Are Canon losing their way in the DSLR market?

[boyfalldown]

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

reasonable specced I said struggling with 7d files you're going to have problems no matter where you go on whatever system. And assuming you use a system like LR then it'll be no different

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

Its a somewhat specious argument Pete. No one is going to run a d800 for that.

 

[big soft moose]

reasonable specced I said struggling with 7d files you're going to have problems no matter where you go on whatever system.

This is turning into one of those scrivenesque hair splitting fests, so i'm out after this post, but you do seem to be missing the point

Yes i agree that a decently specced system will handle anything any current dslr throws at it

however for those with older/cheaper systems handling an 18MP file is one thing - while handling a file twice the size (or more) is quite another - which is a reason why someone might choose a canon sensor with 18MP instead of a nikon with enourmously more.

Of course someone else might have different priorities and chose the nikon even if it mean upgrading their system

neither is wrong, nor does it imply that either camera is a worse choice - just a different one

Its a somewhat specious argument Pete. No one is going to run a d800 for that.

When did this thread become about the D800 ? - The OP says that canon are losing their way because they don't have huge MP sensors - my point is that this is not necessarily the case because the 18MP sensor is ideal for many pursuits that a large sensor may not be. (also sponner asked why someone would choose not to get a huge sensor if they could - I was explaining my reasons for making that choice)

 

[pmac]

It's not just to do with high MP counts.. I'm sure canon will address this soon enough, there are rumoured 54mp body's under testing from canon.

The other issues that get brought up are low iso DR and banding in shadows with canon sensors, which again I'm sure they will work on being as that's been the real complaints with the mk3.

Neither system is without faults and its always gong to be a game of leap frog with them.

 

[boyfalldown]

When did this thread become about the D800 ?

It didn't, however I was responding to your point - it seemed a reasonable assumption unless you are referring to another 36mp DSLR

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

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)

 

[big soft moose]

I was reffering to high MP sensors in general - sponner asked why wouldnt you want one - and I said because huge filesizes/processing etc

IMO 18MP is plenty for any application i'm likely to need so i don't feel that canon using one that size shows them losing their way (If canon do actually launch a 54MP beast i won't be buying it for similar reasons)

 

[Phil V]

The technology (sensor) is the major input into the final image.

Well it depends what you shoot - but for me, this is boloney.

If the lens motor and AF system consistently mean I'm not getting a shot then a 96 megapixel sensor with 27 stops of DR is completely worthless.

We don't all sit out in fields waiting for a perfect cloud pattern, or in a studio balancing lights, some of us need a camera with lightning fast reactions, that'll autofocus on a black cat down a coal mine.

Back to the OP's overblown point - Canon's sensor's are indeed behind the curve and have been for a few years now. If that was the single most important part of the camera, wouldn't the sales figures reflect that?

If sensor tech was the be all and end all, then Sony and Nikon would be neck and neck in popularity with Canon trailing massively (if the test results are to be believed). So why are Canon still selling more cameras? Is it because everyone is too stupid to know any better? Or just perhaps, it's because sensor tech really isn't that important, and Canon's R&D department, having led Nikon for so long into a megapixel battle, have decided to focus their attention elsewhere.

 

[BacktotheFuji]

Interesting question about processing times and image resolution. I have an overclocked Q6600 quad core machine with 4GB RAM running an SSD with Lightroom 4.4. This machine is about the equivalent of a average modern day quad core, and yet it still takes 6 seconds to render a 1:1 preview of a 20MP Canon EOS 6D RAW file. This drives me mad already! Adding an i7 would half that time, but I don't know how a 36MP file would work in comparison.

 

[Laudrup]

Upgrading my PC is peanuts compared to upgrading camera lenses. The D800 does have a 20MP mode for when you want the file sizes smaller.

 

[Gaz J]

Lightroom has its own quirks re pc spec. A friend has just bought a 27" iMac with fastest processor and it still takes a few seconds to load a d800 file into lr4

 

[ernesto]

Maybe he should have kept the faith and bought Aperture.

Haven't got a clue if it would be any quicker though.

 

[sponner]

I grant the large file times could be an issue although, luckily, my comp isn't slow that it I notice any hold up. (I had to look the specs up and its an i5 with 8gb ram)

As I said before I am sure all modern high end cameras are fantastic.

 

[Petri]

Not usually the most efficient method. Apple get away with it by charging more but that is not an option for Canon.

Perhaps but then it's an investment in the company's own future - at least it's their own R&D they're paying for rather than a direct competitors. And of course they get to set their own roadmap and their own rate of development - hence the last few years of the same 18mp sensor (they've certainly had their money's worth out of that...)

