Has Canon fallen hopelessly behind? (cross-posted)

[Kirk Gittings]

The article I referred to was for US sales, not world-wide. But Sony and Nikon nipping at Canon's heel is a wake up call.

More in the arena we are talking about however-read further-there is a wide spread:

in the market for cameras with interchangeable lens, or single lens reflex cameras, Canon controlled 44.5 percent of the market, followed by Nikon with 29.8 percent and Sony with 11.9 percent, according to the data.

[ckimmerle]

The problem for me isn't that my current Canon isn't adequate it's that when I get new camera lust I don't see a Canon model to lust after

Why is that? Resolution? Really? Resolution is 99% hype. It does nothing at all for image quality. A good photo at 12mp is better than a mediocre photo at 36mp. And is THAT fact that most people either do not understand or do not want to.

[BJL]

No, Nikon is still lagging behind Canon and Sony in number 3 position.

By those numbers, Nikon is about 10 million/year behind Canon, so I doubt the D800 will be enough to close the gap. But while we are counting all cameras, not just DSLRs, need I remind you (and Bloomberg) that the real unit sales leaders are Samsung, Nokia, and Apple.

[BJL]

"in the market for cameras with interchangeable lens, or single lens reflex cameras, Canon controlled 44.5 percent of the market, followed by Nikon with 29.8 percent and Sony with 11.9 percent, according to the data."
The wording is poor, conflating "interchangeable lens cameras" with SLRs: do those numbers include other interchangeable lens cameras, such as Sony NEX models?

Anyway, the "Canon fallen behind" claim is about the new high end DSLRs, not the entry level options which dominate those unit sales figures. As in so many cases, revenue figures would be more illuminating than unit sales as a measure of the competitive landscape.

[BernardLanguillier]

By those numbers, Nikon is about 10 million/year behind Canon, so I doubt the D800 will be enough to close the gap. But while we are counting all cameras, not just DSLRs, need I remind you (and Bloomberg) that the real unit sales leaders are Samsung, Nokia, and Apple.

That's the real problem of Canon. They have apparently decided to focus more on the lower end but that is precisely where the threat from phones and 4/3 cameras is the strongest.

In my view, few new buyers would select a low end DSLR over a high end 4/3 that is more compact, stylish and performs very well too. The performance of the new Olympus should be eye opening... the ease of use of the Nikon J1 has gained it a tremendous following in Japan among certain categories of shooters too.

Cheers,
Bernard

[joneil]

No offense but this thread is giving me a good laugh because I remember threads just like this one years ago when the first Canon DSLRs Came out and pulled ahead of Nikon.  I distinctly remember many "experts" out there on both the Internet and even the old BBS systems talking about how Nikon has lost it.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm a dyed in the wool Nikon guy for over 30 years or more, but I think Canon is a great system and should not be counted out by any means.

What I think might and is happening is the real threat - if you can call it that, is the use of cell phones , etc, with built in cameras.  Not long ago I was watching the news and some guy was talking about how great the new iPad with it's "amazing" 5 meg camera was and how good for photography it is.   I kept thinking  who is going to wander around with a tablet all day expressly for photography?   

Also for the price of a new iPad, you can buy a basic Nikon or Canon dslr and do far better than any iPad, but I find people don't always think that way.   

Tounge firmly in cheek, my fearless prediction of the eventual winner of the Canon vs Nikon war will not be the company that produces the best product, but the one who's brand name becomes the "coolest" to be seen with while having your latte at Starbucks.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

On the other hand a well executed photograph on 24 MP has more and better detail than a similarly well executed photograph at 12 MP. The detail may not be needed but it will certainly not hurt. That is also a fact.

Best regards
Erik

Why is that? Resolution? Really? Resolution is 99% hype. It does nothing at all for image quality. A good photo at 12mp is better than a mediocre photo at 36mp. And is THAT fact that most people either do not understand or do not want to.

[uaiomex]

I feel the same. Canon is been busy for the last years developing video and cine-wannabes instead of focusing on making better still photography digital cameras. Just because the technology is "there" it doesn't mean they should neglect the core trend. Actually, Nikon had the world's coolest slr for decades till Canon took advantage of the new incipient digital technologies like AF and they changed the photo world for good.
That was 25 years ago. Now it seems that the advantage that the gigantic turnover that Canon made to put together the EOS technology in the stores is fading away. Canon is many times bigger than Nikon as corporations. Perhaps Canon crystal ball sees further up into the future than Nikon's. As some have said, maybe the future of photography is extracting stills from sequences. If true, in essence this means a big step further for the conversion of the spirited photographer into the savvy opportunistic digital technician. In the practice, not much more than a trade broker dealing for pennies (relatively) At best, a 21th Century version of "f8 and be there".

