'm not the one declaring that EF primes can't be used on a crop camera mind you (ok, you said wasted, not can't be used in fairness...) And I am not saying that everyone that buys a rebel will want to go to FF one day. What I am saying is that enough do follow that path to make that upgrade route viable, lucrative, and profitable for canon. 

You seem to be a niche within a niche within a niche, within a niche, and no canon isn't going to tailor make a custom rebel with 7d AF, AFMA, and EF-S primes just for you.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jun 11, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ... but coincidentally a colleague who has a 20D told me yesterday that he looked at the 70D and 6D, and has decided to buy the 6D. In his words, "The 6D's AF is basically the same as my 20D, but the full frame sensor is much better."
> ...



Yeah it's old, but it is trusted and true. If your not shooting action the 6d is a fine camera.


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 11, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Sella174 said:
> ...



And, as many of us have been trying to tell you, Canon's market success shows that, over all, they've been doing better at this than any competitor.

(you're becoming predictable, you walked right into that one)


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 11, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Out of curiosity, what do you expect to get from an EF-S L prime that you can't get from an EF prime? Lighter? Probably. Maybe it will be cheaper to manufacture, but if they brand it as Luxury it's anyone's guess how much if any of that savings will be passed to the consumer.
> ...



Um, okay, but that's not what I asked. At least, that's not what I intended to ask. Let me add the missing letter to my question:

What do you expect to get from an EF-S L prime that you can't get from an EF *L* prime?


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 11, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



I think he already answered that: smaller, lighter and cheaper.

What he hasn't addressed is the question of why Canon would incur the costs of engineering a new set of L lenses for a market segment so small (that being people who will buy EF-S L but not EF L)

I'm sure he'll move the goalposts again, though.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 11, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Try putting decent lenses like a 24-70/2.8L II, a 135/2L, or a Sigma 35/1.4A on a 70D, then shooting moving subjects indoors in a gymnasium, theater, or even typical living room. You'll likely be at ISO 3200 or higher...and the resulting image quality will be nowhere even close to 'on par' with the same lenses on a FF camera.
> ...



Larger sensors collect more total light, meaning better IQ. Feel free to argue the point, but you'll only succeed in making yourself look more foolish.


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 11, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



He's going to tap-dance around this as well: he'll say sure, a bigger sensor captures more light, but if Canon put Sony-quality sensors in their APS-C cameras that would be almost as good as Canon's FF (other than 1DX).

I think he's moved the goal posts all the way to Antarctica already, let's see if how long it takes to hit the next continent.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 11, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe a good measure of that would be someone that still owns and uses a 20D or 30D. Do they buy a 6D today (which requires similar purchasing power today as those cameras did when they were brought to market) or do they buy a 70D?
> ...



This is a really bad example on everyone's part. Someone still using a 20D or a 30D probably hasn't been doing a lot of lens purchases either. So, the cost of entry into the world of full frame is going to be less because they are likely to only need to replace some very old and outdated and optically poor EF-S lenses.

The cost of entry for a 60D or 7D owner might be much greater, because they could well have some fairly good EF-S lenses. Even the basic kit lens of today is a vast improvement over what it was in the days of the 20D and 30D.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jun 11, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Sella174 said:
> ...



don't forget that these ef-s primes will be priced like ef primes if they did exist. So a market of folks that won't spend more than $800 on a body will obviously be more than willing to spend $1500 on one lens.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 11, 2014)

Man. You leave this thread for a day and come back to it and it's bounced around so much, you can't tell who is arguing what anymore.


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 11, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



Yup, he don't get that. He's not stupid, but he seems challenged when it comes to business acumen. For example, given the sales volume difference, it's possible that EF-S L primes would be *more* expensive than comparable EF L primes.


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 11, 2014)

unfocused said:


> Man. You leave this thread for a day and come back to it and it's bounced around so much, you can't tell who is arguing what anymore.



Hobbes: all against all.


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 11, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> (you're becoming predictable, you walked right into that one)



So I have ... and you made the archetypical stage four response.


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 11, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> You seem to be a niche within a niche within a niche, within a niche, and no canon isn't going to tailor make a custom rebel with 7d AF, AFMA, and EF-S primes just for you.



I never said I wanted all that in a "Rebel" camera. If Canon had released the 60D with the same (general) specs as the 70D, then I would have bought one ... then. However, technology has moved on, hence I did not and will not buy the 70D.


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 11, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> I'm sure he'll move the goalposts again, though.



Yes, back to their original positions!


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 11, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > (you're becoming predictable, you walked right into that one)
> ...



Well, at least you have a sense of humor.


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 11, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure he'll move the goalposts again, though.
> ...



You've moved them so much I've lost track -- where was that again? South Africa? South America? South Sudan? South Dakota?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 11, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Sella174 said:
> ...



The first two are likely, the third... I don't know.

