Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: nemophoto on January 09, 2014, 09:06:39 am
-
I've been a Canon user since 1978. (The A-1 was the reason I switched from another brand, and I've remained a Canon user since.) I can't help but feel, that, at least as far as Pro photographers are concerned, Canon appears to be at a creative/technical standstill. Ever new announcement seems to be geared toward amateurs (70D and a myriad of Powershots) or the Pro filmmaker. I own both the 1Dx and a now 5-year old 1Ds3. I keep being tempted to give myself a slight update with the 5D3, but keep holding back that Canon MUST have something up it's sleeve... or does it? The dominance that Canon achieved a decade ago has eroded quite seriously. I admit that, as well as being a photographer, I'm a techno-geek. I am able to complete my work easily with what I have, and other than the 1Dx last year, no new announcements has made it easier on my wallet. I'm the kind of photographer who, in film days, loved playing with new film, developers, papers, etc., so it's no surprise that I keep wanting to see what Canon will do next. But at this point point, I suppose the real answer to that is... NOTHING.
-
I am able to complete my work easily with what I have, and other than the 1Dx last year, no new announcements has made it easier on my wallet.
Indeed. Me and my wallet love the lack of camera body upgrade stress. It offers an opportunity to upgrade lenses if needed.
Give Canon some time to the upcoming Photokina in September. That should provide more clarity as to the direction they are going, more motion/video oriented or a new, higher DR, sensor generation for the DSLR line.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I use the 5D MK III daily, and it is the best camera I've ever owned by far. It was viewed as just marginally better than the MK II, but I disagree. The focus technology is infinitely better; the dust removal technology is so good that I rarely have to remove a dust spot; weather sealing is improved; video is terrific; and there are enough pixels for my work. The next version will probably have a few more pixels and a bit better noise response in dark shots, but this one is really a great camera.
-
Interesting article by Thom Hogan
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/trends-fore-and-aft.html
-
I am looking forward to the rumored 7D2 for wildlife shooting, I currently use a 60D which has essentially the same sensor as the 7D but has a much slower frame rate and much less sophisticated autofocus.
There are some interesting recent Canon patents out there, but none of them have made it to market (as is true of a lot of patents filed).
-
I am looking forward to the rumored 7D2 for wildlife shooting, I currently use a 60D which has essentially the same sensor as the 7D but has a much slower frame rate and much less sophisticated autofocus.
There are some interesting recent Canon patents out there, but none of them have made it to market (as is true of a lot of patents filed).
I suspect....pure guess...that the variable transparent mirror will be a major play in future systems.
-
Thom understands the quirks of Japanese product planning, marketing, and management as well as anyone can understand the inscrutable.
My guess is that the video success of the 5D2 was a revelation that caused the re-evaluation of resources allocated to the relatively slow-growth stills vs potentially rapid growth video possibilities. They decided that video opportunity outweighed the penalty for slowing still camera and lens development. This left the B or C team to work on the EOS M. In addition I think Canon got hit hard by the tsunami because of their concentrated Japanese manufacturing.
I've been shooting Canon since 1998 and would not trade the fast accurate focus, 1st curtain shutter, and Canon service on my 5D3 for more pixels. Unfortunately without some kind of a breakthrough, it looks like sensor manufacturing and processor requirements are limiting a significant improvement in useable IQ in the near future.
I hope Canon finally delivers the rumored new lenses in 2014.
-
I am a Canon fan, but the wait on something new after the 1DsIII became so long that I've bought into the D800e thing.
No doubt there's big changes in the market Canon have to cope with but it feels to me the've lost interest in anything but video.
Nikon on the other hand still seem focused on stills ?
I suppose they're both suffering the death of the cheap camera market and the high-end print media market.
No idea where this is going next, but I for one intend do die with something high-rez low video in my hand. ;D
-
Interestingly, buyers on both B & H and Amazon rate the Canon 5D MK III a little higher than the Nikon 800. The absolute number of pixels is just one part of the quality equation.