And of course we don't really know what they're cooking up in the lab all the while those 18mp sensors have been churning off the production line next door. They may be about to surprise us - and Nikon/Sony - with something really new.

 

[Phil V]

Perhaps but then it's an investment in the company's own future - at least it's their own R&D they're paying for rather than a direct competitors. And of course they get to set their own roadmap and their own rate of development - hence the last few years of the same 18mp sensor (they've certainly had their money's worth out of that...)

And of course we don't really know what they're cooking up in the lab all the while those 18mp sensors have been churning off the production line next door. They may be about to surprise us - and Nikon/Sony - with something really new.

It's not the same sensor

 

[Petri]

It's as near as damn it

 

[ernesto]

Perhaps but then it's an investment in the company's own future - at least it's their own R&D they're paying for rather than a direct competitors. And of course they get to set their own roadmap and their own rate of development - hence the last few years of the same 18mp sensor (they've certainly had their money's worth out of that...)

And of course we don't really know what they're cooking up in the lab all the while those 18mp sensors have been churning off the production line next door. They may be about to surprise us - and Nikon/Sony - with something really new.

Well it isn't working out so far and we also don't know what Sony/others are cooking up either. It isn't always best to be paying for your own R&D...

 

[ernesto]

Well it depends what you shoot - but for me, this is boloney.

If the lens motor and AF system consistently mean I'm not getting a shot then a 96 megapixel sensor with 27 stops of DR is completely worthless.


If sensor tech was the be all and end all, then Sony and Nikon would be neck and neck in popularity with Canon trailing massively (if the test results are to be believed). So why are Canon still selling more cameras? Is it because everyone is too stupid to know any better? Or just perhaps, it's because sensor tech really isn't that important, and Canon's R&D department, having led Nikon for so long into a megapixel battle, have decided to focus their attention elsewhere.

I didn't say it was that important, I was talking in the context of camera body comparisons, not lenses or anything else and even more importantly in the context of this discussion which is comparing the merits of those.

Whether people buying cameras care about it is irrelevant, I don't care myself and use a 5 year old model with a 10MP sensor but that is not the discussion. I personally believe that outside of professional use, 90+% of people would find a £100 used DSLR good enough if they didn't get hung up on equipment...

 

[Phil V]

I didn't say it was that important, I was talking in the context of camera body comparisons, not lenses or anything else and even more importantly in the context of this discussion which is comparing the merits of those.

Whether people buying cameras care about it is irrelevant, I don't care myself and use a 5 year old model with a 10MP sensor but that is not the discussion. I personally believe that outside of professional use, 90+% of people would find a £100 used DSLR good enough if they didn't get hung up on equipment...

I'm afraid you did!
There was no contextualising by me, you simply said...

The technology (sensor) is the major input into the final image.

Which is poppycock, and even you are now distancing yourself from. I'm happy for you to back down from the statement, but don't make out I quoted you out of context. That's the entire post I quoted.

 

[Petri]

Well it isn't working out so far and we also don't know what Sony/others are cooking up either. It isn't always best to be paying for your own R&D...

Well it's easy to state something like that as fact in a forum but, as others have pointed out, Canon still sell more DSLRs than anyone else and are presumably turning a profit. So to say their strategy "isn't working out so far" is a bit disingenuous.

We don't know what new technology Sony or Nikon's other suppliers have in the works but then, it has to be said, neither do Nikon necessarily.

 

[boyfalldown]

Perhaps but then it's an investment in the company's own future - at least it's their own R&D they're paying for rather than a direct competitors. And of course they get to set their own roadmap and their own rate of development - hence the last few years of the same 18mp sensor (they've certainly had their money's worth out of that...)

An awful lot of companies outsource part or all of the R & D process. To suggest it somehow isn't looking to the future of the company is a little shortsighted. Its a model thats proven to work and do you really believe Nikon have no input into that sensor design? or whats coming next. They don't just wait to see what Sony offers them y'know.

Working in collaboration has been shown to work to everyone's advantage time and again. Either method works but won't put either at a disadvantage

 

[ernesto]

I'm afraid you did!
There was no contextualising by me, you simply said...


Which is poppycock, and even you are now distancing yourself from. I'm happy for you to back down from the statement, but don't make out I quoted you out of context. That's the entire post I quoted.

Agree as a standalone statement of course it is poppycock, however it was made in context of the discussion and a direct response to a question above my post asking why people are talking about the technology (yes I should have quoted it to avoid this confusion rather than replying directly after it)

When talking about bodies and talking about technology I still stand by the sensor being the most important part. Put a 0.1MP sensor in the best body in the world and all images would be crap. Put slow focusing on a body with the best sensor in the world and the image could still be excellent.