Here's a question, though: All else being equal, would a smaller (EF-S) image circle have equivalent corner performance on APS-C as a larger (EF) image circle has on 135 format? Put another way, is the difficulty in maintaining corner quality a function of size, or is it merely a function of approaching the perimeter of the elements? It may be a little of both, but I lean tend towards the latter not being insignificant given how TS-E lenses (which necessarily have larger image circles) perform in the neutral position (pretty damn good edge to edge).

And so, perhaps an EF-S L Prime would be less desirable than an EF L Prime on APS-C for that particular trait (you know, the one after EF lenses were useless but before color became the important quality).


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 11, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Larger sensors collect more total light ...



True, because a "full-frame" sensor covers a larger area (864mm2) than a "crop-frame" sensor (337.5mm2). Basic geometry.



neuroanatomist said:


> ... meaning better IQ.



Wrong, because it is the size of the photosites (and cross-talk between them) that determines image quality, together with the lens.



neuroanatomist said:


> Feel free to argue the point, but you'll only succeed in making yourself look more foolish.



You're still at stage one, *neuroanatomist*. Others are already at stage four. Come on, hup, hup, hup!


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 11, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> Um, okay, but that's not what I asked. At least, that's not what I intended to ask. Let me add the missing letter to my question:
> 
> What do you expect to get from an EF-S L prime that you can't get from an EF *L* prime?



You are moving the goalposts, but what the hey ... I'll walk right into it, so's you-know-who can have a giggle.

An EF-S L-prime would take advantage of the shorter "back-focus" distance. This could possibly eliminate the need for a retro-focal design in certain focal lengths, as an example. If you don't know why this is desirable, then you also wouldn't understand it if I explained it to you. And I suspects you don't, which why you also cannot fathom the point of EF-S primes (L or not).


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 11, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> He's going to tap-dance around this as well: he'll say sure, a bigger sensor captures more light, but if Canon put Sony-quality sensors in their APS-C cameras that would be almost as good as Canon's FF (other than 1DX).
> 
> I think he's moved the goal posts all the way to Antarctica already, let's see if how long it takes to hit the next continent.



What happened? You're suddenly back at stage one.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 11, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Larger sensors collect more total light ...
> ...



So total light doesn't matter for image noise, only pixel size? You do, indeed, have a sense of humor…perhaps that is some compensation for your poor understanding of how sensors work.


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 11, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > He's going to tap-dance around this as well: he'll say sure, a bigger sensor captures more light, but if Canon put Sony-quality sensors in their APS-C cameras that would be almost as good as Canon's FF (other than 1DX).
> ...



Meaning?


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 11, 2014)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> don't forget that these ef-s primes will be priced like ef primes if they did exist. So a market of folks that won't spend more than $800 on a body will obviously be more than willing to spend $1500 on one lens.



Price check on the 70D is about $1000. The upcoming 7D2 will be, what, about $1500. Whatever, because the price of the camera is irrelevant to this "EF-S L-prime" discussion. The fact is that such lenses would be, as some have said, an "investment" that will last several cameras.



Orangutan said:


> For example, given the sales volume difference, it's possible that EF-S L primes would be *more* expensive than comparable EF L primes.



I was not asking for Canon to make EF-S lenses for which there are already EF lenses available. I was asking for lenses for which there are no equivalent EF primes, like for example an *EF-S 35mm f/1.8 L MACRO* or an *EF-S 10mm f/4 L* or an *EF-S 75mm f/1.2 L* ... or an ...


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 11, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> You've moved them so much I've lost track -- where was that again?



Actually, I only moved them once: back to their original positions. It is you and your friends who keep moving them about due to assumptions based on hero-worship and indoctrination.


----------



## traingineer (Jun 11, 2014)

Honestly Sella, are you trying to be the representative of the niche of the niche of the niche group? The group of Canon users who, just will not agree to anything or anyone and want the most bizarre products to be produced by Canon, and only make up 0.00............1% of Canon users?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 11, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Um, okay, but that's not what I asked. At least, that's not what I intended to ask. Let me add the missing letter to my question:
> ...



That's not "moving the goalposts." I don't have any goalposts; I'm just asking a question about what you want. It was a typo. 



Sella174 said:


> An EF-S L-prime would take advantage of the shorter "back-focus" distance. This could possibly eliminate the need for a retro-focal design in certain focal lengths, as an example. If you don't know why this is desirable, then you also wouldn't understand it if I explained it to you. And I suspects you don't, which why you also cannot fathom the point of EF-S primes (L or not).



In other words, not usefulness on APS-C formats corner quality color quality. Now we have a reasonable idea of what moving the goalposts is. And congrats on being preposterously arrogant!


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 11, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> So total light doesn't matter for image noise, only pixel size? You do, indeed, have a sense of humor…perhaps that is some compensation for your poor understanding of how sensors work.