-
The "only" camera that Canon are missing is a high megapixel one, to compete with the D800 (and the Sony A7R?). The conundrum these days is if it pays to put such a sensor in a 1 series body and sell it for 6000-7000 USD, or put it in a 5DMKIII like-body, and sell it for 3000 USD.
It is increasingly hard to justify buying such high priced cameras, like the 1 series or the Nikon D4 series, when mid-tier cameras can do the job. Of course Canon can take the 1DX body (PJ and sports) and put a high res sensor in it, and make a camera for landscape, studio, and fine art, for printing really big.
-
The Canon 1Dx is a great camera. I love mine and though poorer for it, am glad I sold my 1D Mark IV. Likewise, I've enjoyed using the 5D3, but haven't seen enough reason to sell my 1Ds3 (though it's bordering on 6-years old for me), though the 5D3 has a vastly superior focus system. In the end, I feel the files are comparable. All that said, I'd still like to have a camera in the 30-40MP range to replace my 1Ds, mostly because I have several clients for whom I routinely shoot instore posters. And while the posters are printed at lower DPIs than a typical print, I still frequently am res-ing up the file by 150-200%. And I see the difference between even my 1Dx an the older 1Ds.
I remember a number of years ago Canon showed a senor chip capable of 125MP in the format of the older 1D. So, they have the technical prowess, but I suppose not the will, since the siren of video/film seems to beckon them these days. These days, I believe they are chasing Red, not choosing to compete with Nikon and Sony. Hard to believe, since they could sell far more camera bodies for still than they could for pro video. Al least, that's my assumption.
-
What Canon has been missing is a set of small fab lines, in the range of <= 25u. Once they have this, they will have the means to produce some up-to-date designs in several respects. They'll be able to build more active pixel processing onto the chip, keeping signal transmission noise lower. They'll be able to increase pixel count. If I were optimistic, I'd suggest that they could create a new range of innovative designs such as we haven't seen to date.
-
I do miss a Canon 36MP or more camera, either 5D or 1D style. Now where we (I) have the Otus and 135mm Aposonnar in Canon EF mount and see what would be possible, there is no word about higher res Canon this year. I have the 1DX which is fabulous apart from sensor resolution. Really much better images than the 1DsMk3 that I just sold in favor of a D800e and some lenses. I have never owned a Nikon in my life and I am anxious how I like it.
-
As a Nikon user (D800, D800E and D7100) maybe I shouldn't comment on a Canon thread - although, like the OP, I used Canon A1s extensively in the good old days.
However, I think the way all major manufacturers bring out upgraded (and sometimes completely new) models is more directed at completely new photographers rather than established users of their marque. To have the keenest competitive edge in that market they do need to constantly leapfrog each-other to offer the best-specced camera in whatever range the newcomer may be considering so that they get them tied into the marque.
For those of us who are "handcuffed" to a marque by virtue of having bagfuls of lenses and accessories that may have cost much more than the camera bodies we use, keeping up with every upgrade is becoming progressively less important (or maybe we are just becoming longer in the tooth).
-
the 36Mp "rose" that Nikon and Sony have do have thorns (Sony >> Nikon) so it seems that going to that kind of resolution and beyond comes at some price, both economically and functionally. So let's understand that first. Sometimes engineering can overcome some of these issues, and sometimes not.
Most of the people who own these cameras either do not ever need 36 Mp, 14 stops, or only rarely. Many could not tell the diff except for uncommon particular situations For most it might as well be vaporware. And, currently it comes at the price of funny color balance, both manufacturers. The camera body should be looked upon as a "back", nothing more.
I have to grin at the D800/A7r users who advocate that the Sigma ART is good enough, Otus is a waste... sure...
There is no doubt that Canon will push the envelope with the next iteration. Camera makers do this planned obsolescence since glass is forever and they need recurring income.