I'm 59 but always and ever proud of being a pro-progress person and I would be the last man to curse any technological advancement. I have about 20 more years to produce all the great photography I could dream of. At this moment of my life, Nikon, Sony, Olympus and Panasonic fit my fancies better than Canon. I've done some videos which I have enjoyed very much producing them but my real love is still still photography.  

Canon has the final word. They will be here long after I'm gone. In the meantime, my thrive is to find the best way to produce the best, most exciting still photography to make a living and to fill my soul.

Eduardo

P.S. I just spent two days last week in San Miguel de Allende. I got an assignment to shoot some murals in Queretaro (40 minute drive). I kept an eagle eye for Michael, but I didn't have such luck. ¡LOL!  This picture is at main square portales with a 5D2 and a 70-200 f4 IS.

I've used Canon cameras since 1980. I've always thought it was a technologically advanced and bold company that benefited from a multifaceted corporate environment (medical, opthomological, optical, etc.). And now, it swoops down to present us with (gasp!) a 22MP instead of 21MP 5D3, and (another gasp!) 18MP movie, I mean still camera -- the 1Dx. And the 1Dx is suppose to replace both the 1d and 1Ds series?? I own both the 1D4 and 1Ds3. I actually, except at higher ASA values (yes, I know ISO is the "correct term"), feel my old 1Ds2 had better image quality than my 1D4. And my 1Ds3 does a great job, except my commercial clients are starting to itch for more res in their instore posters. Because Canon is so far behind Nikon (and I'm also assuming Sony at this point), I've thought of buying a Pentax 645D.

Am I the only one who feels Canon has taken it's eye off the ball by thinking all photographers want to really be cinematographers (I was one one in my early days, and even won a Kodak film award, so I know where I'm coming from)? I'm curious about other thoughts...

Nemo

[BernardLanguillier]

IPerhaps Canon crystal ball sees further up into the future than Nikon's. As some have said, maybe the future of photography is extracting stills from sequences. If true, in essence this means a big step further for the conversion of the spirited photographer into the savvy opportunistic digital technician.

Do we know for a fact that the 5DIII is superior to the D800 in terms of video? Spec wise it would seem that the clean HDMI out of the D800 is a differentiator for high end stuff, but that would remain to be measured for sure.

Cheers,
Bernard

[DeanChriss]

The pendulum has swung back and forth a number of times over the decades, sometimes favoring Nikon, and sometimes favoring Canon. Canon's early digital cameras were far ahead of Nikon's, and in the last few years Nikon has taken the lead. With that said, the Canon system isn't bad, it's just not as far out on the cutting edge as Nikon seems to be. To some extent Canon's quality control also slipped in a couple previous generations, even on their flagship models. I find that much more worrisome than being a little behind the already mature technology curve, and I hope their latest models are rock solid again. Only time will tell. Huge investments in lenses keep many, including myself, from switching on a whim. Except for watching movies made by others I have zero interest in video, so it's not even a consideration unless it negatively affects still image functionality or quality.

[Kirk Gittings]

For me, I became interested in video because of the 5DII and now it is an additional income stream using the same equipment (largely) that I shoot stills with. So I say kudos to Canon for taking this segment of the video market  seriously.

Clearly Nikon is the more market savy manufacturer at this point 2012 by understanding the sheer seductivity of more pixels, but for me Canon has offered a serious upgrade too and as an architectural photographer (my clients could care less about larger files) with the superior Canon t/s lenses, I will remain in the Canon camp for the immediate future.

[BernardLanguillier]

The pendulum has swung back and forth a number of times over the decades, sometimes favoring Nikon, and sometimes favoring Canon. Canon's early digital cameras were far ahead of Nikon's, and in the last few years Nikon has taken the lead.

Not quite in fact.

Nikon had taken a very clear lead with the D1 and maintained that lead both in high end (D1x) and low end (D100) mostly until the release of the 1Ds that was Canon's most remarkable act of panache.

The 30D and 5D were significant releases pricewise, but they didn't push the envelope much or at all in terms of performance.

Followed a painful 4 or 5 years for Nikon during which they didn't have anything really able to compete in the high end, but those were arguably the only years during which Nikon didn't have the crown in terms of best performing still camera. Granted, these were critical years during which DSLRs expanded immensely. The lack of focus of Nikon on FF did for sure cost them a lot of photographers.

Canon took a lead in video with the 5DII, but the D3, D3s and D3x owned the still performance crown in their respective areas of specialty for the past 3-5 years already. The 5DII can be described as a milestone camera, but mostly because of its price.

