What has happened to Canon?

[Berliner]

....The 70D has a new technology crop sensor

Yes, certainly. I was talking about the past generations, maybe my grammar was wrong?

There was a very long wait for that new sensor and generations of cameras using essential the same one. And the new sensor is also not as great as many people had hoped.

I'm only writing this to inform others. I just want to state that I am hardly concerned with technical specs like MP count.

 

[woof woof]

....Er, I wouldn't describe my performance modified VW as staid or middle of the road.However, I agree that my Apple Mac analogy may not have been perfect.

I was talking about the majority of their cars and assuming straight from the factory and I'd include the higher performance models too You've fiddled with yours so it's not a fair comparison... just as fiddling with my (former) Lotus, Porsche or Merc wouldn't make fair comparisons to standard cars.

 

[RedRobin]

I was talking about the majority of their cars and assuming straight from the factory and I'd include the higher performance models too You've fiddled with yours so it's not a fair comparison... just as fiddling with my (former) Lotus, Porsche or Merc wouldn't make fair comparisons to standard cars.

....Fair enough

 

[big soft moose]

Canon are making their own sensors, which has worked fine for them for a long time.

But you can see that they are slowly falling behind. ?

Or possibly they've decided that if it isnt broke, don't fix it - spend your R&D where it matters rather than in an empty headed pixel count race

 

[RedRobin]

Or possibly they've decided that if it isnt broke, don't fix it - spend your R&D where it matters rather than in an empty headed pixel count race

....Exactly!

 

[Jad]

Or possibly they've decided that if it isnt broke, don't fix it - spend your R&D where it matters rather than in an empty headed pixel count race

Certainly the high pixel count race is not the real issue, it is the new sensor technology that is being developed by other brands like Sony and the newly released AR7.

 

[big soft moose]

look at canons market share (in DSLRs) - then look at sonys , nuff said

 

[StewartR]

On the other hand how many lenses can resolve 36MP (bayer sensor)? According to DxO not very many.

I'm amazed that nobody else has picked up on this. After all a camera is a system and the overall performance is determined by the weakest link. As far as I can see, Canon's recent pro lenses (eg 24-70mm f/2.8 Mk II, or any of the Mk II super-telephotos) have mostly been better than Nikon's. So if the medium-term goal is a *system* that delivers say 45-50 megapixel images, it could just be that they're following a different route to getting there....

 

[RedRobin]

I'm amazed that nobody else has picked up on this. After all a camera is a system and the overall performance is determined by the weakest link. As far as I can see, Canon's recent pro lenses (eg 24-70mm f/2.8 Mk II, or any of the Mk II super-telephotos) have mostly been better than Nikon's. So if the medium-term goal is a *system* that delivers say 45-50 megapixel images, it could just be that they're following a different route to getting there....

....And historically Canon have never appeared to be afraid of following their own route.

 

[st599]

D800 sensor also has better DR range as well, match that of film. I got a d600 at moment, the DR range is almost as good. I often don't need to worry about blow high light / shadow noise any more. Canon are bring out a new range of sensors , still not quite match Sonys thought. I don't think 36mp is too much, film offers much res then. It is all about progress, if every body think oh 20mp is good enough then we will never get any progress....

Depends what you call progress.

personally higher pixel count is not.

 

[Jad]

Depends what you call progress.

personally higher pixel count is not.

I think the progress will come with new sensor technology much like with film when Kodak came out with T grain technology with their T-max films. I used Tri-x for many years and it was a great film, but T-max was a superior film when comparing the image quality and the reduction of grain. That is what I am hoping for with new sensor technology.

 

[RedRobin]

I think the progress will come with new sensor technology much like with film when Kodak came out with T grain technology with their T-max films. I used Tri-x for many years and it was a great film, but T-max was a superior film when comparing the image quality and the reduction of grain. That is what I am hoping for with new sensor technology.

....Crickey! I think I just passed through a Black Hole - I haven't heard the words "T-max" and "Tri-x" for many many decades!

 

[Professional]

Not everyone would be interested in more mega pixels... But I would.. as a 400m prime lens user on a sports field.. the more cropping in options the better

....Crickey! I think I just passed through a Black Hole - I haven't heard the words "T-max" and "Tri-x" for many many decades!

I never know about those B&W film before, and never heard about TMAX or whatever black and white films, all what i know is Kodak name only, and i started film after i bought my digital medium format back in 2009, so digital was the reason i go to film, but i will never give up digital for film

 

[Phil V]

I certainly stirred up a lot of passion with my post question. My style of photography is mainly with landscape photography. I use my digital camera like I did my view camera. Setting up a tripod, manual exposure, mirror lockup, ect. I am not fixated just on pixel count but have been waiting for the next generation of sensors that would improve the overall quality on the image. I have heard rumors they may introduce a medium format camera, and I would certainly be interested in that. Canon has been quiet for a long time and it makes me wonder if they are still in the game.

I honestly understand your frustration, but your conclusion sounds like you've overdone the medication

You're asking if the best selling DSLR manufacturer is 'still in the game'?

The 5d III was all the improvements that 5d owners had asked for, making it a proper professional camera (1ds replacement) and the 1dx is the 1d that Canon have been promising for years (a merge of the 1ds and 1d lines).

Canon led the megapixel race for years to the point they were panned by their users for the diminishing returns, what we all need now is better low light performance, I have no desire for 30 plus megapixels, in fact 12 is plenty, 18-22 means I can shoot landscape and crop the portrait image out and it's still print quality (easier than a flash bracket).

 

[wooster]

Bit late to the party here, but I thought I'd share my experience. I have shot Nikon and Canon until recently when I sold all my Nikon gear and stuck with Canon.