 

[Pookeyhead]

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

What the **** would anyone who shoots sports or press be doing with a D800 in the first place? LOL What you have described is someone who's been sold the wrong camera, or someone who doesn't know their arse from their elbow. No one shooting sports or press professionally would touch a D800. If they have a thing for Nikon, they'll be using a D4 or if on a budget, a D3s if they've got a brain. Just as someone shooting landscape or portraiture would be equally as stupid for using a D4 or a D3s.

You decide what you do for a living, and you buy the appropriate tools to do your job.

I think we're forgetting something here people.... the cameras we're discussing here are professional cameras designed to be tools, not the playthings of amateurs who are at liberty to bicker over which one's best. The one that's best is the one that gets you the shots you need to pay your mortgage. The end.

Interesting question about processing times and image resolution. I have an overclocked Q6600 quad core machine with 4GB RAM running an SSD with Lightroom 4.4. This machine is about the equivalent of a average modern day quad core, and yet it still takes 6 seconds to render a 1:1 preview of a 20MP Canon EOS 6D RAW file. This drives me mad already! Adding an i7 would half that time, but I don't know how a 36MP file would work in comparison.

Overclocked to what? That's a 7 year old processor. Having said that, I sometimes use my wife's machine, which is a first gen i7 (Nehalem) that is 6 years old, with 8GB of RAM and that's absolutely fine with D800 files. In fact, it's absolutely fine with files from the PhaseOne IQ180... D800 aren't that big really.


Anyway.... here.... have a D800 file. Just a test shot... so not precious about it... do with it what you will. Decide for yourselves.


http://speedy.sh/uDxpp/DSC0054.NEF

 

[ernesto]

Well it's easy to state something like that as fact in a forum but, as others have pointed out, Canon still sell more DSLRs than anyone else and are presumably turning a profit. So to say their strategy "isn't working out so far" is a bit disingenuous.

Not at all. I am not referring to sales, I am referring to the resulting sensor.

I agree that sales don't directly link to sensor, if they did Sony would have a better DSLR market share.

Why so much faith in Canon and their R&D approach/model when it is clear they have lagged behind in sensor development?

 

[DemiLion]

What the **** would anyone who shoots sports or press be doing with a D800 in the first place? LOL What you have described is someone who's been sold the wrong camera, or someone who doesn't know their arse from their elbow. No one shooting sports or press professionally would touch a D800. If they have a thing for Nikon, they'll be using a D4 or if on a budget, a D3s if they've got a brain. Just as someone shooting landscape or portraiture would be equally as stupid for using a D4 or a D3s.

You decide what you do for a living, and you buy the appropriate tools to do your job.

Would you like to tell a large number of sports and press photographers that they don't know their arse from their elbow?

I would imagine that you'd be discovering what a 300/2.8 feels like when inserted anally.

 

[Petri]

Not at all. I am not referring to sales, I am referring to the resulting sensor.

I agree that sales don't directly link to sensor, if they did Sony would have a better DSLR market share.

Why so much faith in Canon and their R&D approach/model when it is clear they have lagged behind in sensor development?

Well the topic of the thread (which seems to be getting forgotten a lot) is whether Canon are losing their way in the DSLR market. Somehow the development and performance of their sensors has become interchangeable with that in this discussion, but I'd argue that Canon's approach to R&D when taken as part of the whole actually can't be said to be failing, when their results in the market are still so good.

You're trying to paint Canon's model as inefficient because their technology has "fallen behind", and yet the sales show that Canon's chosen rate of innovation in the sensor department hasn't hurt them one bit. Given that sticking with largely the same 18mp sensor in recent years will presumably have saved them money while allowing them time and space to develop new things, hasn't their approach actually proven rather more efficient?

 

[Pookeyhead]

Would you like to tell a large number of sports and press photographers that they don't know their arse from their elbow?

I would imagine that you'd be discovering what a 300/2.8 feels like when inserted anally.

Sigh.....

For the pedantic amongst you..

If they have a thing for Nikon, they'll be using a D4 or if on a budget, a D3s if they've got a brain (other equally suitable alternatives are available... terms and conditions apply... ample free parking yadda yadda).

You know very well what I mean. A 4FPS camera with massive files, and a small buffer is not really something that someone who shoots sports for a living should be relying on. If they do, I'd be happy to offer an alternative, yes, as there are many.. cheaper ones too.