So all in all, the 1Ds appears to be the only Canon DSLR release that really pushed the enveloped significantly in terms of performance for still photographers. Overall it almost looks like an anomaly considering the overall focus of Canon on value, meaning making very good - but not leading - cameras available to a larger crowd.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Kirk Gittings]

I would agree with that as an overview except for one area. Bringing high quality technology to a lower price point is a kind of inovation-significant to allot of photographers. So IMO the 5D was breakthough technology at that price point. I know for myself having made my living shooting 4x5 film for almost 3 decades it was the 5D and its comfortable price that finally lured me into finally trying digital.

[BJL]

Bringing high quality technology to a lower price point is a kind of inovation-significant to allot of photographers. So IMO the 5D was breakthough technology at that price point.

I agree that the 5D was transformational for exactly that reason. Allowing for savings on film and processing, it made the TCO of 35mm format digital comparable to that of a good 35mm film SLR for many amateur enthusiasts. It is striking that the new dramatically lower price level that it set, around US$3000, has basically stuck ever since. I am looking at pricing of newly released models, not discounted prices on aging products.

[Chris_Brown]

Canon won't ignore the amateur and pro-sumer market. That's where the money is. Professionals demand the best but make up for a tiny part of the global market. How many Rebel XT's were sold compared to the 1Ds?

The 1Dx has high ISO capabilities, but that feeds the photo-jo appetite, not the studio wonk. Will the color and dynamic range measure up to the hype from Canon? If Canon compromises resolution for cine features and lower resolution, how many customers will jump ship?

I lust for redesigned 45mm & 90mm TS-E lenses.

[Kirk Gittings]

I lust for redesigned 45mm & 90mm TS-E lenses.

Absolutely.

[uaiomex]

After Canon do it, it will be impossible to switch to Nikon.
Eduardo

Canon won't ignore the amateur and pro-sumer market. That's where the money is. Professionals demand the best but make up for a tiny part of the global market. How many Rebel XT's were sold compared to the 1Ds?

The 1Dx has high ISO capabilities, but that feeds the photo-jo appetite, not the studio wonk. Will the color and dynamic range measure up to the hype from Canon? If Canon compromises resolution for cine features and lower resolution, how many customers will jump ship?

I lust for redesigned 45mm & 90mm TS-E lenses.

[Ray]

Why is that? Resolution? Really? Resolution is 99% hype. It does nothing at all for image quality. A good photo at 12mp is better than a mediocre photo at 36mp. And is THAT fact that most people either do not understand or do not want to.

Resolution is not hype. It's clearly defined in terms of 'line pairs per millimetre' (LPPM), or sometimes 'line widths per picture height' (LW/PH) at 50% contrast.

It's a fact that a sensor with a higher pixel count is capable of delivering higher resolution from the same lens. The only hype would be to assume that such increase in resolution is proportional to the increase in pixel numbers, that is, it would be an exaggeration to claim that a 4x increase in pixel numbers on the same size sensor is equivalent to a doubling of resolution. It's likely to be a bit less when one uses the same lenses.

If, by a 'good' photo, you mean an artistically pleasing and interesting photo, then neither resolution nor any other performance characteristic of the camera can ensure that. But even so, one usually needs a certain minimum level of camera performance. There's not much point in having a wonderfully artistic shot of a feathered bird sitting on the branch of a tree if the resolution is so poor you cannot tell what species of bird it may be, or even if it is a bird in the first instance.

If, by a 'good' photo, you mean a photo with smooth tonality and clean shadows, then it's true that increased resolution alone will not guarantee that.

However, in the case of the 36mp D800 compared with the 12mp D700, the D800 does produce smoother tonality and cleaner shadows, in addition to significantly higher resolution.

For example, at base ISO and equal print size, the D800 has over one stop lower SNR at 18% grey. At ISO 12,800 it has about 3/4ths of a stop better SNR, and at ISO 25,600 a whole stop better SNR.

When it comes to dynamic range (or clean and detailed shadow charcteristics), the D800 advantage is even greater. At its base ISO of 100, the D800 has over 2 stops better DR than the D700. That's very significant. At ISO 400 the D800 still retains a 1 stop advantage, which is still significant.

The D800 does not need any any hyperbolic advertising to make it appealing. The facts speak for themselves.

Now, all that remains is for Nikon to contact me and offer me a free D800 for my wonderful promotional efforts.  (Joking of course!)

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

A couple of comparison I made a few years ago indicated that the difference between 12MP (APS-C) and 24 MP (Full frame) was large. When printed on A2 the difference in prints was much less, and sometimes I could not tell apart.

