Home · Register · Software · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3       4      
5
       6              13       14       end
  

Article posted on Dpreview re: Canons lack of innovation
  
 
MayaTlab
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #1 · p.5 #1 · Article posted on Dpreview re: Canons lack of innovation


Milan Hutera wrote:
Why would I do that?

You might think the 14 bit is unecessary at high ISO (I do not).


I gave a practical example where switching to 12bit raw is interesting (raw wifi transfer speed).

I don't think that 14bit is unnecessary at high ISO : I know it, because it logically is. A 14bit raw file doesn't give you more gradations within the same range, it gives you extra gradations at the lower end, which may matter or not depending on the quantity of noise that's there.



Sep 14, 2017 at 03:03 PM
scott f
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #2 · p.5 #2 · Article posted on Dpreview re: Canons lack of innovation


MayaTlab wrote:
I gave a practical example where switching to 12bit raw is interesting (raw wifi transfer speed).

I don't think that 14bit is unnecessary at high ISO : I know it, because it logically is. A 14bit raw file doesn't give you more gradations within the same range, it gives you extra gradations at the lower end, which may matter or not depending on the quantity of noise that's there.


And shadows aren't exactly Canon's strong point.



Sep 14, 2017 at 03:11 PM
ggreene
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #3 · p.5 #3 · Article posted on Dpreview re: Canons lack of innovation


I don't think Canon will change their "steady slow improvement" until someone forces the situation and impacts their market share. For all the whining about the 6D2 it's currently the #3 best selling FF camera on Amazon (the only metric we have for specific body sales). Not DSLR's but all cameras. You aren't going to see larger jumps in tech until people stop buying what they offer.



Sep 14, 2017 at 03:22 PM
Greg Schneider
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #4 · p.5 #4 · Article posted on Dpreview re: Canons lack of innovation


Milan Hutera wrote:
[Canon provides only one RAW setting, that doesn't hamper the performance of the camera in any way (no reduced framerates, no reduced buffer....) compared to direct competition and provides you with more data to work with.


Technically, we don't know if it hampers performance as Canon doesn't give us a 12bit option to compare with

Semantics, I know...in some senses I appreciate not having multiple options to consider.



Sep 14, 2017 at 03:25 PM
snapsy
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #5 · p.5 #5 · Article posted on Dpreview re: Canons lack of innovation


ggreene wrote:
I don't think Canon will change their "steady slow improvement" until someone forces the situation and impacts their market share. For all the whining about the 6D2 it's currently the #3 best selling FF camera on Amazon (the only metric we have for specific body sales). Not DSLR's but all cameras. You aren't going to see larger jumps in tech until people stop buying what they offer.


Agreed. And it may in fact be what Nikon was forced to do with the D850, where they basically threw the entire kitchen sink into the body, risking sales of their more expensive flagship D5. Perhaps Nikon is in a more precarious position than Canon considering the bulk of Nikon's revenue is photography equipment and the bulk of that is in their prosumer bodies, whereas Canon is more diversified both in their cameras (for example, success in APS-C MILCs), and their business overall.



Sep 14, 2017 at 03:28 PM
Mikehit
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #6 · p.5 #6 · Article posted on Dpreview re: Canons lack of innovation


retrofocus wrote:
The reasoning with "this resolution is sufficient" was well heard all the time going back to low res cameras - and it sounds like you try to do the same here again - I can tell you that higher resolution will be always welcome as part of innovation. Even Canon realized it finally - much too late but anyway - with the 5Ds(R).

Would be very interested to see where Canon has explored or applied(?) Lytro technology - do you have a link?


I am not dong the same at all - please read what I actually wrote before criticising.
I will put it more imply: 3MP to 8MP was a huge improvement and that alone was enough to warrant changing brands. 8MP to 12MP was likely the same level. 20 MP to 30MP is very nice but will it cause people to change brands? Probably not. 30MP to 45MP even less so.
I have never said 'we do not need more resolution' - and if you read that into what I said then the only conclusion I can draw is that you simply want to have an argument. What I am saying is that each successive increase in resolution has less and less real world advantage, and the differences are less and less noticeable. I very much doubt you can look at a D850 vs 5DIV and tell me which camera took it, which then means that the real differences between the cameras is the functionality and/or haptics.

As for Lytro - maybe you missed the fact that the 5D4 uses the dual pixels to be able to re-adjust focus? The difference is not huge but it does work - and they have experimented with it which is more than SoNikon have. It is only a relatively small step to provide data on focus distance.