You stated that "larger sensors collect more total light". By using the term "sensors", you imply the whole sensor, i.e. all the photosites together. Then you use the phrase "total light", which implies all the light illuminating the total area of the sensor.

Now, because a "full-frame" sensor is larger in area than a "crop-frame" sensor, by simple geometric calculation a "full-frame" sensor indeed does collect more "total" light than a "crop-frame" sensor. BUT, the amount of light collected by the "full-frame" sensor for the area in its centre equal in size to that of the "crop-frame" sensor, is the same amount of light that the "crop-frame" sensor collects in totality.

(For the sake of the following, assume both sensors have the same end-resolution of, say, 18MP.)

The rub comes with the size of the photosites. As we stand today, the size of the photosites of a "full-frame" sensor are larger than those of a "crop-frame" sensor. This means that one photosite of a "full-frame" sensor collects more light than a photosite of a "crop-frame" sensor simply because it has a larger area that is illuminated. On a "crop-frame" sensor, that same area equal to the size to one photosite of a "full-frame" sensor is shared by several photosite. Thus they also have to share the light falling on said area.

This means that a "full-frame" sensor with the same photosite density as a "crop-frame" sensor will perform equally to the "crop-frame" sensor in terms of image quality ... and, of course, _vice versa_.


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 11, 2014)

traingineer said:


> Honestly Sella, are you trying to be the representative of the niche of the niche of the niche group? The group of Canon users who, just will not agree to anything or anyone and want the most bizarre products to be produced by Canon, and only make up 0.00............1% of Canon users?



Read what I wrote, not what others told you that I wrote. Then learn to think for yourself, instead of having others think for you.

Finished? Now go look up the profit Canon's photographic division made last year and calculate what is 1% (the figure you so randomly plucked from others' posts) of that amount. That is the amount of additional money Canon could have made on each and every product made specially for us "niche of a niche of a niche 1% group of Canon users". Instead, we're spending that amount as a baseline elsewhere. 

Think for yourself. Am I right or am I wrong?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 11, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> The rub comes with the size of the photosites. As we stand today, the size of the photosites of a "full-frame" sensor are larger than those of a "crop-frame" sensor. This means that one photosite of a "full-frame" sensor collects more light than a photosite of a "crop-frame" sensor simply because it has a larger area that is illuminated. On a "crop-frame" sensor, that same area equal to the size to one photosite of a "full-frame" sensor is shared by several photosite. Thus they also have to share the light falling on said area.
> 
> This means that a "full-frame" sensor with the same photosite density as a "crop-frame" sensor will perform equally to the "crop-frame" sensor in terms of image quality ... and, of course, _vice versa_.



No, it doesn't mean that. Bigger photosites are better, and bigger sensors are better, too. An 18 MP FF sensor will deliver better IQ than an 18 MP APS-C sensor because both pixels and sensor are larger. An 18 MP FF sensor will deliver better IQ than a 7MP APS-C sensor, even though the pixel sizes are identical, becuase the FF sensor is larger. 

You're suggesting that if I crop an APS-C FoV from a shot with my 1D X, that the IQ of the resulting 7 MP image will be the same as the IQ an uncropped image (assuming I adjusted the framing with a zoom lens or changing the distance). Sorry, that's simply not true. 

For example, see Roger Clark's analysis, the AIQ graph:

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/does.pixel.size.matter/#sensorconstant

If you compare the dashed lines (theoretical ideal performance for a given sensor size), you'll see that the peak performance for 1.6x crop and FF is at a pixel pitch of ~5 µm - the same photosite density on both formats. But the FF sensor delivers a much higher apparent image quality.


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 11, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> In other words, not usefulness on APS-C formats corner quality color quality. Now we have a reasonable idea of what moving the goalposts is. And congrats on being preposterously arrogant!



Your question was: "What do you expect to get from an EF-S L prime that you can't get from an EF L prime?" Therefore I did not mention the current attributes of L-lenses, because you specifically asked for what it was that I couldn't already get from using EF L-lenses and thus, for instance, good colour rendition and excellent corner quality are implied by default. And, even though I most definitely am "preposterously arrogant", I still won't stoop so low as to slap derogatory labels on you.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 11, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> traingineer said:
> 
> 
> > ...and only make up 0.00............1% of Canon users?
> ...



Actually, the number he suggests is far less than 1%. He didn't pluck it from anywhere, he wrote it as to mean vanishingly small.




Sella174 said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Um, okay, but that's not what I asked. At least, that's not what I intended to ask. Let me add the missing letter to my question:
> ...



And sure, I'll bite. I may not understand, although I don't know whether that's a reflection on me or on your ability to explain things.

Initially, I do not understand, but I have no qualms about admitting such.

Suggested advantage of EF-S L over EF L: A shorter back focas distance can eliminate retrofocal designs.