Present day 16 MP APS-C corresponds pretty exactly to 36MP on full frame, so we can predict performance of 36 MP FF sensors by seeing 16 MP APS-C as crops of 36 MP full frame. Such a test was presented here: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/60-what-about-36mp-dslrs

My finding was that the difference between 24 MP and 36 MP full frame would be hardly noticable.

I also checked out APS-C sensor images from Imaging Resource and evaluated with Imatest. To my surprise the resolution on axis kept up perfectly with sensor resolution. I guess that off axis (corners and edges) the results would be much worse, depending on the lenses used.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=62371.0

So, I think that resolution is for real. Do we need it? Maybe, but it doesn't hurt for sure!

Best regards
Erik

Resolution is not hype. It's clearly defined in terms of 'line pairs per millimetre' (LPPM), or sometimes 'line widths per picture height' (LW/PH) at 50% contrast.

It's a fact that a sensor with a higher pixel count is capable of delivering higher resolution from the same lens. The only hype would be to assume that such increase in resolution is proportional to the increase in pixel numbers, that is, it would be an exaggeration to claim that a 4x increase in pixel numbers on the same size sensor is equivalent to a doubling of resolution. It's likely to be a bit less when one uses the same lenses.

If, by a 'good' photo, you mean an artistically pleasing and interesting photo, then neither resolution nor any other performance characteristic of the camera can ensure that. But even so, one usually needs a certain minimum level of camera performance. There's not much point in having a wonderfully artistic shot of a feathered bird sitting on the branch of a tree if the resolution is so poor you cannot tell what species of bird it may be, or even if it is a bird in the first instance.

If, by a 'good' photo, you mean a photo with smooth tonality and clean shadows, then it's true that increased resolution alone will not guarantee that.

However, in the case of the 36mp D800 compared with the 12mp D700, the D800 does produce smoother tonality and cleaner shadows, in addition to significantly higher resolution.

For example, at base ISO and equal print size, the D800 has over one stop lower SNR at 18% grey. At ISO 12,800 it has about 3/4ths of a stop better SNR, and at ISO 25,600 a whole stop better SNR.

When it comes to dynamic range (or clean and detailed shadow charcteristics), the D800 advantage is even greater. At its base ISO of 100, the D800 has over 2 stops better DR than the D700. That's very significant. At ISO 400 the D800 still retains a 1 stop advantage, which is still significant.

The D800 does not need any any hyperbolic advertising to make it appealing. The facts speak for themselves.

Now, all that remains is for Nikon to contact me and offer me a free D800 for my wonderful promotional efforts.  (Joking of course!)

[Ray]

Present day 16 MP APS-C corresponds pretty exactly to 36MP on full frame, so we can predict performance of 36 MP FF sensors by seeing 16 MP APS-C as crops of 36 MP full frame.

Absolutely! It's uncanny how close the pixel performance of the D7000 is compared with the D800, at DXOMark in screen mode. The differences are so small one could almost attribute them to QC differences in the manufacture of the cameras.

Where differences do seem significant, for example DR at ISO 12,800, which at first glance appears to be 0.81EV better in the D800, one finds this is mainly due to different ISO standards. The D800 at its nominated setting of ISO 12,800 is really ISO 8,661, whereas the D7000 is actually ISO 10,549, so the results indicate that the D800 pixel at its lower ISO of 8,661 has 0.81EV better DR than the D7000 pixel at its higher ISO of 10,549.

Visually, comparing points on the graph that are vertically aligned, the improvement appears to be of the order of 1/3rd of a stop, which is of no great consequence. However, these results are for the pixel. At equal print size, that DR advantage of the D800 at a real ISO of 10,549 is transformed to approximately one full stop, which I guess would be noticeable.

Where the Canon 5D2 lags greatly behind in these tests of DR is at low ISO. At ISO 1600 and above, it's not too bad compared with the D800, but at base ISO of 100 (actually 73 and 74), the D800 has a whopping 2 & 1/2 stops'  advantage, at equal print size.

As I understand, this would mean, when taking an ETTR shot of a high dynamic range scene, in order to get a similar level of detail and low noise in the deep shadows in the 5D2 shot, one would have to give 2 & 1/2 stops' greater exposure with the 5D2 than the D800 requires, thus massively blowing out the highlights.

It will be interesting to see how much improvement the 5D3 has in respect of DR at base ISO. I wonder why DXOMark are taking so long to test the 5D3.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/792%7C0/(brand)/Nikon/(appareil2)/680%7C0/(brand2)/Nikon/(appareil3)/483%7C0/(brand3)/Canon