-
the 36Mp "rose" that Nikon and Sony have do have thorns (Sony >> Nikon) so it seems that going to that kind of resolution and beyond comes at some price, both economically and functionally. So let's understand that first. Sometimes engineering can overcome some of these issues, and sometimes not.
Most of the people who own these cameras either do not ever need 36 Mp, 14 stops, or only rarely. Many could not tell the diff except for uncommon particular situations For most it might as well be vaporware. And, currently it comes at the price of funny color balance, both manufacturers. The camera body should be looked upon as a "back", nothing more.
I have to grin at the D800/A7r users who advocate that the Sigma ART is good enough, Otus is a waste... sure...
There is no doubt that Canon will push the envelope with the next iteration. Camera makers do this planned obsolescence since glass is forever and they need recurring income.
My 50 year old Pentax lens has more resolution at f8 on my A7r than my 5D3 had with my 50L at any aperture. Carry on grinning, we who actually have and use both know exactly what the canon people are missing out on. You may need the otus, the 55mm FE is a fraction of the price and on the A7r will still cream the otus for resolving power on any canon camera that you can name. That's before you even mention DR. We have a D800e in the studio, just put in an order for a second one. Canon doesn't come close for IQ. Period. Shame really. The 5D3 was the body that I'd always wanted my 5D's to be it's an incredible body, better than any of the competition and with almost none of the usual canon crippling (spot meter aside). Pretty much the perfect wedding/event camera. Problem was the sensor just didn't make the grade for commercial work. I'm still amazed at how little work the A7r's files need compared to the canon.
-
Sure and can do what National Geographic was reputed to have done when doing a story on Hadrian's Wall. It's said that the editors wanted a shot of snow on the wall so once they were told it was snowing, they flew the photographer back to get the extra pics.
Even if I never needed more than 24MP in a perfect world, it just ain't so.The wrong lighting, poor exposure can be fixed to a certain extent in PP, just like you can crop the image BUT they all take their toll on quality so it is nice to start with more.
Besides which it makes me feel good. ;D
-
Hey, I'm very pleased that you are happy
How difficult is that? You have a need and you feel you have the proper tool. At the sales counter we both vote for what moves us. An 800-based system is similar in cost to a 5DIII system (mine's actually a 6D). You do what you need and I do what I need.
Isn't that enough?
Edit; Nat Geo isn't gonna fly me anywhere any time soon… no worries here. I'll worry more about getting the shot I want. I admit, most here are far better at any aspect of photography than me. But having grown up in film, digital is very different and there are ways that it seems 'easier" to me. With digital post, only OOF and totally burnt are no-saves with all the tools. Cameras have progressed too. It's like guitars or race cars… play the one you like best.
My 50 year old Pentax lens has more resolution at f8 on my A7r than my 5D3 had with my 50L at any aperture. Carry on grinning, we who actually have and use both know exactly what the canon people are missing out on. You may need the otus, the 55mm FE is a fraction of the price and on the A7r will still cream the otus for resolving power on any canon camera that you can name. That's before you even mention DR. We have a D800e in the studio, just put in an order for a second one. Canon doesn't come close for IQ. Period. Shame really. The 5D3 was the body that I'd always wanted my 5D's to be it's an incredible body, better than any of the competition and with almost none of the usual canon crippling (spot meter aside). Pretty much the perfect wedding/event camera. Problem was the sensor just didn't make the grade for commercial work. I'm still amazed at how little work the A7r's files need compared to the canon.
-
Hey, I'm very pleased that you are happy
Isn't that enough?
I am sure that it is enough. Until someone comes along with lines like:
Most of the people who own these cameras either do not ever need 36 Mp, 14 stops, or only rarely. Many could not tell the diff except for uncommon particular situations For most it might as well be vaporware. And, currently it comes at the price of funny color balance, both manufacturers. The camera body should be looked upon as a "back", nothing more.