 

[Phil V]

Agree as a standalone statement of course it is poppycock, however it was made in context of the discussion and a direct response to a question above my post asking why people are talking about the technology (yes I should have quoted it to avoid this confusion rather than replying directly after it)

When talking about bodies and talking about technology I still stand by the sensor being the most important part. Put a 0.1MP sensor in the best body in the world and all images would be crap. Put slow focusing on a body with the best sensor in the world and the image could still be excellent.

The ones that get captured will be great, but the one's that are just never locked on or are shot OoF? :bang:

An OoF image on the best sensor in the world is still going in the bin, as many d800 and original 5d users will testify .

Not to mention that the best bodies in the world aren't available with 0.1mp sensors, they tend to have great (rarely awesome) sensors and produce great pictures, however some of the best sensors have been available with underachieving AF systems and and have been responsible for some fantastic images and some very full recycle bins full of 'the one that got away'

 

[2Thumbs]

Why so much faith in Canon and their R&D approach/model when it is clear they have lagged behind in sensor development?

Are you forgetting the 1Dx sensor? G1x also?

I'm probably no good for this discussion. I pay no attention to DxO ratings, and I use archaic/un-popular camera bodies (and shoot film) because I like to work around their quirks. But...

Lens quality is always king. Putting a budget film era lens on a 5D III will produce lacklustre images. Using the 17-40L on my 350D produces fantastic images. The only real development for sensors is ISO performance, which has come in leaps and bounds in such a short number of years.

 

[ernesto]

The ones that get captured will be great, but the one's that are just never locked on or are shot OoF? :bang:

An OoF image on the best sensor in the world is still going in the bin, as many d800 and original 5d users will testify .

Not to mention that the best bodies in the world aren't available with 0.1mp sensors, they tend to have great (rarely awesome) sensors and produce great pictures, however some of the best sensors have been available with underachieving AF systems and and have been responsible for some fantastic images and some very full recycle bins full of 'the one that got away'

I was using extreme examples to explain my point. I could take many great shots with the slow focusing camera but ALL my shots with the .1MP sensor would be very poor. That is why to me at least, the sensor is of most importance. In fact I would be happy with an old film SLR with no other technology than a sensor in place of the film.

 

[ernesto]

You're trying to paint Canon's model as inefficient because their technology has "fallen behind", and yet the sales show that Canon's chosen rate of innovation in the sensor department hasn't hurt them one bit. Given that sticking with largely the same 18mp sensor in recent years will presumably have saved them money while allowing them time and space to develop new things, hasn't their approach actually proven rather more efficient?

No I am not saying Canon's business model is inefficient and I agree from business point of view Canon have done well but this discussion is about falling behind technology wise not from a commercial viewpoint. The two are clearly not interlinked and brings in many factors such as marketing, brand loyalty, ignorance etc,

 

[BacktotheFuji]

Overclocked to what? That's a 7 year old processor. Having said that, I sometimes use my wife's machine, which is a first gen i7 (Nehalem) that is 6 years old, with 8GB of RAM and that's absolutely fine with D800 files. In fact, it's absolutely fine with files from the PhaseOne IQ180... D800 aren't that big really.


Anyway.... here.... have a D800 file. Just a test shot... so not precious about it... do with it what you will. Decide for yourselves.


http://speedy.sh/uDxpp/DSC0054.NEF

3.2GHZ. I benchmarked it against an i7-3770k and the i7 is around twice as quick (in Lightroom).

Thanks for providing the file, but I decided a more appropriate measure would be to render 1:1 previews for the test files from DPReview, for both the D800 and 5DIII. The D800 image took 10.2 seconds to render and the 5DIII 6.2 seconds.

Remember I'm just talking about Lightroom here

 

[Phil V]

I was using extreme examples to explain my point. I could take many great shots with the slow focusing camera but ALL my shots with the .1MP sensor would be very poor. That is why to me at least, the sensor is of most importance.

I appreciate you were exaggerating, the point is your exaggeration hides the actual point, which is that there isn't a sensor in a DSLR that's only capable of capturing 'very poor' pictures. The sensors we're talking about are capable of great results under difficult conditions and excellent results under good conditions. Conversely, a camera with a below par AF system will sometimes fail to get a shot, so having the best sensor available is worthless if your recycle bin is full of 'the one that got away'. Ask actual owners of the 5d mkI or the d800.

In fact I would be happy with an old film SLR with no other technology than a sensor in place of the film.

You might be happy, but it'd be a tiny market. For all the film SLR's we remember fondly, the reality is that they've been superceded by some awesome cameras. The 5d mkIII is a vastly superior camera to the old EOS 3, the 1dx superior in every way to the EOS 1n.

