p.19 #3 · FF Mirrorless, what's it going to take Sony, Canon, Nikon
Arka wrote:
Maybe because my uploads (most of which are more than two years old) aren't representative of all the subjects and situations I shoot, particularly with the A9.
Also, please find me the 2-4 year old child "posing" for a portrait who doesn't move. Particularly when shooting shallow DoF, where even the slightest movement results in lost focus. I shoot many portraits of my daughter to be sure, but she moves pretty much all the time.
Thanks. You certainly answered my question: you can't justify your statement based on your own experience. You posts write checks your knowledge can't cash.
p.19 #4 · FF Mirrorless, what's it going to take Sony, Canon, Nikon
cameron12x wrote:
I think that we should all remember that Canon's business model is to sell LENSES first and THEN bodies.
NOT the other way around.
They create the temptation (illusion) of GREAT glass being eventually paired with the ever-elusive perfect body.
It will never happen. It's a consumer illusion which works well for them financially.
Are you sure that's Canon's strategy? In 2018 the value of camera sales was greater than the value of lens sales. With cameras going electronic, I would think the prospect of profits is greater with cameras than lenses.
p.19 #5 · FF Mirrorless, what's it going to take Sony, Canon, Nikon
The next game changer features is going to be the first MILC to offer global shutter. Whoever does that first will have a big impact to the market. Today only very specialize video camera has global shutter. If Sony A9II comes out with it first, It will be over for Canon mirrorless market.
p.19 #6 · FF Mirrorless, what's it going to take Sony, Canon, Nikon
chez wrote:
Are you sure that's Canon's strategy? In 2018 the value of camera sales was greater than the value of lens sales. With cameras going electronic, I would think the prospect of profits is greater with cameras than lenses.
p.19 #7 · FF Mirrorless, what's it going to take Sony, Canon, Nikon
But does anyone actually know why Canon produces second (to Sony) rate sensors?
I mean, Sony had their great sensor breakthrough quite some years ago, with the 16mp apsc and 36mp ff sensors. Since then, DR has not significantly improved, color depth and high iso has improved but not DR so much. Canon has had quite a few years to achieve something similar, and if only they did, the whole sensor debate would end immediately. Is it a "our sensors are good enough, no need to improve them further" kind of issue, or are they elsewhere stranded?
I used to shoot Olympus, and all the talk was perpetually about the poor DR of the third rate sensors that Panasonic gave to Olympus. Only when Olympus struck a deal with Sony and sourced their great 16mp 4/3 sensor, the eternal talk about the poor Olympus sensors could end and be buried.
If Canon would just get hold (if they cannot make one themselves) of a Sony level sensor, the debate would end in a similar way. Otherwise, I don't see how there will not always be some feeling of being withheld the best possible amongst Canon shooters, and perhaps mostly those who have left Canon for that reason.
p.19 #9 · FF Mirrorless, what's it going to take Sony, Canon, Nikon
ChrisMak wrote:
But does anyone actually know why Canon produces second (to Sony) rate sensors?
Canon sensors might not be quite at the level of Sony's in terms of DR, but they're only a half stop or so behind in DR (although they beat the A9's, ironically) so they're hardly second rate. Millions of photographers use them... and win a lot of photography awards with them. I imagine the underlying tech is different, but ultimately I don't know much about it. Maybe the dual pixel tech is what limits DR on Canon sensors, or maybe Canon simply learned that higher DR is not what most photographers prioritize.
I'm certainly happy enough with Canon's sensor right now and if I were to switch to Sony mirrorless it wouldn't be because of the sensor tech.
p.19 #10 · FF Mirrorless, what's it going to take Sony, Canon, Nikon
cameron12x wrote:
The lenses are the BAIT.
Maybe for people on this board...but the general Joe purchases the camera and kit lens and are good to go. All three of my kids only have 1 lens and two of their spouses only have 1 lens. I think your views are swayed by this board which is definitely not a representative of the greater photo community.
p.19 #11 · FF Mirrorless, what's it going to take Sony, Canon, Nikon
Well the typical consumer that buys one lens to go with the camera does not buy a full-frame camera. I am sure the ratio of lenses to bodies is much higher for full frame cameras than for smaller sensored models. In addition, the camera manufacturers' data gives the wrong idea as many buy used as well as third party lenses and this is not seen directly in the camera manufacturers' sales. So the real lens to body ratio could be 2-3 times what they think it is.
One reason people put down the importance of certain features that others value highly is the cost effectiveness of a system switch - which is poor for anyone with more than a little gear. Another reason is that after switch there is something else that is not as well implemented as in the previous system. And so it goes. It's best just to focus on photography rather than be so concerned about what others use or what might be "better" than what one is already using.
p.19 #12 · FF Mirrorless, what's it going to take Sony, Canon, Nikon
henry albert wrote:
Thanks. You certainly answered my question: you can't justify your statement based on your own experience. You posts write checks your knowledge can't cash.
Henry, with all due respect, I have no idea what you are talking about. I shoot everything from karate tournaments to running children and dance recitals, all of which test the capabilities of an AF system. And in those situations, the A9 is better than any other camera I've used. You can continue to make unfounded accusations of others' knowledge and experience, but that says a lot more about you than me.
p.19 #13 · FF Mirrorless, what's it going to take Sony, Canon, Nikon
cameron12x wrote:
I think that we should all remember that Canon's business model is to sell LENSES first and THEN bodies.