But in general, let us take a hypothetical situation: let us assume the successor to the 5D4 is 4 years away as some believe and even that Canon will forever be playing catch-up. I look at the spec sheet of the D850 or the A9 and like the look of some features (as in fact I do) then if they are that important to me, do I stump up the money to change systems and enjoy taking pictures for 4 years with a superior machine, or do I sit there with my current Canon gear quietly seething at Canon for years and years for giving me an inferior tool? If I choose to stay with Canon then it means those features are not actually that important to what I want to photograph and are merely 'nice to have'. And when I see the reams of sourness at Canon by people who have no intention of switching I have to ask why are they making themselves so miserable for things that are not really that important.



Sep 14, 2017 at 03:37 PM
scott f
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #7 · p.5 #7 · Article posted on Dpreview re: Canons lack of innovation


alundeb wrote:
Yeah, it is called innovation when N implements known technology, but not when C does the same to improve DR significantly.
It is called innovation when N ups the resolution to almost the level of C, but not when C set the record three years ago.
It is called innovation when N ups the frame rate to 7 fps without a grip, but crippling when C does the same.


Comparing the 50Mp of the 5Ds/r to a 42 meg A7RII or D850 is quite misleading. Megapixels are important, but the quality of those pixels is far more important. The actual difference in linear resolution between those sensors, let alone the tried and true 36 megs in the D810, is not high, but the quality difference is substantial.
It's like comparing a 20-megapixel cell phone to the D500's 20-megapixel sensor.
The problem the entire industry faces is that the boom of digital is gone, the core consumer usage has changed drastically due to smartphones, and the major players are still acting as they did in the film days. As the saying goes, "the best camera is the one you have with you." Everyone has a smart phone, and in two seconds, your image is on all your devices, and to the cloud, you can make adjustments that are simply stunning in a matter of seconds through a zillion different apps, and you can send and post to your favorite social sites in a second.
DSLR's on the other hand, mirrorless or otherwise, rely on the same slow method of shoot image, remove the card, put in a reader, download to computer, import to an editor of choice, adjust, resize, export, upload, etc. that they have since inception.
To be fair, it's better than waiting a week for your film to be developed, but it is still clumsy and slow. Sure the quality is better, but for most consumers, the arena of viewing is social media via phones or computer, and convenience is the most important criteria.
WiFi and camera apps from the major players are clumsy to the point that it's embarrassing. I think Sony has the glimmer of the correct path, make apps available in camera. But to truly work, they need to open it up.
As long as they are number one and their products are selling, they won't change. After all, why bother when your strategy is working the best?



Sep 14, 2017 at 03:43 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #8 · p.5 #8 · Article posted on Dpreview re: Canons lack of innovation


BluesWest wrote:
Canon is the market leader in a dying industry.


Not dying, but facing the inevitable end of a period of unsustainable growth fueled by a whole range of unique factors.

There is going to be a serious re-set in the camera business as it readjusts to a more normal set of circumstances — in many ways things will soon seem more like they were before the introduction of DSLRs in the early 2000s, and we'll adjust to a more incremental rate of improvement and we'll keep our cameras longer before upgrading.

That doesn't remotely mean that the camera industry will "die," but it certainly cannot sustain the unnatural rate of growth of the past decade and a half.

Mikehit wrote:
Your analogy is facile in the extreme - I don't recall anyone ever saying 3MP is enough.


If I had a nickel for every post based on a straw man argument... And yes, you are right to point it out — the "3MP is enough" invention is a classic example. ;-)

(Straw man argument — rather than responding to the substance of the other person's position, the individual employing this approach makes up an absurd position that the opponent did not present, assigns it to the opponent, and then argues against the ridiculous position that he/she does not have. It is a very common and pretty obvious method of deflection.)

But I think DA photo is correct - digital technology is pretty mature but that does not mean there is not room for improvement. When cameras went from 8MP to 10MP to 12 and 15 MP each increase brought genuine improvements but now, going from 24 to 30MP or from 30 to 45 offers far less advantage especially in this day and age where most photos never even see a printer and end up as 8-bit images on websites. We are getting to the point where we were with film where the difference between bodies is the functionality not the sensor...Show more

I'm with you on this. To be as clear as possible:

1. I'm certain that modern cameras are better than previous cameras, and the manufacturers continue to and will continue to produce improvements that are valuable to photographers. I welcome continued development and refinement, and I expect to see it in new cameras that I may acquire.

2. The rate/magnitude of the improvements has slowed and will continue to do so — at least until a future time when there is another fundamental change in the technology of cameras equivalent to that provided by the adoption of digital camera technology. The biggest and fastest and most significant changes probably occurred in roughly the first decade (plus a few years) of the century, but that rate of change cannot be sustained.

