More pixels? larger sensor (MF)? ... .CANON??!!

[MrSmith]

- I disagree with Bernard's vision of Canon as being in some kind of desperate situation: AFAIK, Canon still lead DSLR sales overall and in the professional sectors like sports/PJ, where "speed" is far more important that getting even more than 12 steps of DR or even more than 22MP or detail. The skew in this forum towards people interested extremes of high resolution, high dynamic range, and mostly low ISO photography are not representative of where most of the camera buying money is!

Huge drop in profit and a fall in camera sales at Nikon. Maybe the market leader Canon should buy the small player Nikon and assimilate the technology?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/07/nikon-earnings-idUSL3N0IR39F20131107

[hjulenissen]

- I disagree with Bernard's vision of Canon as being in some kind of desperate situation: AFAIK, Canon still lead DSLR sales overall and in the professional sectors like sports/PJ, where "speed" is far more important that getting even more than 12 steps of DR or even more than 22MP or detail. The skew in this forum towards people interested extremes of high resolution, high dynamic range, and mostly low ISO photography are not representative of where most of the camera buying money is!

I do believe that many photographers tends to upgrade fairly seldomly, and to switch brands even more seldomly. Such behaviour may serve to delay and conceal underlying perceptions that "the grass is greener...".

If Canon is perceived as lagging behind in sensor tech for a number of years, many big spenders will probably jump ship eventually. Ifthey do, there is a chance that soccer-mums will too, once the big cameras at big events don't have big white lenses anymoore.

This also means that Canon can afford to rest on its laurels every few generations.

-h

[KevinA]

Right now, Canon does not have the technology to compete with Sony sensors (Sony makes the high res sensors for Nikon), that may change.







[/quote]
I don't think we know what technology Canon has. Just because it did not appear in their last releases does not mean they don't have it. Quite likely they are squeezing every last penny out of the invested in technology. I don't think it hurt them much releasing the cameras they did last round.
I quite expect a Foveon type release from one of the big players alongside their existing tech.
Canon have not thrown in the towel and could easily have a sensor ready to rock the world. Not many years ago Nikon had nothing to offer, and so it goes one way then the other.

[BJL]

If Canon is perceived as lagging behind in sensor tech for a number of years, many big spenders will probably jump ship eventually. Ifthey do, there is a chance that soccer-mums will too, once the big cameras at big events don't have big white lenses anymoore.

This begs the question of whether there is any such perception of Canon lagging in the SLR market as a whole or the main pro market of sports/PJ, as opposed to such a perception in the "special interest group" of forums like this. Is there any sign that those users of "big white lenses" care about 36MP vs 22MP or 13 vs 12 stops of DR more than they care about excellent low light performance, fast and accurate AF, etc.?
Hint: resolution and DR are advantages that MF had over 35mm format in the film era, and look how that turned out.

And even if there is such a perception, as you say Canon has time to develop and adopt a new technology like column-parallel ADC; after all, multiple sensor makers have done so, some with far less resources than Canon it is not as if Sony/Nikon have "CPADC" locked down with patents or other exclusives. Fixing that problems seems wiser than sulking away into a far smaller market niche in pursuit of the halo effect for sales of completely different camera using a completely different lens system. That is, rather than invest in a MF system (possibly prestigious but probably money-losing, like the Bugatti Veyron), a better "desperation move" for Canon might be to buy one of those companies with good CPADC sensor technology!

[eronald]

Most system cameras sold are crop frame with zooms. I am not at all sure that the people who use them see the same effects as we do. In particular much depends on the quality of the Jpeg engine and the native tone curves.

Edmund

This begs the question of whether there is any such perception of Canon lagging in the SLR market as a whole or the main pro market of sports/PJ, as opposed to such a perception in the "special interest group" of forums like this. Is there any sign that those users of "big white lenses" care about 36MP vs 22MP or 13 vs 12 stops of DR more than they care about excellent low light performance, fast and accurate AF, etc.?
Hint: resolution and DR are advantages that MF had over 35mm format in the film era, and look how that turned out.

And even if there is such a perception, as you say Canon has time to develop and adopt a new technology like column-parallel ADC; after all, multiple sensor makers have done so, some with far less resources than Canon it is not as if Sony/Nikon have "CPADC" locked down with patents or other exclusives. Fixing that problems seems wiser than sulking away into a far smaller market niche in pursuit of the halo effect for sales of completely different camera using a completely different lens system. That is, rather than invest in a MF system (possibly prestigious but probably money-losing, like the Bugatti Veyron), a better "desperation move" for Canon might be to buy one of those companies with good CPADC sensor technology!

[BJL]

Most system cameras sold are crop frame with zooms. I am not at all sure that the people who use them see the same effects as we do. In particular much depends on the quality of the Jpeg engine and the native tone curves.

Oh yes, I am sure that the vast majority of system camera buyers are not much bothered by the reportedly sad, sorry state of Canon's sensor design, but the claim is that (1) pros with big white lenses are bothered, and (2) the masses often follow the pros in brand choices. So my question is, what fraction of those pros with big white lenses "see the same effects as we do" and are thus likely to move away from Canon to Nikon?