Don't retrofocal designs *increase* the back focus distance? How does reducing the back focus distance eliminate the need to increase the back focus distance? If the goal is a shorter back focus distance, then you are talking telephoto, not retrofocal, right? Maybe not.


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 11, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> You're suggesting that if I crop an APS-C FoV from a shot with my 1D X, that the IQ of the resulting 7 MP image will be the same as the IQ an uncropped image *(assuming I adjusted the framing with a zoom lens or changing the distance)*. Sorry, that's simply not true.



Let's not assume, because by doing that you are changing the parameters of the experiment whilst conducting said experiment by introducing unquantified optical variances.

Redo the experiment. And please leave DoF at home.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 11, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > In other words, not usefulness on APS-C formats corner quality color quality. Now we have a reasonable idea of what moving the goalposts is. And congrats on being preposterously arrogant!
> ...



Fair enough. I was still in the mindset of the mis-worded question and subsequent answer. 



Sella174 said:


> And, even though I most definitely am "preposterously arrogant", I still won't stoop so low as to slap derogatory labels on you.



Instead, you'll suggest (oddly since you have zero information to go on regarding how I choose glass) that I either don't care about color or image quality ("I have found that L-lenses generally have better colour and more pleasing image rendition than non-L-lenses (made by Canon). *But I suspect you don't view lenses in this light*.") or that I am somehow incapable of learning a concept ("If you don't know why this is desirable, then *you also wouldn't understand it if I explained it to you*). I prefer to speak plainly.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 11, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Let's not assume, because by doing that you are changing the parameters of the experiment whilst conducting said experiment by introducing unquantified optical variances.
> 
> Redo the experiment. And please leave DoF at home.



Changing the distance would alter only perspective, an aesthetic change with no relevance to the sensor comparison. 

Please leave your futile and meaningless objections at home. No, wait...that would require you to admit your error.


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 11, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> Don't retrofocal designs *increase* the back focus distance? How does reducing the back focus distance eliminate the need to increase the back focus distance? If the goal is a shorter back focus distance, then you are talking telephoto, not retrofocal, right? Maybe not.



Broadly speaking, that is correct. However, the need for a retro-focal design is linked to the focal length of the lens and the desired image circle it must project. 

I'll explain this with an example: a 50mm lens is a 50mm lens because that is the distance from the front element to the focal plane (e.g. the sensor or the film). Now, in the real world this 50mm generally includes a fair bit of the space inside the camera ... where the mirror swings in a Canon DSLR. Not enough space, so we must move the lens forward, i.e. increase the back focus distance. The answer is the retro-focal design.

Now, as the EF-S mount has a shorter back focus distance (smaller mirror), one could design some lenses without resorting to a retro-focal design. (This is also why mirrorless is so appealing in terms of lens designs.) Or use less of a retro-focal design. Less elements within a lens is always better ... up to a point, anyway.

Another factor is the effect that as the image circle becomes smaller, as with an APS-C sensor, the minimum focal length where one must start using a retro-focal design also decreases.

Plus, the EF-S mount allows for a fair amount of cheating in terms of the size of the optics, but that's another story.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 11, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> I'll explain this with an example: a 50mm lens is a 50mm lens because that is the distance from the front element to the focal plane (e.g. the sensor or the film).



Wrong. Care to try again?


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 11, 2014)

3kramd5 said:


> Instead, you'll suggest (oddly since you have zero information to go on regarding how I choose glass) that I either don't care about color or image quality ("I have found that L-lenses generally have better colour and more pleasing image rendition than non-L-lenses (made by Canon). *But I suspect you don't view lenses in this light*.") or that I am somehow incapable of learning a concept ("If you don't know why this is desirable, then *you also wouldn't understand it if I explained it to you*). I prefer to speak plainly.



At some point you were unwilling to even consider my opinions, but simply followed that of the crowd. This situation seems to have changed. You still don't have to agree with me on anything, everything and this.


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 11, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Changing the distance would alter only perspective, an aesthetic change with no relevance to the sensor comparison.



No further comment ... it is futile.


----------



## sdsr (Jun 11, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Think about this: if all/most hobbyists, enthusiasts and maybe future pros are only shooting for "full-frame", then why are "crop-frame" systems like micro-4/3 and X even selling? Granted, sales are not anywhere near that of Canon's Rebel jobbies, but that is not their intended target market. Look at how good those systems sell and some of the lenses aren't exactly cheap, e.g. the D.ZUIKO 75mm and the FUJIFILM 56mm? It simply means that "full-frame" is not as important as Canon has led you to believe; but that quality is important, irrespective of the form-factor of the sensor/system.



I'm not really sure what your point here is, but "those systems" *don't* sell well, despite their obvious appeal in terms of size and weight etc., and while "quality is important" the best that can be said for M43 is that it's more-or-less as good as APS-C. Neither is as good as FF, even if it's true that in many contexts the difference doesn't matter or isn't noticeable (I'm reminded of an excellent butter commercial in the UK in the late 1970s: some people claim that margarine tastes like butter - but no-one claims that butter tastes like margarine).

