Are Canon losing their way in the DSLR market?

Nikon buy in the best sensors they can from Sony and elsewhere, while Canon make their own; of course that means that all the while third party sensors are better, Nikons can outperform Canon.

BUT...because they're using third party sensors, Nikon never get to pull ahead of the other brands particularly who also use the same modules (eg Pentax and Sony), and their superiority over Canon only works for as long as Canon's sensors are behind the curve. The advantage Canon have is that if they pull out of their current trough and start producing sensors which are better than the competition (as they were doing for some time before this), then they alone will profit from that - their cameras will outperform EVERYTHING else again, which has to be the stronger position to be in.
 
Nikon probably don't worry about the other brands as their DSLR sales are so low in comparison. Their rival is Canon.

And outside of forums does any of this matter and are people just buying based on many other things as all of the modern sensors are good when it comes down to it?
 
I also think that what Nikon do with the sensors they have bought is clearly different from Sony (or whoever else) .Just from the different results that benchmark tests provide, for cameras with the same sensor in. NB I said 'different', not 'better' or 'worse' before anyone picks a row ;)

I also don't believe Nikon are picking an OTS sensor with no input into its development
 
In my opinion (and I should probably state I'm a Canon user here) the biggest problem Canon have is their confusing product line. They currently have the 700D which is almost exactly the same camera as the 600D/650D all on sale at the same time. Then they have the 5D mkIII, the 6D and the 7D which all have similar names but have totally different places in the line up.

What on earth happened to the XXXD/XXD/XD consumer/enthusiast/professional split. It was much simpler to get your head round!
 
Petri said:
The advantage Canon have is that if they pull out of their current trough and start producing sensors which are better than the competition (as they were doing for some time before this), then they alone will profit from that - their cameras will outperform EVERYTHING else again, which has to be the stronger position to be in.
Click to expand...
True, but silicon design is a veryexpensive business to be in...
 
ernesto said:
The technology (sensor) is the major input into the final image.
Click to expand...

So I can put any crap lens on the front, or shoot in the dark? Sorry but I think you've fallen for the marketing spiel.

The major input into the final image is the photographer, the rest is just a tool that enables them to get the image. Some tools make it easier, but taking the image requires a whole system of body, lens, light, skill etc. It's really not all about the sensor.
 
It is all about the sensor in this discussion which has nothing to do with lenses, light, skill etc,. as all of those factors are assumed equal.
The discussion is whether Canons technology (sensor and body) is falling behind. We all know there is more to the end photograph than that but that is irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
boyfalldown said:
I think if there Is a difference it's just cyclical. If Nikon are producing more innovative stuff then canon that'll change and swap round at some point
Click to expand...

Exactly, that's how it's always been and how it always will be. To be honest I couldn't care less about which camera is technically better on paper because I know full well that getting a higher spec camera won't make a significant 'real world' difference to my photos. There are cameras out there that can outperform my 7D and 5D2 but my biggest limiting factor isn't the cameras, it's me. Slightly less noise or more dynamic range aren't going to help my eye for composition, or my ability to see situations in everyday life that would make great images, or anything else that's really important. Or at least, important to me.

The cynic in me can't help wondering why people spend so much time thinking about these things when they could be out actually taking photos. :)
 
Jeez guys, it's just a camera, who cares if the DR of one sensor is 0.2 of an ev better? Just get out there and use the sodding things.
 
To be fair, Canon still have got it in ergonomics. The 100D handles great despite being so small.

For sensor tech, I'm running a 5 year old sensor, it still performs brilliantly, I'm often amazed at the colours produced by it. End of the day, get out there and shoot, D800 and 350D are all the same.
 
I'm sure Nikon have some input into Sony's sensor designs - for example with the D800, they wanted a 36mp sensor and that's what Sony delivered them, for that purpose alone - but the point is, the underlying technology is Sony's. if Pentax wanted a 36mp FF sensor for their next model then it's a fair bet which one they'd end up with, and what it would be capable of.

There are differences in the image processing between different brands, so even with the exact same sensor and lens the results from a Sony, Pentax and Nikon may vary a little - but still, the upper limits that Nikon are working to are essentially defined by what Sony/a n other supplier can deliver. Whereas Canon own the whole process so can pretty much design the sensor entirely around the camera.
 
Just throwing this out there, the D5200 (which has a great sensor apparently) is made by Toshiba, interesting!
 
Petri said:
Whereas Canon own the whole process so can pretty much design the sensor entirely around the camera.
Click to expand...