[synn]

While there has been all sorts of rumors about Canon and Nikon developing medium format cameras (Last time this happened, it turned out to be the D3X), one interesting bit about the rumors this time around is that instead of talking about developing an all new platform, they talk about Canon looking to work closer/ acquiring a European MF manufacturer. This looks a lot more probable to me.

If we look at the playing field, Phase, by all accounts is financially very healthy and independent and thus, doesn't really need a partner. Hassy is definitely in bed with Sony at this point and I have a feeling we'll see MF sized sensors from Sony soon. Sinar just because Leica territory. That leaves us with Rollei.

A Rollei-Canon synergy actually makes complete sense. Rollei has a great camera body and some excellent lenses. But they could use a consistent and up to date supply of digital backs, an expanded sales network and some cash influx. Canon can provide all this. Also keep in mind that the Rollei brand name has some weight here in Asia.

[eronald]

I have a cheaply bought rusty 1Ds3 and what I see is a generally better-behaved camera image-wise than my D4 and D3x. In the spectro arena I saw the same thing with Xrite's DTP-70 versus the Gretag iSIs/ProfileMakerPro suite: The Swiss hardware had much better specs (real, not paper), but when the tires met the road the filter spectro and its software somehow won every time.

Edmund

Oh yes, I am sure that the vast majority of system camera buyers are not much bothered by the reportedly sad, sorry state of Canon's sensor design, but the claim is that (1) pros with big white lenses are bothered, and (2) the masses often follow the pros in brand choices. So my question is, what fraction of those pros with big white lenses "see the same effects as we do" and are thus likely to move away from Canon to Nikon?

[BernardLanguillier]

I have a cheaply bought rusty 1Ds3 and what I see is a generally better-behaved camera image-wise than my D4 and D3x.

What do you mean exactly by "better-behaved"?

Cheers,
Bernard

[eronald]

What do you mean exactly by "better-behaved"?

Cheers,
Bernard

The files from the C are "fatter", more predictable, and better editable than those from the N I own. If you wish, the files are closer to the MF files from my Phase back, which were very flexible. The Canon is usable from outdoors in strong light to indoors with a fast lens, I posted some pictures you saw. My D4 preferred low light levels (in fact it had to be sent back to service because it went soft in direct light) and my D3x was happy only in good light.  I think Nikon essentially tried to make two good specialised cameras instead of one general purpose camera but these products were both too specialised; maybe the D800 ended up being the ideal compromise between speed and resolution. In the mean time, Canon seems to have done a compromise between still and video.

As for lenses, the Canon 85/1.4 tested on my D3x a couple of years ago blew the gates off Norman's Imatest  software; Norman and I did the test together, so I assume it was done correctly. The lens was uniformly sharp from one edge of the frame to the other, outresolving the sensor. But I still prefer the gentler looking Canon 85/1.2 which is actually quite sharp in practice.
 
Based on my experience, I don't see why brand N is doing better than brand C. I'd say they are pretty well matched and both firms have had their share of both stars and dogs - and in fact I'd call the 5DII a Sirius camera because it is a bit of both

I'm sure you can show me some numbers from some french firm that will demonstrate conclusively that I don't know what I'm talking about - but I have always been very bad at accepting the applicability of platonic ideals to everyday reality, especially when mediated by gallic high priests

Edmund

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Can you explain with a few words what you mean by more flexible?

Best regards
Erik

The files from the C are "fatter", more predictable, and better editable than those from the N I own. If you wish, the files are closer to the MF files from my Phase back, which were very flexible.

[eronald]

Hi Erik,

I push my files around a lot in PS -  sometimes the image gets really unnatural if you do too much editing, then I say it "breaks". The Phase files in my experience were like rubber - they could be stretched (curves, color adjustments) and they would never break. I believe it's something to do with the DR and the orthogonality of the CFAs, both of which are very good in backs.


Edmund

Hi,

Can you explain with a few words what you mean by more flexible?

Best regards
Erik

[TMARK]

I think I know what you are talking about. The ds3 has better color for people under all lighting conditions than the d3x, in my opinion.  

I shot a bit with the d3x and really liked it, under controlled tethered shooting conditions. The ds3 I liked better for mixed lighting and natural/practicals. The ds3 files hold their color better when pressed hard. The VF is nice, too.

I do think Canon is down, at least amongst commercial shooters. The 5d3 is a let down, not because it is a bad camera but because it is an incremental improvement to very good camera, the 5d2, and because the D800 is so good. The 1dx is great, but again, it's expensive and in the end marginally better than the ds3. Sort of. So their flagships are flagging.

Momtographers  buy Rebels. I don't know why. They try them at Best Buy and buy them on Amazon.