As for "not exactly cheap" - well, indeed not. The best M43 camera for stills is probably the OM-D E-M1, but it costs more than just about any APS-C dslr and almost as much as the FF Sony A7 (which is, what's more, smaller). The same is true of the top-level Fuji-X bodies. And when you throw in lenses, all bets are off - there are some very good m43 primes that are fairly inexpensive, but even then there's no equivalent of such "plastic fantastics" as the Canikon 50 1.8s or the Nikon 35mm 1.8. Canon's impressive new APS-C 10-18mm costs $300 without any sort of discount; the forthcoming Olympus 7-14mm will evidently cost c. $1800. And on and on. So regardless of whether you think the resulting image quality is much the same, given the pricing disparity it's hardly surprising that sales of M43 and Fuji X (which doesn't seem to have any bargains either) aren't impressive. (I say that as someone who currently owns FF & APS-C Canon, FF & APS-C Sony and Olympus OM-D M43).


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 11, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Wrong. Care to try again?



Who cares? I'll just move the lens forward, as all that does is change the aesthetic perception.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 11, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Instead, you'll suggest (oddly since you have zero information to go on regarding how I choose glass) that I either don't care about color or image quality ("I have found that L-lenses generally have better colour and more pleasing image rendition than non-L-lenses (made by Canon). *But I suspect you don't view lenses in this light*.") or that I am somehow incapable of learning a concept ("If you don't know why this is desirable, then *you also wouldn't understand it if I explained it to you*). I prefer to speak plainly.
> ...



I think you're confusing my questioning your intent or reasoning with an unwillingness to consider your opinions. Really, if I was so unwilling, I wouldn't bother engaging.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 11, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Changing the distance would alter only perspective, an aesthetic change with no relevance to the sensor comparison.
> ...





Sella174 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong. Care to try again?
> ...



So you're wrong even about your own behavior. Interesting. 

Well, no...not really. 

I suppose if you make incorrect statements about basic concepts like what "focal length" actually means, it's probably too much to expect you to understand more complex concepts.


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 11, 2014)

sdsr said:


> I'm not really sure what your point here is ...



The point was simply that "full-frame" is not the ultimate objective in camera ownership for everyone who is not a "soccer-mom" and that some enthusiasts are quite happy with "crop-frame" cameras. I guess in the same way some are not content with the current 20MP'ish "full-frame" offerings from Canon, even though most "full-frame" users are quite happy as it stands.


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 11, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> sdsr said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not really sure what your point here is ...
> ...



So it boils down to these two points?

1. Some people (such as you) think the crop format is just fine, and don't aspire to FF.

2. You want Canon to provide more high-quality (L-grade) lenses for crop.

That's fine; but unless Canon believes there's enough profit to be made, it's just wishful thinking.


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 11, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> So you're wrong even about your own behavior. Interesting.



OK, since my understanding is apparently wrong ... and I want to learn.

Given a "full-frame" sensor and a "crop-frame" sensor, made of the same "sensor technology", i.e. same size photosites, same A/D converter, same everything except area.

The statement is that a "full-frame" sensor gathers more total light than a "crop-frame" sensor.

Explain to me how and why the "full-frame" sensor collects more light in the centre area of the same equivalent size as the "crop-frame" sensor, than does the "crop-frame" sensor; or, stated differently, how and why does light falling in the area on the "full-frame" sensor outside the "crop-frame" equivalent centre area affect the amount of light gather within the designated centre area of the "full-frame" sensor, thereby causing said designated centre area of the "full-frame" sensor to gather more light than the "crop-frame" sensor.


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 11, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> So it boils down to these two points?



Three points, actually. You forgot the +36MP "full-frame" camera, with lenses to match. (Oops, that's a fourth point.)


----------



## ajperk (Jun 11, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > sdsr said:
> ...



And I think the most important point is the last line there. It may be a cool idea, and some people might really enjoy APS-C only L-series lenses, but it appears (based on the fact that none have been released) that Canon just doesn't think there's a big enough market for it (and if you disagree with this logic, that's fine, but to a first approximation I think it's fairly sound).

I tend to think that's a correct assessment of the market for many of the reasons that have already been discussed. Maybe this will change one day, though I personally doubt it. I think the only way we may one day see L-series lenses of a mount different than EF is if, one day, mirrorless cameras begin to replace DSLRs for professional use (i.e. Canon comes out with a new mount anyway).

Anyway, I've been lurking and following this thread for a while, so I thought I'd make some kind of contribution.

Take care, everyone!


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 11, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > So you're wrong even about your own behavior. Interesting.
> ...



Um, if you're excluding the light outside the center (crop-equivalent) area, you're not comparing a FF to a crop-frame; you're comparing a crop-frame to a crop-frame. The comparison is absolutely meaningless unless you compare the full area of the FF against the full area of the crop-frame.