3. While improvements will continue and will be welcomed (see #1), the actual effect on the quality of our photographs and our ability to make photographs will continue to be smaller in all but outlier cases. The gear we work with today, while not perfect, is very, very good. It allows us to accomplish things photographically that are quite remarkable, some of which were almost unimaginable even a couple of decades ago. This doesn't mean that we don't need or want to see more improvements, it just means that the significance of these improvements to our photography will be smaller.

Mikehit wrote:
I will put it more imply: 3MP to 8MP was a huge improvement and that alone was enough to warrant changing brands. 8MP to 12MP was likely the same level. 20 MP to 30MP is very nice but will it cause people to change brands? Probably not. 30MP to 45MP even less so.

I have never said 'we do not need more resolution' - and if you read that into what I said then the only conclusion I can draw is that you simply want to have an argument. What I am saying is that each successive increase in resolution
...Show more

Well said. As we keep saying, continued improvements are inevitable and welcome, but they become less compelling as the current performance reaches higher and higher levels. The point at which a technological improvement becomes significant enough to warrant an upgrade or even a brand change recedes. One cannot argue that a better thing is not better — but the importance of this "better-ness" to one's photography is the critical question.


Edited on Sep 14, 2017 at 10:11 PM · View previous versions



Sep 14, 2017 at 03:57 PM
dhphoto
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #9 · p.5 #9 · Article posted on Dpreview re: Canons lack of innovation


scott f wrote:
Comparing the 50Mp of the 5Ds/r to a 42 meg A7RII or D850 is quite misleading. Megapixels are important, but the quality of those pixels is far more important. The actual difference in linear resolution between those sensors, let alone the tried and true 36 megs in the D810, is not high, but the quality difference is substantial.
It's like comparing a 20-megapixel cell phone to the D500's 20-megapixel sensor.
The problem the entire industry faces is that the boom of digital is gone, the core consumer usage has changed drastically due to smartphones, and the major players are still
...Show more

What you say is true, which is why Canon's current policy of having dslr cameras to cover every price point and feature set is the one that works best.

Very high end dslrs don't sell many compared with the Best Buy best buy Canon, which sell gazillions and although camera phones are universally available proper cameras they are not and enough people will always want proper cameras as they always have



Sep 14, 2017 at 03:58 PM
dtolios
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #10 · p.5 #10 · Article posted on Dpreview re: Canons lack of innovation


Snopchenko wrote:
Uh, what an inflammatory thread... I'll just stick to one thing here:

Unless you are speaking of Samyang and other MF-only manufacturers that are offering the same designs in any available mount, this is not true. Most of Samyangs are really DSLR designs "padded" to compensate for the flange distance, but even that manufacturer started having dedicated mirrorless lenses designed with a smaller flange distance in mind. As do all the bona fide producers - but the physics of the required actual aperture opening size kicks in with the normal lenses and moreso with the telephotos, anyway. However, look at the
...Show more

Ehm, ok...f/2 primes...& filter threads...how does that cater to what I was writing again? And MF Samyang?

What about native AF f/1.4 primes and f/2.8 zooms?

Sony FE 35mm f/1.4 ZA / 78.5 x 112.0 mm / 72mm filter / 630 gr
Sigma 35A f/1.4 / 77 x 94mm / 665 gr
Canon EF 35L f/1.4 II / 80.4 x 105.5 mm / 72mm filter / 730 gr

^The Sony is longer than the competition, it cannot catch up in IQ.
Yes, it is lighter, but it is in the expense of build quality vs. the 35mm II - to R Cicala's words: "The mechanical construction is beyond impressive. This lens is massively over-engineered compared to any other prime we’ve ever disassembled". Perhaps a reason for the weight difference is also that the 35mm II is "polycarbonate outside / lots of metal inside", while the FE 35 ZA is the opposite. Not a bad thing IMHO, eventually all of the lenses' construction will be composite materials, but does tell you something about how much companies think consurmers care for appearances vs.utility - the Sony lens could have been even lighter - if that was a priority, but perceived "Quality" is more important than actual quality. Which is ofc great with this one. If only IQ was up with the competition, or size was smaller, and it would cater towards the "MILCs do it better cause flange distance arguement"...it doesn't.

What about other got-to-be telecentric designs, like the UWA FE 16-35 GM?



What is that in the back? Wasted space?