NOT the other way around.
They create the temptation (illusion) of GREAT glass being eventually paired with the ever-elusive perfect body.
It will never happen. It's a consumer illusion which works well for them financially.
Problem is this isn't as tempting as it might have been a few years back. Sony, Fuji, Nikon and m4/3 are all releasing great lenses so great glass is a minimum requirement, not an advantage.
p.19 #14 · FF Mirrorless, what's it going to take Sony, Canon, Nikon
Arka wrote:
Henry, with all due respect, I have no idea what you are talking about. I shoot everything from karate tournaments to running children and dance recitals, all of which test the capabilities of an AF system. And in those situations, the A9 is better than any other camera I've used. You can continue to make unfounded accusations of others' knowledge and experience, but that says a lot more about you than me.
If you have the goods, show us. You made a sweeping judgement, but have no evidence to support it. Pretty typical internet blowhard behavior.
p.19 #15 · FF Mirrorless, what's it going to take Sony, Canon, Nikon
pipspeak wrote:
Canon sensors might not be quite at the level of Sony's in terms of DR, but they're only a half stop or so behind in DR (although they beat the A9's, ironically) so they're hardly second rate. Millions of photographers use them... and win a lot of photography awards with them. I imagine the underlying tech is different, but ultimately I don't know much about it. Maybe the dual pixel tech is what limits DR on Canon sensors, or maybe Canon simply learned that higher DR is not what most photographers prioritize.
I'm certainly happy enough with Canon's sensor right now and if I were to switch to Sony mirrorless it wouldn't be because of the sensor tech.
The best Canon sensor may be half a stop behind Sony sensors, but for some Canon sensors the difference is bigger than that. Canon uses different (older ...) sensor technology than Sony and it shows in DR and other features; this difference isn't just caused by dual pixel technology. However, most technology has pros and cons and in this case, Canon's dual pixel AF is doing a very good job and to some that may be more important than getting more DR. If they can realize more advantages from dual or quad pixel technology that could be valuable for competing with Sony, but for now the only real advantage is the relatively quick Liveview AF. Sony's A9 also shows that best AF/readout speed for the sensor can mean some compromise for noise/DR; for an action camera like A9 this compromise makes perfect sense.
p.19 #16 · FF Mirrorless, what's it going to take Sony, Canon, Nikon
ChrisMak wrote:
But does anyone actually know why Canon produces second (to Sony) rate sensors?
Chris
Canon sensors aren't second rate compared to Sony in all areas of performance. But they're certainly so in a lot .
I don't think that anyone who's not privy to Canon's operations could tell you exactly why, but I think that Canon made a major strategic blunder years ago by keeping their sensors to themselves instead of selling them to the emerging smartphone, industrial, medical and automotive industries. Canon used to be a big player among sensor manufacturers. Now they're just two percentage points away from being lumped into the "other" category :
My uneducated guess is that it isn't an engineering problem, but a manufacturing one. I'm not sure that Canon can invest as much as Sony in manufacturing processes and make their money back quite as efficiently.
Canon has explicitly said that they now want to correct that mistake, but I don't know if or when we'll see the effect of that U-turn in our cameras.
p.19 #17 · FF Mirrorless, what's it going to take Sony, Canon, Nikon
ilkka_nissila wrote:
Well the typical consumer that buys one lens to go with the camera does not buy a full-frame camera. I am sure the ratio of lenses to bodies is much higher for full frame cameras than for smaller sensored models. In addition, the camera manufacturers' data gives the wrong idea as many buy used as well as third party lenses and this is not seen directly in the camera manufacturers' sales. So the real lens to body ratio could be 2-3 times what they think it is.
From a manufactures point of view, they don't care how many used lenses are bought and sold...it's only new equipment that matters and the industry sells more cameras than lenses ( in dollar value ) in a given year.
p.19 #18 · FF Mirrorless, what's it going to take Sony, Canon, Nikon
henry albert wrote:
If you have the goods, show us. You made a sweeping judgement, but have no evidence to support it. Pretty typical internet blowhard behavior.
Henry, Arka is an outstanding member on this forum and has contributed greatly. I think you are peeing up the wrong tree.
May 07, 2019 at 06:38 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
p.19 #19 · FF Mirrorless, what's it going to take Sony, Canon, Nikon
henry albert wrote:
Thanks. You certainly answered my question: you can't justify your statement based on your own experience. You posts write checks your knowledge can't cash.
Sorry, Henry I think it is easy to find some of Arka's post that totally support what he is saying. Here are some:
p.19 #20 · FF Mirrorless, what's it going to take Sony, Canon, Nikon
while you guys have been talking I have been taking pictures with the rp. I have added the rf 24-105. I do my own printing and the pictures are a significant improvement in sharpness and colors over my previous 7DII except for sports that I recently stopped shooting.The 7dII did 10fps. The full frame really works when printing 13x19s. The acquisition of the lens helped with the evf which is ok for use but IMO not quite as good as glass. I thought the EVF on the r was quite good but the rp works adequately.
.