I have to grin at the D800/A7r users who advocate that the Sigma ART is good enough, Otus is a waste... sure...
::)
-
Hi,
May depend on what you are shooting. Tripod, MLU, accurate focus and base ISO is needed to utilize 36 MP and 14 EV of DR.
Best regards
Erik
quote author=Lee Rentz link=topic=85930.msg696904#msg696904 date=1389334330]
Interestingly, buyers on both B & H and Amazon rate the Canon 5D MK III a little higher than the Nikon 800. The absolute number of pixels is just one part of the quality equation.
[/quote]
-
I find that 36 MP does focus your attention on all your little failings in technique. I might be considered obsessive but I do own 4 tripod / monopods including a tabletop model and a carbon fibre with ball heads and geared heads.
-
Just another thought: for sure Canon have listened, and are listening to, the pro photographers, to get the pulse on current and future trends and requirements.
It seems that they have not considered a high megapixel count body to be a priority for the majority of their users. In all fairness, the pro market is dominated by sports and event photography; and for these two areas, Canon have the bases pretty well covered. As for the "enthusiast" and "fine art" photographers, they have a small impact in the pro sales market, and Canon have that covered too (5D and 6D series).
In the last couple of years, they have responded to pro market trends, with focus on the high quality cine cameras. Now that that is done, for sure they will introduce the high res body.
-
Just another thought: for sure Canon have listened, and are listening to, the pro photographers, to get the pulse on current and future trends and requirements.
I am sure that they do listen to all cohorts of their customer base. But how significant to their marketing and development are the opinions and needs of "pro photographers"?
I would have thought that well under 1% of their "pro" models are purchased by professionals. Bear in mind that professionals have to base their purchasing decisions on boring factors like cost/benefit analysis whereas amateurs like us can (within our budgets) give free rein to our whims and fancies. That is why amateur photography, rather than professional, tends to drive the leading edge of both technological and artistic development.
-
Most of the people who own these cameras either do not ever need 36 Mp, 14 stops, or only rarely. Many could not tell the diff except for uncommon particular situations For most it might as well be vaporware. And, currently it comes at the price of funny color balance, both manufacturers. The camera body should be looked upon as a "back", nothing more.
I can easily see the difference between my 1DsIII and D800e shots in terms of image quality. ;)
(Which camera is better could be argued to the death.)
Canon really should have had a 5D sized body out with similar or better resolution by now just to keep these arguments fired up ! ;D
-
There was a time in my photography when I used a tripod for every shot; at that point the Nikon 800 would have been the perfect camera for me. But in the last few years, after the advent of full-frame digital cameras with extraordinary ISO capabilities, I have become much, much looser in my work, and only occasionally use a tripod. I have no desire for more detail in my work, if it means going back to using a tripod and thus missing too many shots. So, even if Canon comes out with a 45 or 60 megapixel camera, I wouldn't necessarily buy it if there was still an alternative that was more suited to my shooting style. Aside from that, my hard drives already fill up far too quickly.
-
There was a time in my photography when I used a tripod for every shot; at that point the Nikon 800 would have been the perfect camera for me. But in the last few years, after the advent of full-frame digital cameras with extraordinary ISO capabilities, I have become much, much looser in my work, and only occasionally use a tripod. I have no desire for more detail in my work, if it means going back to using a tripod and thus missing too many shots. So, even if Canon comes out with a 45 or 60 megapixel camera, I wouldn't necessarily buy it if there was still an alternative that was more suited to my shooting style. Aside from that, my hard drives already fill up far too quickly.
More MP is (all else equal) never a bad thing for IQ, but it can bring a benefit that approach zero as other factors start to dominate image degradation (e.g. camera shake). I believe that future raw processors might be able to do better with "oversampled" images than current generation. I.e. D800 images may be blurred to the point of looking similar to D700 images by the camera shake of a given user/scenario today, but it might still look better when DXO 13 is released (or it might not).