Sony FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM / 88.5 x 121.6 mm / 82mm filter thread / 680 g
Canon / 88.5 x 127.5 mm / 82mm filter thread / 790 g



At least, in this case, Sony did a superb job - apparently the above cannot be wasted space, and yes, they did save ~100gr. But no one can call that lens notably smaller "because MILC" or can show how this could not have been a SLR lens.

Keep going?
The Sony 24-70 GM is 87.6 x 136 mm, the Canon 24-70L II is 88.5 x 113 mm and 80gr lighter.



It just DOESN'T matter if you care for fast lenses, cause fast lenses are by definition large, and UWA/WA designs need some space between the elements and the sensor to keep the image projected as perpendicular as possible. Perhaps a dual curvature sensor in the far future would change that, but with flat sensors, that's what we get: what is saved from the shorter flange distance, is made up in the other side.

Please understand thats NOT a knock on MILC tech - I strongly believe that this is the future, and some could claim "Today".
My beef is with people advocating (crying) for a potential Canon MILC that should not use the EF mount natively.
I believe there would be no real IQ benefit judging by known limitations and existing lenses.

For marketing purposes, and to make it look a "new thing" they will perhaps do it, and even though the EF-M mount could probably accommodate a FF sensor, but being Canon they will make a mechanically different mount and combine it with a pass-through adapter for EF...just to make things needlessly complicated for photographers, but to satisfy the consumers that seem to beg for more excuses to buy more toys. And although I am not that different, I still stand in AWE of so many images that were produced with far worse equipment than mine by people that know their craft, and I have no illusions that a new camera will magically make me better - just like I would really like a sportscar without having the illusion that it will turn me into a pro driver.


Edited on Sep 14, 2017 at 04:40 PM · View previous versions



Sep 14, 2017 at 04:28 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



alundeb
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #11 · p.5 #11 · Article posted on Dpreview re: Canons lack of innovation


scott f wrote:
Comparing the 50Mp of the 5Ds/r to a 42 meg A7RII or D850 is quite misleading. Megapixels are important, but the quality of those pixels is far more important. The actual difference in linear resolution between those sensors, let alone the tried and true 36 megs in the D810, is not high, but the quality difference is substantial.


That statement needs a qualification. When I compare a 50 MP 5DS R file to a 36 MP D810 file at low ISO, the 50 MP file gives the highest image quality in most cases because there is no noise anyway and the only difference I can see is the higher resolution. It is only when the shadows are lifted that the quality of the pixels becomes important.





Sep 14, 2017 at 04:30 PM
ted1000
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #12 · p.5 #12 · Article posted on Dpreview re: Canons lack of innovation


scott f wrote:
Comparing the 50Mp of the 5Ds/r to a 42 meg A7RII or D850 is quite misleading. Megapixels are important, but the quality of those pixels is far more important. The actual difference in linear resolution between those sensors, let alone the tried and true 36 megs in the D810, is not high, but the quality difference is substantial.
It's like comparing a 20-megapixel cell phone to the D500's 20-megapixel sensor.


This has got to be the funniest post I've ever read. Have you ever shot with a 5DsR? I've used both.

Ted



Sep 14, 2017 at 04:55 PM
Holger
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #13 · p.5 #13 · Article posted on Dpreview re: Canons lack of innovation


MayaTlab wrote:
I gave a practical example where switching to 12bit raw is interesting (raw wifi transfer speed).

I don't think that 14bit is unnecessary at high ISO : I know it, because it logically is. A 14bit raw file doesn't give you more gradations within the same range, it gives you extra gradations at the lower end, which may matter or not depending on the quantity of noise that's there.


At higher ISOs you don't gain anything in my opinion, you solely quantize noise better. The photon transfer curves show almost no difference already above ISO200 (proof for D810 http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/nikon-12-bit-raw-mode/ ) and noise is able to prevent posterization (an easy trick done in photoshop in case it happens is to add a tiny amount of noise). Posterization can occur in the presence of noise, but only when the quantization step is substantially larger than the noise (http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p3.html#bitdepth) .
I never saw this in higher ISO images so far, however (using 12bit vs. 14bit). Below ISO 200 you could argue for using 14bit.



Sep 14, 2017 at 05:03 PM
Holger
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #14 · p.5 #14 · Article posted on Dpreview re: Canons lack of innovation


snapsy wrote:
Agreed. And it may in fact be what Nikon was forced to do with the D850, where they basically threw the entire kitchen sink into the body, risking sales of their more expensive flagship D5. Perhaps Nikon is in a more precarious position than Canon considering the bulk of Nikon's revenue is photography equipment and the bulk of that is in their prosumer bodies, whereas Canon is more diversified both in their cameras (for example, success in APS-C MILCs), and their business overall.