Not usually the most efficient method. Apple get away with it by charging more but that is not an option for Canon.
 
robhooley167 said:
Jeez guys, it's just a camera, who cares if the DR of one sensor is 0.2 of an ev better? Just get out there and use the sodding things.
Click to expand...

I think you may be missing the point of a technical discussion :)
 
DuncanF said:
Unless you are blowing up big time, how many MP do you actually need? Maybe Canon are not interesting in entering an arms race ...
Click to expand...

That - if its not broken don't fix it , and more MP doesnt mean 'better'

While Nikon may be pulling ahead in some areas of the market , companies like sony will need to substantially increase their lens range before they can even think of being a serious competitor to the big 2
 
PMN said:
To be honest I'm missing the point as well because I'm more concerned with taking photos than talking about aspects of gear that have very little bearing on what I do as a photographer. Each to their own though. :)
Click to expand...

And yet you feel the need to post in the thread, more than once :D As you said, each to their own :D

It's an internet forum and gear is a large part of it so personally I see nothing wrong in a little OCD now and again.
 
woof woof said:
And yet you feel the need to post in the thread, more than once :D As you said, each to their own :D
Click to expand...

Yes because what I'm saying is just another opinion. The question was asked whether Canon are losing their way in the DSLR market, I'm putting forward my opinion that it doesn't matter whether they are or not. You know, as you do express opinions on a forum. ;)
 
PMN said:
Yes because what I'm saying is just another opinion. The question was asked whether Canon are losing their way in the DSLR market, I'm putting forward my opinion that it doesn't matter whether they are or not. You know, as you do express opinions on a forum. ;)
Click to expand...

Great!

So you see... this sort of topic and thread even attracts people who aren't interested in this sort of topic or thread! :lol:
 
If we take the original OP theme that canon are falling behind in sensor technology does it really matter? they still make bloody good cameras that produce stunning images even with their below par sensors!!

When I thought about changing systems sensor technology wasn't the driving force. It was more to do with the lens line up. Now I wouldn't change. Canon have addressed the gap in their lens line up.

Nikon does some things better canon does other. Such is life.
 
robhooley167 said:
I think you're missing the point of photography :)
Click to expand...
Not really. I enjoy photographing memories - days out with loved ones, places we visit etc. I'm not into photography to "create art" or "draw my viewers deeper into the picture" or "juxtaposing x with y" - it's about capturing memories for me. Pure and simple. If I can make a nice picture whilst I am doing that, then so be it. I must have used my camera half a dozen times in anger this year.

The technical side of photography however, I find intensely interesting - on a daily basis. Nothing wrong with that, nor talking about it either.... ;)
 
PMN said:
You know when you think it might be a good idea to reply but then realise it would actually be a stupid idea? Yeah, that.

*facepalm*
Click to expand...

And yet you can't keep away or stop making dismissive comments :thinking:

One of the most odd things about forums is that some just can't resist jumping into threads to tell others what a waist of time they are and how silly people are (other than themselves of course) to be posting. :thinking:

I see no harm what so ever in discussing the technical aspects and (politely) arguing that one camera might just be 0.001% better than another. The only people who seem to have a problem are some who've bought into the brand being criticised consider it to be an insult to their manhood.
 
Thrash said:
Just throwing this out there, the D5200 (which has a great sensor apparently) is made by Toshiba, interesting!
Click to expand...
I have a suspicion that it's still a Sony albeit the sensor maybe marked Toshiba - iirc Sony sold Toshiba a CMOS fab & then bought it back again to increase their capacity. There was also a joint venture between Toshiba & Sony that I believe is now dissolved.
 
An insult to their manhood is probably stretching it a bit far:)
 
woof woof said:
And yet you can't keep away or stop making dismissive comments :thinking:

One of the most odd things about forums is that some just can't resist jumping into threads to tell others what a waist of time they are and how silly people are (other than themselves of course) to be posting. :thinking:
Click to expand...

You're making absolutely no sense. The topic in question is whether Canon have lost their way, I'm giving my opinion that it doesn't actually matter. In what possible way is that less valid than any other opinion?

woof woof said:
The only people who seem to have a problem are some who've bought into the brand being criticised consider it to be an insult to their manhood.
Click to expand...

If you were aiming that at me then you're about 40,000 miles off the mark, I'm not insecure enough to need to prove anything about "manhood" so you may wish to rethink your approach on that.
 
woof woof and PMN - I have put the hoover away for the day, so please can you just ignore each other, or at the very least, stop making it a personal debate, because I really don't want to have to get it out again.