Increasing megapixels has some operational drawbacks (typically lower framerates, rapid buffer fill-up, less images on a given memory card/hard-drive, slower raw development etc). History (Moores law) predicts that these problems will be less significant with time, so camera manufacturers can bump up the number of pixels at the same rate that memory card sizes and processing power progress, and have the speed etc stay at a constant level. For cases where you are certain that the extra resolution is not needed, it is possible to build optional down-rezzing into the camera (granted, this will typically work around the bottle-necks of down-stream components, not upstream components like sensor).
Improved DR (at low ISO) is harder to argue against. Who would possibly prefer (all else equal) to have the least significant bits of their raw files filled with noise instead of image information? I want my camera to take pictures of the scene I am pointing at, and do it "accurately". If I want noise in my image, I prefer to add to taste using Lightroom.
-h
-
I am sure that it is enough. Until someone comes along with lines like:
::)
and you find truth bothersome? Have as many megapixels as you like. That's my point. You feel you need them… go get 'em. Could say more but you've managed to bring this low enough, no need to go lower.
-
^ Member ignored. Those standing in rocky glass houses really shouldn't throw stones.
-
More MP is (all else equal) never a bad thing for IQ, but it can bring a benefit that approach zero as other factors start to dominate image degradation (e.g. camera shake). I believe that future raw processors might be able to do better with "oversampled" images than current generation.
For my needs oversampling is exactly what these high-mp cameras do. That you can have an excess of spatial data along with a healthy amount of tonal data is, to me anyway, impressive. I hope we'll see RAW processor developers devote time & effort to decoding specifically for output to high-res screens.
Based on what I've seen so far from the A7r, I'd say that rather than it demanding the very best lenses it puts many older designs nicely back in play. At least when judging the 3840x2160 output files I'm interested in. So I can choose lenses holistically—based on a balance of global & local contrast character, color rendition, OOF character, etc.—rather than being fixated on any one thing.
-Dave-
-
Nice summary!
Best regards
Erik
More MP is (all else equal) never a bad thing for IQ, but it can bring a benefit that approach zero as other factors start to dominate image degradation (e.g. camera shake). I believe that future raw processors might be able to do better with "oversampled" images than current generation. I.e. D800 images may be blurred to the point of looking similar to D700 images by the camera shake of a given user/scenario today, but it might still look better when DXO 13 is released (or it might not).
Increasing megapixels has some operational drawbacks (typically lower framerates, rapid buffer fill-up, less images on a given memory card/hard-drive, slower raw development etc). History (Moores law) predicts that these problems will be less significant with time, so camera manufacturers can bump up the number of pixels at the same rate that memory card sizes and processing power progress, and have the speed etc stay at a constant level. For cases where you are certain that the extra resolution is not needed, it is possible to build optional down-rezzing into the camera (granted, this will typically work around the bottle-necks of down-stream components, not upstream components like sensor).
Improved DR (at low ISO) is harder to argue against. Who would possibly prefer (all else equal) to have the least significant bits of their raw files filled with noise instead of image information? I want my camera to take pictures of the scene I am pointing at, and do it "accurately". If I want noise in my image, I prefer to add to taste using Lightroom.
-h
-
^ Member ignored. Those standing in rocky glass houses really shouldn't throw stones.
I'm so hurt! how about a hankie for you…? At least I don't have to worry about taking your umbrage.
what's with taking disagreement personally? Many different approaches are valid under different circumstances. No one's honor is at stake for disagreeing.