If Thom Hogans numbers and Sony's claims are true, Nikon will be at 23% ILC share, whereas Canon approaches the 45-50% value. Not long ago Nikon was in the upper 30ies. They need to become successful again.



Sep 14, 2017 at 05:08 PM
retrofocus
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #15 · p.5 #15 · Article posted on Dpreview re: Canons lack of innovation


Mikehit wrote:
I am not dong the same at all - please read what I actually wrote before criticising.
I will put it more imply: 3MP to 8MP was a huge improvement and that alone was enough to warrant changing brands. 8MP to 12MP was likely the same level. 20 MP to 30MP is very nice but will it cause people to change brands? Probably not. 30MP to 45MP even less so.
I have never said 'we do not need more resolution' - and if you read that into what I said then the only conclusion I can draw is that you
...Show more

Reason for me to change from my 5D MkII with 22 MP to the Sony A7R with 36 MP was primarily a resolution-driven one when I jumped ship - and the difference is big IMO. I never looked back. Many other jumped ship for the same reason in the past and for better sensor performance. This is all well known.

Again a very personal decision and depends on the style of photography if adding another brand or fully jumping ship makes sense. I agree, when dissatisfied with a company's strategy, there are better options out there which fit better. Sitting and waiting doesn't make sense when it comes to benefiting from better technology out there.



Sep 14, 2017 at 05:16 PM
scott f
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #16 · p.5 #16 · Article posted on Dpreview re: Canons lack of innovation


alundeb wrote:
That statement needs a qualification. When I compare a 50 MP 5DS R file to a 36 MP D810 file at low ISO, the 50 MP file gives the highest image quality in most cases because there is no noise anyway and the only difference I can see is the higher resolution. It is only when the shadows are lifted that the quality of the pixels becomes important.



That was my point, shadows and high ISO performance are quite different on those cameras.


Edited on Sep 14, 2017 at 05:20 PM · View previous versions



Sep 14, 2017 at 05:18 PM
scott f
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #17 · p.5 #17 · Article posted on Dpreview re: Canons lack of innovation


ted1000 wrote:
This has got to be the funniest post I've ever read. Have you ever shot with a 5DsR? I've used both.

Ted


I will give that the comparison is extreme, but the point is valid nonetheless.



Sep 14, 2017 at 05:19 PM
rattlebonez
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #18 · p.5 #18 · Article posted on Dpreview re: Canons lack of innovation


How can the article call Sony and innovator when they cannot even make a body with usable ergonomics
tiny bodies with nothing to hold on to are useless

I keep trying the new Sony offerings and always laugh at their point and shoot ergonomics
maybe some year in the future Sony will size up the bodies to a usable grip and size



Sep 14, 2017 at 05:21 PM
scott f
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.5 #19 · p.5 #19 · Article posted on Dpreview re: Canons lack of innovation


rattlebonez wrote:
How can the article call Sony and innovator when they cannot even make a body with usable ergonomics
tiny bodies with nothing to hold on to are useless

I keep trying the new Sony offerings and always laugh at their point and shoot ergonomics
maybe some year in the future Sony will size up the bodies to a usable grip and size


They're innovators , but they're newbies as well. They have long way to go before they can de-throne Nikon. The lens line up needs work and without a good pro support network(which they seem to be working on), it'll be a while. They're learning.
I can't help but think Canon is waiting for mirrorless to gain a little more traction and then they'll drop a bomb on it with their entry. The M5 certainly made a dent in mirrorless pretty quickly. It's their first decent entry and it made a huge splash.



Sep 14, 2017 at 05:30 PM
DAphoto77
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.5 #20 · p.5 #20 · Article posted on Dpreview re: Canons lack of innovation


I was the product team leader in large aviation system research, development and acquisition. The cost of systems improvement rose exponentially as development got closer to 100 per cent of goal while the incremental benefit decreased. How broad is the demand for lots of megapixels. I do sports. I don't want to work with 50MP files for example because I don't want more than adequate sized files. The pictures are not relaveent after time although they are popular with the swimmers if they are timely. Where is the mass market for high noise reduction after a certain acceptable level? . Most people are happy with cell phone pictures. We will see how they like the latest I phone. Personally I have a new SL2. It is entirely adequate for most of my non-sport photography and it is certainly better than many of my Canon bodies acquired after 1988. Is the high end market capable of supporting itself?

Edited on Sep 14, 2017 at 06:08 PM · View previous versions



Sep 14, 2017 at 05:50 PM
1       2       3       4      
5
       6              13       14       end






FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1       2       3       4      
5
       6              13       14       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username     Reset password