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 11, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> Um, if you're excluding the light outside the center (crop-equivalent) area, you're not comparing a FF to a crop-frame; you're comparing a crop-frame to a crop-frame.



More correct would be say that one is comparing a crop of a "full-frame" sensor to a "crop-frame" sensor.



Orangutan said:


> The comparison is absolutely meaningless unless you compare the full area of the FF against the full area of the crop-frame.



But even that is a meaningless comparison, because a "full-frame" sensor is physically larger in area than a "crop-frame" sensor and thus always illuminated by more light. For this type of comparison to have any real meaning, the two sensors must be normalized ... somehow.


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 11, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > The comparison is absolutely meaningless unless you compare the full area of the FF against the full area of the crop-frame.
> ...



That's precisely why it's meanin*FUL*. The defining characteristic of a full-frame sensor is that it has dimensions equal to a full frame of 35mm film. If you want to compare sensor technologies, then the size of the sensor is less imporant. If you want to compare a FF camera to an APS-C camera, then it's essential to include the entire area of each because those are the defining characteristics of each.

So what's your intention? Are you comparing sensor tech or actual cameras with FF and APS-C sensors?


----------



## sdsr (Jun 12, 2014)

Sella174 said:


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


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 12, 2014)

sdsr said:


> The comparison isn't meaningless - rather, it demonstrates the point: it's why, given the current state of technology, FF sensors are better than APS-C, which in turn are better than 1" sensors, which in turn are better than.... You just don't like the comparison because it doesn't support your argument (to the extent it's clear what that is). That doesn't make it meaningless. You might as well say it's "meaningless" to compare a tripod to a monopod because it has more legs.



You misunderstood my post: it's entirely meaningful to compare sensor tech vs. sensor tech -- I got no problem with that. The problem is when you call it a comparison between FF and APS-C: that's just lazy use of language.

If Sella wanted to compare tech he should have said so, but he used the term "full frame;" by definition, that is a sensor with dimensions equal to a frame of 35mm film. That is the defining characteristic of "full-frame."

Perhaps you think I'm mincing words, but no: both discussions are valid, but they are entirely different discussions.

If you and Sella want to talk sensor tech then we'll talk sensor tech.

If you want to talk FF vs. APS-C then we'll include full illumination of both.

Sloppiness does not help Sella's dwindling credibility.


----------



## 100 (Jun 12, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Just because a sensor is larger doesn't mean it has less noise and indeed, if you were to take two sensors that used pixels of the same design then both sensors would have equal noise.



If you want to print lets say a 10" by 15" picture of a small sensor you have to enlarge it more. The difference is 1.6*1.6 = 2.56x (Canon APS-C versus FF). What kind of effect do you think that has on the visibility of noise?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 12, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > So you're wrong even about your own behavior. Interesting.
> ...



The amount of light gathered by 'center area' (APS-C sized region) of a FF sensor is obviously identical to the total light gathered by an APS-C sensor (assuming equivalent design, i.e., microlenses). If they have identical pixel pitch, image quality would be the same. So, if you're going to take every image from the FF sensor in this example and crop it to the APS-C FoV, there's no advantage to the larger sensor. I can't speak for you or anyone else, but personally I don't shoot images planning to crop away ~60% of each image I capture. If that's the sort of 'normalized comparison' you have in mind, it's one with no practical relevance. You may as well extract one pixel from the image and say it's as good as the whole picture. 

When you compare the sensors without cropping, the total light gathered by the larger sensor is greater...simple geometry, as you say. When comparing _pictures_ (not pixels), the larger sensor will deliver a sharper image with less noise, given the same pixel pitch and sensor technology. 

In several threads, you've made the point that when comparing sensor sizes, the 'crop factor' does not affect exposure. In other words, an f/2 lens on FF, APS-C, m4/3, or even a 1/1.7" sensor like in the PowerShot S-series will yield the same exposure, e.g. shooting a gray card at f/2 and ISO 200, a metered exposure on FF of 1/100 s would give the same 1/100 s exposure on all of those successively smaller sensors. That's absolutely true. But above, you acknowledged that larger sensors gather more total light. Hopefully you see the confound - same aperture, shutter speed, and ISO giving the same exposure (assuming equally accurate metering), resulting in the same brightness of the resulting images from each sensor...but very different amounts of total light gathered. How does that work?