-
I've been a Canon user since 1978. (The A-1 was the reason I switched from another brand, and I've remained a Canon user since.) I can't help but feel, that, at least as far as Pro photographers are concerned, Canon appears to be at a creative/technical standstill. Ever new announcement seems to be geared toward amateurs (70D and a myriad of Powershots) or the Pro filmmaker. I own both the 1Dx and a now 5-year old 1Ds3. I keep being tempted to give myself a slight update with the 5D3, but keep holding back that Canon MUST have something up it's sleeve... or does it? The dominance that Canon achieved a decade ago has eroded quite seriously. I admit that, as well as being a photographer, I'm a techno-geek. I am able to complete my work easily with what I have, and other than the 1Dx last year, no new announcements has made it easier on my wallet. I'm the kind of photographer who, in film days, loved playing with new film, developers, papers, etc., so it's no surprise that I keep wanting to see what Canon will do next. But at this point point, I suppose the real answer to that is... NOTHING.
Here's what was stated on Gizmodo recently:
http://gizmodo.com/the-last-days-of-the-dslr-1465327158
Although it's in regard to MILC vs DSLR, some of the comments implied that Canon (and Nikon) are asleep.
My comments are,
"How can he know that they are asleep?"
"How can he know they aren't investing in the new technologies?"
They've been leaders in camera technology for so long that I can't remember when it started (I started with Oly in 1962 and Pentax in 1963 when they were leaders, and Nikon was referred to as the "King of the Japanese cameras").
I'm not writing Canon off just yet. As someone above noted, their 21 MP sensor cameras are the best selling on B&H, so they can't be that bad.
There is a difference between "standstill" and "taking stock" - they often look the same.
Glenn
-
There was a time in my photography when I used a tripod for every shot; at that point the Nikon 800 would have been the perfect camera for me. But in the last few years, after the advent of full-frame digital cameras with extraordinary ISO capabilities, I have become much, much looser in my work, and only occasionally use a tripod. I have no desire for more detail in my work, if it means going back to using a tripod and thus missing too many shots. So, even if Canon comes out with a 45 or 60 megapixel camera, I wouldn't necessarily buy it if there was still an alternative that was more suited to my shooting style. Aside from that, my hard drives already fill up far too quickly.
For what it is worth, I have never had as many hand held images looking very sharp at 100% in PS with any other camera as I currently have with the D800.
The reasons?
- The excellence of the mirror damping,
- Auto-ISO combined with superb image quality up to very high ISOs, in particular when used in combination with DxO 9 with Prime noise reduction,
- AF - although it is also true with manual focus lenses like the Zeiss Otus that I have been using hand held a lot recently.
Describing the D800 as a tripod only camera does not give it 10% of the credit it deserves.
The D800 in auto ISO, A mode at f2.0 with a nice prime lens like the Sigma 35mm f1.4 is the ultimate PJ camera, the closest thing to a SLR loaded with the best negative film. The DR makes it incredibly forgiving of (rare) exposures issues and let you focus 99% of your brain power on the creative part of photography.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
For what it is worth, I have never had as many hand held images looking very sharp at 100% in PS with any other camera as I currently have with the D800.
The reasons?
- The excellence of the mirror damping,
- Auto-ISO combined with superb image quality up to very high ISOs, in particular when used in combination with DxO 9 with Prime noise reduction,
- AF - although it is also true with manual focus lenses like the Zeiss Otus that I have been using hand held a lot recently.
Describing the D800 as a tripod only camera does not give it 10% of the credit it deserves. It
The D800 in auto ISO, A mode at f2.0 with a nice prime lens like the Sigma 35mm f1.4 is the ultimate PJ camera, the closest thing to a SLR loaded with the best negative film. The DR makes it incredibly forgiving of (rare) exposures issues and let you focus 99% of your brain power on the creative part of photography.
Cheers,
Bernard
I doubt if Nikon want us to tell the truth about our D800s, Bernard. It might persuade Canon to pull their finger out and release a new model that begins to compete.
:)
-
- Auto-ISO combined with superb image quality up to very high ISOs,
Too true.
I spent a couple weeks in UnZud shooting a fishing story largely hand held in auto ISO and found I had a lot more sharp pictures to choose from when doing the edit.
I would also add, the high resolution leaves a lot of room for cropping.
Amazing camera the 800. 8)