_____________________________________________________

/\ Here is your line drawn under it, move on. Thankyou
 
The main criticisms of the 5Dmk2 were that the build quality was a bit iffy for a body costing that much and the AF was very basic. Nobody I new with one complained much about the MP count, or ISO performance.

Low and behold, the mk3 delivered much improved build quality and and dramatic AF improvements. They also threw in a modest MP increase and a couple of stops of high ISO performance. In short, they appeared to deliver exactly what the majority of mk2 users were asking for. I personally would have hated it if the mk3 had the 36MP of the D800 as there is very little benefit and a massive file size disadvantage.

As a previous mk2 owner and now a mk3 owner I think the only real mistake that Canon made was calling it the 5Dmk3. In my view the 6D is more like a 5Dmk2 successor, the mk3 should have been a 4D or something similar.

I've no real experience of Nikon, I have handled several of their bodies and I (personally) didn't get on with their ergonomics.

My view is that the sensor is just one part of the overall package. Canon, like Nikon, seem to be capable of delivering a reasonably well rounded system (bodies + lenses) that appeal to their respective user base.

Once you are bought in to a particular system there is very little compelling reason to change. Neither company has made what you call a bad camera in a long time.

Pick the camera you feel comfortable with and take some photo's, 99% of the time the real limitations are likely behind the viewfinder.
 
Last edited:
I'll dip a toe in this stormy water.

I recently decided i wanted a full frame camera for Photography as opposed to photography (note the capital).

I reckon I read everything there was to read on t'internet regarding the D800, D600 and 5dMkIII (my shortlist).

I stumbled into dslr's with an Olympus 4/3 camera and quickly upgraded to decent lenses. I won't be selling those any time soon, sometimes a 2x crop factor is a huge advantage but the E5 is now dated and higher ISO is crap. (I hope the rumours of an "E7" are true, I will buy one.)

The conclusion was it is an almost impossible choice. All of those cameras are fantastic. If I had an investment in decent lenses that WOULD have been the deciding factor.

As I don't have any lenses I opted for the D800 as it gives me the most "difference" from my existing kit.

For me it will be d800 and primes with my ageing E5 and high grade zooms for now.

12mp is usually enough but if you can get 36 mp with the attendant resolution and cropping benefits and no huge down side why wouldn't you ?(and it's a bit cheaper than the mkIII)
 
Last edited:
sponner said:
12mp is usually enough but if you can get 36 mp with the attendant resolution and cropping benefits and no huge down side why wouldn't you ?(and it's a bit cheaper than the mkIII)
Click to expand...

because the unnecessarily enormous files will slow down post processing, write times, buffering, . and mean buying bigger cards for no tangible benefit unless you want to print above A1
 
big soft moose said:
because the unnecessarily enormous files will slow down post processing, write times, buffering, . and mean buying bigger cards for no tangible benefit unless you want to print above A1
Click to expand...

real world experience from lots of people here (and elsewhere) has been it makes f* all difference to processing time, assuming you use a reasonably specced machine
 
boyfalldown said:
real world experience from lots of people here (and elsewhere) has been it makes f* all difference to processing time, assuming you use a reasonably specced machine
Click to expand...

fair enough - but that then leads to needing to spend more money increasing the spec of your computer to handle the files.

(it also doesnt address the issues of in camera file handling - buffers fill more quickly , and write to cards more slowly, effecting the depth of burst and the probability of lock out at an inconvenient moment .. whether that matters depends on what you are doing )
 
big soft moose said:
fair enough - but that then leads to needing to spend more money increasing the spec of your computer to handle the files.
Click to expand...

I said reasonably specced. Not you have to add extra for a d800. No need to spend any more cash

big soft moose said:
(it also doesnt address the issues of in camera file handling - buffers fill more quickly , and write to cards more slowly, effecting the depth of burst and the probability of lock out at an inconvenient moment .. whether that matters depends on what you are doing )
Click to expand...


unless you're shooting sports does that ever happen in the real world. I know I've never had an issue
 
boyfalldown said:
I said reasonably specced. Not you have to add extra for a d800. No need to spend any more cash
Click to expand...

so my laptop with dual core and 2MB of ram will handle a 36MP image then , with no problems ? - It can (just) handle a file from a 7D ( I know because we have one at work) but theres no way on earth it will handle one twice the size.

so yes in fact I would have to spend extra to get a system that will handle the larger files

boyfalldown said:
unless you're shooting sports does that ever happen in the real world. I know I've never had an issue
Click to expand...

sports, press, fast moving nature ( Ive experienced full buffer lock out when shooting diving gannets for example) - Its not likely to be an issue for portraits or weddings granted - but like i said it depends onwhat you are doing
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top