I'm prepared to bet Canon's R&D department would find your assessment of their performance laughable in light of the fact that their current flagship is arguably the best small format SLR ever made (digital or film).

In the history of the DSLR Canon have led the way in sensor tech for the most time, the fact that they're not there now isn't a big deal, and to suggest that they've somehow lost their way is completely laughable if it's just being measured on sensor technology.

In short - your narrow assessment is still absolute poppycock. What's more, you know it is

 

[ernesto]

It wasn't me who said they have lost their way remember, and I am also not assessing Canon's performance as others did that with the various sensor tests. I am just adding to the discussion and throwing things out there (some I believe, some I don't but that is how I get to rethink any previous opinions I may have had)

 

[Steve Smith]

Would you like to tell a large number of sports and press photographers that they don't know their arse from their elbow?

I would imagine that you'd be discovering what a 300/2.8 feels like when inserted anally.

Or inserted elbowly!


Steve.

 

[DemiLion]

Double post.

 

[DemiLion]

Sigh.....

For the pedantic amongst you..

You know very well what I mean. A 4FPS camera with massive files, and a small buffer is not really something that someone who shoots sports for a living should be relying on. If they do, I'd be happy to offer an alternative, yes, as there are many.. cheaper ones too.

Would you like to nip over to the sports forum and tell Gary Coyle that he's using the wrong camera then?

 

[Laudrup]

Nip in the D800 thread:

And this coming from a pro sports photographer!!!!!!!!!!!

Well i am and i can tell you that having used it for sports because i forgot my D3S battery, it is woeful, the AF system stacks up very well but the 4fps is absolute rubbish for fast moving field sports, capturing the exact right moment means you either get paid or you dont, the 9fps/11fps of the D3S will get you published and paid every time.

If i had to choose purely for sports i would go a gripped D700 and 8fps every single time over the D800, i did for 2 years using the D700 as my second body with 70-200mm attached until i could afford another D3S, in all honesty i would also choose a gripped D300/300S over the D800 if it were purely for sports.

Not really obnoxious now was it, more stating fact which you disagree with and with which i have no problems with.

I shoot sports professionally, the D800 isnt a camera for that, simple as.

Of course people will get good sports related photographs with the D800 just as they did with the D200, D60, Canon 10D or whatever make or model came before it, but none of those or the D800 are cameras built specifically with sports in mind.

And while you can get almost 6fps in DX mode at 15mp (Not just with a grip as you suggest) that sort of defeats the purpose of having a 35mp camera in the first place, if you shoot in FX you only shoot a max 4fps regardless of wether or not you stick a grip on it, the only way you get an increase in fps of any sort is to shoot heavily cropped in DX mode.

I did read about what "Chrisbie" said about being happy with what he shoots, i was happy shooting with my old Canon 10d until i bought a 1DMKIIN, stick a D3S in his hands and for sports stuff i 100% guarantee he wont pick the D800 up ever again

Maybe i could have phrased my initial comments a little differently but your occasional shooting of energetic kids round the garden simply doesn't have any comparisson to shooting sports and capturing peak action, but yes, the D800 will more than suffice for that type of "garden sport" photography.

Heck the D800 is so good i bought one, just not for sports.

 

[DemiLion]

Fair comment. I misread what he'd said about using it for sport!

 

[Pookeyhead]

Fair comment. I misread what he'd said about using it for sport!

 

[big soft moose]

What the **** would anyone who shoots sports or press be doing with a D800 in the first place? LOL What you have described is someone who's been sold the wrong camera, or someone who doesn't know their arse from their elbow. No one shooting sports or press professionally would touch a D800. If they have a thing for Nikon, they'll be using a D4 or if on a budget, a D3s if they've got a brain. Just as someone shooting landscape or portraiture would be equally as stupid for using a D4 or a D3s.

You decide what you do for a living, and you buy the appropriate tools to do your job.

As I said above in reply to hugh I'm not talking about the D800 specifically - what i'm saying is that high MP cameras (in general) May not be suitable for all photographic situations - and therefore canon have not "lost their way" by not producing one .

 

[razor777]

Having both owned the Nikon D3s and MK IV - in terms of image quality and dynamic range there is nothing in it. I mean absolutely nothing.

If anyone is making their comments based on post processed JPGs then more fool them. The only reason I switched from Canon to Nikon was "is the grass greener" curiosity. Once using the Nikon D3S my feeling in terms of difference was "meh, none".

They're both great, seriously I have no idea where these threads come from. Most of the loudest individuals are the ones who either have stuck with one brand or none.

Somewhat ironically I've moved to the 4/3 technology platform but that was for portability to keep my enjoyment of photography piqued.