The answer lies in what ISO is...and isn't. Many people have a poor understanding of ISO, incorrectly assuming that a given ISO setting means a fixed amount of gain applied to the signal. ISO is a _standard_ (that's the 'S' in ISO, ISO 12232 is the relevant standard in this case), and that standard effectively means that for a given exposure setting in terms of aperture and shutter speed, the resulting image will have a defined brightness. How does an image taken at f/2, 1/100 s, ISO 200 on a PowerShot S100 have the same brightness as an image at f/2, 1/100 s, ISO 200 on a FF sensor, even though the FF sensor is over 20 times larger? More amplification (gain) must be applied to the lower total signal from the smaller sensor. More amplification means more noise. Obviously, the same is true for m4/3 and APS-C relative to FF, to a progressively lesser degree. Likewise, a medium format sensor needs less amplification than a FF sensor to achieve the necessary brightness for a given ISO according to the standard, and therefore has less noise than FF. 

So, even though using a smaller sensor doesn't affect 'exposure', the less total light gathered means a lower signal that must be amplified more compared to a larger sensor to achieve the same resulting brightness according to the ISO standard, and more amplification means more noise. You may _think_ that getting the 'same exposure' with a smaller sensor despite collecting less total light comes without a penalty, but like many things in life, there's no free lunch. 

When considering a fixed output size (viewing the entire image on the same display or printing at the same size), the smaller the sensor the more enlargement needed. That results in the image from the smaller sensor appearing less sharp. In addition to sharpness, although the extra enlargement technically doesn't add noise, it does enhance the appearance of the existing noise, further adding to the perceived noise from the smaller sensor.


----------



## sdsr (Jun 12, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> sdsr said:
> 
> 
> > The comparison isn't meaningless - rather, it demonstrates the point: it's why, given the current state of technology, FF sensors are better than APS-C, which in turn are better than 1" sensors, which in turn are better than.... You just don't like the comparison because it doesn't support your argument (to the extent it's clear what that is). That doesn't make it meaningless. You might as well say it's "meaningless" to compare a tripod to a monopod because it has more legs.
> ...



Ummm ... I thought I understood your post; the point of mine was to agree with you and disagree with Sella! Perhaps I should take a nap....


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 12, 2014)

sdsr said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > sdsr said:
> ...



My bad: I thought you were replying to me.


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 12, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> If you want to compare sensor technologies, then the size of the sensor is less imporant. If you want to compare a FF camera to an APS-C camera, then it's essential to include the entire area of each because those are the defining characteristics of each.
> 
> So what's your intention? Are you comparing sensor tech or actual cameras with FF and APS-C sensors?



I am comparing sensor technology, whilst *neuroanatomist* responds by comparing actual camera sensors. Very confusing.


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 12, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Just because a sensor is larger doesn't mean it has less noise and indeed, if you were to take two sensors that used pixels of the same design then both sensors would have equal noise.



But is that not what I've been saying all this time?


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 12, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> If Sella wanted to compare tech he should have said so, but he used the term "full frame;" by definition, that is a sensor with dimensions equal to a frame of 35mm film. That is the defining characteristic of "full-frame."



It is in truth *neuroanatomist* who keeps insisting that a sensor of "full-frame" size has better "characteristics" than an equal sensor of "crop-frame" size, e.g.



neuroanatomist said:


> You're suggesting that if I crop an APS-C FoV from a shot with my 1D X, that the IQ of the resulting 7 MP image will be the same as the IQ an uncropped image (assuming I adjusted the framing with a zoom lens or changing the distance). Sorry, that's simply not true.



???


----------



## Sella174 (Jun 12, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> ...



Thanks for that lengthy reply. I now see where the problem lies: we are comparing different things. Oh, and thanks also for attributing statements which I never made to me.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 12, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Just because a sensor is larger doesn't mean it has less noise and indeed, if you were to take two sensors that used pixels of the same design then both sensors would have equal noise.
> ...



Yes, you've been saying that...and you're wrong. Using a statement by dilbert to support your own viewpoint isn't wise – his grasp of facts is tenuous at best (for example, he once posted a picture of what he thought was a camera, but was actually a lens). Actually, you two seem to have some things in common...poor understanding of technology and business principles and refusal to admit mistakes, to name a few. 




Sella174 said:


> It is in truth *neuroanatomist* who keeps insisting that a sensor of "full-frame" size has better "characteristics" than an equal sensor of "crop-frame" size, e.g.



Who's incorrectly attributing statements now? :

A sensor of full frame size *does* produce better image quality than an APS-C sensor, given pixels of the same design, for the reasons described in my detailed explanation above (more gain must be applied to the smaller sensor).

Comparing the same sized patch of area on two different sized sensors with identical pixel design is completely pointless.


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 12, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > So what's your intention? Are you comparing sensor tech or actual cameras with FF and APS-C sensors?
> ...



No, you said this:



Sella174 said:


> Given a "full-frame" sensor and a "crop-frame" sensor, made of the same "sensor technology", i.e. same size photosites, same A/D converter, same everything except area.
> 
> *The statement is that a "full-frame" sensor gathers more total light than a "crop-frame" sensor.*



Then you went on to discuss the center area of the FF, so I corrected you.