The files from the C are "fatter", more predictable, and better editable than those from the N I own. If you wish, the files are closer to the MF files from my Phase back, which were very flexible. The Canon is usable from outdoors in strong light to indoors with a fast lens, I posted some pictures you saw. My D4 preferred low light levels (in fact it had to be sent back to service because it went soft in direct light) and my D3x was happy only in good light.  I think Nikon essentially tried to make two good specialised cameras instead of one general purpose camera but these products were both too specialised; maybe the D800 ended up being the ideal compromise between speed and resolution. In the mean time, Canon seems to have done a compromise between still and video.

As for lenses, the Canon 85/1.4 tested on my D3x a couple of years ago blew the gates off Norman's Imatest  software; Norman and I did the test together, so I assume it was done correctly. The lens was uniformly sharp from one edge of the frame to the other, outresolving the sensor. But I still prefer the gentler looking Canon 85/1.2 which is actually quite sharp in practice.
 
Based on my experience, I don't see why brand N is doing better than brand C. I'd say they are pretty well matched and both firms have had their share of both stars and dogs - and in fact I'd call the 5DII a Sirius camera

I'm sure you can show me some numbers from some french firm that will demonstrate conclusively that I don't know what I'm talking about - but I have always been very bad at accepting the applicability of platonic ideals to everyday reality, especially when mediated by gallic high priests

Edmund

[TMARK]

D3x files could be pushed far if shot and lit well.

The D800 is in another league. Better than the P30+ in terms of holding together under pressure. That being said, the color is not to my liking and needs post work.

Hi Erik,

I push my files around a lot in PS -  sometimes the image gets really unnatural if you do too much editing, then I say it "breaks". The Phase files in my experience were like rubber - they could be stretched (curves, color adjustments) and they would never break. I believe it's something to do with the DR and the orthogonality of the CFAs, both of which are very good in backs.


Edmund

[synn]

I haven't worked with too many D3X files, but the D800 files are miles ahead of anything from Canon (Event he new 5D III and 6D) in terms of holding up in post. But like Tmark said and as I mentioned in my other thread, the color requires a lot of work in post; especially for portraiture.

The Leaf files I've worked on are one step further ahead.

[eronald]

I haven't worked with too many D3X files, but the D800 files are miles ahead of anything from Canon (Event he new 5D III and 6D) in terms of holding up in post. But like Tmark said and as I mentioned in my other thread, the color requires a lot of work in post; especially for portraiture.

The Leaf files I've worked on are one step further ahead.

If you want to check out Canon files, try looking at them with DPP. In my experience, using DPP rather than ACR is like getting a new camera; in fact the Canon color is simply *wrong* in ACR, in the sense that the primaries are wrong you can go and adjust them in the appropriate tab and things will improve.

Edmund

[synn]

If you want to check out Canon files, try looking at them with DPP. In my experience, using DPP rather than ACR is like getting a new camera; in fact the Canon color is simply *wrong* in ACR, in the sense that the primaries are wrong you can go and adjust them in the appropriate tab and things will improve.

Edmund

I haven't used DPP, but I've ran them through ACR/LR, C1, RAW Therapee and Photo Ninja. In all cases, color rendition aside, the D800 files held up better.
When I do portrait shoots, the second shooter who works with me uses a 5D3, so I've compared quite a few similar sample under the same lighting conditions to reach this conclusion.

It's quite funny, though. The LCD on the 5D3 is outstanding and the one on the D800 is utter crap. On location, when we chimp, his images look a whole lot better. But back in front of the PC, the 5D3 files get blown away. 

[eronald]

I haven't used DPP, but I've ran them through ACR/LR, C1, RAW Therapee and Photo Ninja. In all cases, color rendition aside, the D800 files held up better.
When I do portrait shoots, the second shooter who works with me uses a 5D3, so I've compared quite a few similar sample under the same lighting conditions to reach this conclusion.

It's quite funny, though. The LCD on the 5D3 is outstanding and the one on the D800 is utter crap. On location, when we chimp, his images look a whole lot better. But back in front of the PC, the 5D3 files get blown away. 

And the D800 gets blown away by the Sony A7, I guess - you can't beat fashion

Edmund

[synn]

And the D800 gets blown away by the Sony A7, I guess - you can't beat fashion

Edmund

From what I've seen, yes; the A7R (Not the A7) files do seem more detailed than the D800/E files. Haven't pushed a RAW in post yet, but I would presume it will hold up just fine.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

That is interesting. I would presume that what you see is a characteristic of the Color Grid Array (CGA). It is possible/probable that the filters on the Nikon have less overlap than on Canon. Less overlap means that the sensor is less sensitive. If you consider the D800 a mainly low ISO camera and the 5DIII mainly a high ISO camera it may make a bit of sense.

Best regards
Erik

I haven't used DPP, but I've ran them through ACR/LR, C1, RAW Therapee and Photo Ninja. In all cases, color rendition aside, the D800 files held up better.
When I do portrait shoots, the second shooter who works with me uses a 5D3, so I've compared quite a few similar sample under the same lighting conditions to reach this conclusion.

It's quite funny, though. The LCD on the 5D3 is outstanding and the one on the D800 is utter crap. On location, when we chimp, his images look a whole lot better. But back in front of the PC, the 5D3 files get blown away.