You are very sloppy and imprecise in your use of language. Remember, on the interwebs non-verbal cues are not readily available so you need to be careful with your words.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 12, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> The answer lies in what ISO is...and isn't. Many people have a poor understanding of ISO, incorrectly assuming that a given ISO setting means a fixed amount of gain applied to the signal. ISO is a _standard_ (that's the 'S' in ISO, ISO 12232 is the relevant standard in this case), and that standard effectively means that for a given exposure setting in terms of aperture and shutter speed, the resulting image will have a defined brightness. How does an image taken at f/2, 1/100 s, ISO 200 on a PowerShot S100 have the same brightness as an image at f/2, 1/100 s, ISO 200 on a FF sensor, even though the FF sensor is over 20 times larger? More amplification (gain) must be applied to the lower total signal from the smaller sensor. More amplification means more noise. Obviously, the same is true for m4/3 and APS-C relative to FF, to a progressively lesser degree. Likewise, a medium format sensor needs less amplification than a FF sensor to achieve the necessary brightness for a given ISO according to the standard, and therefore has less noise than FF.



Interesting. So how did ISO work with film ? Was 50 ISO 120 roll film a different emulsion to 50 ISO 35mm ? How did 645 framing on 120 expose the same as 6x7 or even 6x9 ?


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 12, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > The answer lies in what ISO is...and isn't. Many people have a poor understanding of ISO, incorrectly assuming that a given ISO setting means a fixed amount of gain applied to the signal. ISO is a _standard_ (that's the 'S' in ISO, ISO 12232 is the relevant standard in this case), and that standard effectively means that for a given exposure setting in terms of aperture and shutter speed, the resulting image will have a defined brightness. How does an image taken at f/2, 1/100 s, ISO 200 on a PowerShot S100 have the same brightness as an image at f/2, 1/100 s, ISO 200 on a FF sensor, even though the FF sensor is over 20 times larger? More amplification (gain) must be applied to the lower total signal from the smaller sensor. More amplification means more noise. Obviously, the same is true for m4/3 and APS-C relative to FF, to a progressively lesser degree. Likewise, a medium format sensor needs less amplification than a FF sensor to achieve the necessary brightness for a given ISO according to the standard, and therefore has less noise than FF.
> ...


I believe it was the same emulsion for any size film but the difference was the 35mm film was more grainy than MF because it was enlarged much much more.


----------



## 100 (Jun 12, 2014)

dilbert said:


> 100 said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



I’m not talking about inventing and adding more pixels to a picture. 
Just print the existing pixels of both sensors (FF and APS-C) to the same size photograph. 

If both cameras have *the same amount of pixels* than the pixels of the FF camera are larger. Because of that they gather more light per pixel which leads to less noise in the end result.

If both cameras have *the same size pixels*, than the noise per pixel will be exactly the same, but the APS-C camera will have 2.56 times less pixels, so all pixels (including the noisy ones) have to be enlarged 2.56 times more to get to the same size photograph. You will end up with less resolution and the noise will be more visible. 

In the end the FF sensor will give you a cleaner (less noisy) picture than APS-C when printed at the same size (or looked at on the same size screen).


----------



## traingineer (Jun 12, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> traingineer said:
> 
> 
> > Honestly Sella, are you trying to be the representative of the niche of the niche of the niche group? The group of Canon users who, just will not agree to anything or anyone and want the most bizarre products to be produced by Canon, and only make up 0.00............1% of Canon users?
> ...



I have been reading what you wrote throughout this entire thread, and I didn't say 1%, I decided to go with 0.000001% and my answer is around 1500-3000$. Which I don't think would really benefit Canon at all.


----------



## ajperk (Jun 12, 2014)

traingineer said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > traingineer said:
> ...



I suppose you have to take that $1500 to $3000 and subtract the costs of R&D, manufacturing, marketing, and surely plenty of other costs I'm not thinking about at the moment. Looks pretty bleak pretty quickly.


----------



## traingineer (Jun 12, 2014)

ajperk said:


> traingineer said:
> 
> 
> > Sella174 said:
> ...



Definitely.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 13, 2014)

ajperk said:


> I suppose you have to take that $1500 to $3000 and subtract the costs of R&D, manufacturing, marketing, and surely plenty of other costs I'm not thinking about at the moment. Looks pretty bleak pretty quickly.



...management, NRE, testing, overhead, packaging, shipping, customer support, etc.


----------



## Aglet (Jun 14, 2014)

Over the past vew pages the bunch of you have just had the most beat-around-the-bushes discussion of Signal to Noise Ratio I've ever seen.

Can't someone find or come up with a simpler explanation of how SNR affects image quality that you can all agree on?
I think 100 was closest in his last post and could simply add that, _sensor technology (e.g. pixel size, read noise, dark noise, etc.) being about equal, when printing or scaling to any given size, the greater surface area of a FF sensor allows more noise averaging to occur than the same image, shot with the same field of view, from a smaller sensor._


----------