I owned a D800; in fact I owned 3 of them. I sent all of them back. IMHO the AF wasn't up to the job of all these pixels and I had the dreaded "left AF point" issue in each one. Nikon UK were an absolute disgrace in the way they handled my repairs and I gave up.

D800 will be fine for landscapers but I shoot people and it isn't for me. A wedding with all those massive files - yuk! And the amazing thing is the quality in the real world is pretty much exactly the same as a 5D mk2 or mk3

I now use only a 5D mk3 and my trusty 5D mk2 and I couldn't be happier with them. These extra megapixels don't matter a jot. A few years back people were saying how Nikon were trouncing Canon because Canon were just cramming more and more pixels in their sensors whereas Nikon were playing the smart game by catering for working togs not headline grabbing features.

The D700 was a great camera; I had two of these and loved them. It had 12 mp and that was plenty good enough for most things. The pixel count of the 5D is IMHO the sweet spot giving an excess of quality and all without jamming up your computer and hard drive. Try running some actions on a D800 RAW file on ANY computer and you'll find out what I mean.

 

[tijuana taxi]

Speaking purely as a hobby photographer I find 12mp is more than ample for my needs

Manageable file sizes on average PC, 8GB memory cards hold enough and more than adequate A4 prints.

I don't think Canon have gone wrong at all and would definitely consider buying a 6D if/when my camera gives up the ghost

 

[boyfalldown]

. Try running some actions on a D800 RAW file on ANY computer and you'll find out what I mean.

It's been long established that it doesn't really make a difference in terms of processing speed on a reasonably specced modern machine.

 

[EspressoJunkie]

Bit late to the party here, but I thought I'd share my experience. I have shot Nikon and Canon until recently when I sold all my Nikon gear and stuck with Canon.

I owned a D800; in fact I owned 3 of them. I sent all of them back. IMHO the AF wasn't up to the job of all these pixels and I had the dreaded "left AF point" issue in each one. Nikon UK were an absolute disgrace in the way they handled my repairs and I gave up.

D800 will be fine for landscapers but I shoot people and it isn't for me. A wedding with all those massive files - yuk! And the amazing thing is the quality in the real world is pretty much exactly the same as a 5D mk2 or mk3

I now use only a 5D mk3 and my trusty 5D mk2 and I couldn't be happier with them. These extra megapixels don't matter a jot. A few years back people were saying how Nikon were trouncing Canon because Canon were just cramming more and more pixels in their sensors whereas Nikon were playing the smart game by catering for working togs not headline grabbing features.

The D700 was a great camera; I had two of these and loved them. It had 12 mp and that was plenty good enough for most things. The pixel count of the 5D is IMHO the sweet spot giving an excess of quality and all without jamming up your computer and hard drive. Try running some actions on a D800 RAW file on ANY computer and you'll find out what I mean.

I agree with this.

Although I didn't own a D800, I did download and play with as many RAW files as I could before I made the decision to switch to Canon. The D800's files are lovely, but I agree with the fact that the extra resolution doesn't make as much difference to real world results as I would have thought.

The DR of all Nikons that I've used is certainly superior to the 5Dmkiii and for me this (and its tendency to expose to the left) is the thing which I am having to get used to the most, but its not as bad as many people have made out.

Both these areas while important to some, to me they have less of an impact on the image as a whole, and more when something is viewed at 100%

What I feel is that clearly there are areas in which Nikon's sensors are better, but in other ways Canons are with better WB and colour rendition, although I know its subjective, but I certainly notice it.

Essentially it boils down to choice, and we all choose what is best for our needs. But the way I kook at it is we are a lucky bunch, whether you shoot Canon, Nikon, or whatever, show a pro 10 years ago the current tech in cameras ( even entry level crop cameras) and they would have bitten your arm off to get it.

 

[Professional]

I am waiting one of those medium format companies specially Phase One to produce that camera which can be very good overall, high mp as usual with all or most MF, ofcourse best DR over all DSLRs, and most important better AF and high ISO handling, the weakest points with digital MF are:

1. Fast better accurate AF
2. Higher ISO with good noise handling
3. Not sure if that fps is very important in MF world, but if they can produce at least 2-4fps it will be more than enough for me, i will never use MF in sports even if it will do 8-10fps
4. More zoom lenses if possible, or let's say, more lens collection, and i hope they can produce tilt/shift lens instead of going with a tech cam or a T/S adapter
5. I don't care much about weight, but if i can produce that a bit lightweight body it will be welcome
6. Most important point, they are Damn Hell expensive

From all of your posts, it sounds that we should keep higher MP for MF only, no need to go over 20+ mp on 35mm DSLRs, even if i use film, i never used 35mm but scanning few compared to 6x4.5 and bigger, 35mm always left behind as resolution to MF, so i think same in digital area, MF sensors are bigger than all of those 35mm DSLRs so their mp resolution are at different class or level, and it shows me that those companies of Canon/Nikon/Sony trying to cheat us by producing those 35mm DSLRs to have nearly medium format mp [30-40mp], and they forget about their sensors sizes.

 

[stu.artd]

I am waiting one of those medium format companies specially Phase One to produce that camera which can be very good overall, high mp as usual with all or most MF, ofcourse best DR over all DSLRs, and most important better AF and high ISO handling, the weakest points with digital MF are:

1. Fast better accurate AF
2. Higher ISO with good noise handling
3. Not sure if that fps is very important in MF world, but if they can produce at least 2-4fps it will be more than enough for me, i will never use MF in sports even if it will do 8-10fps
4. More zoom lenses if possible, or let's say, more lens collection, and i hope they can produce tilt/shift lens instead of going with a tech cam or a T/S adapter
5. I don't care much about weight, but if i can produce that a bit lightweight body it will be welcome
6. Most important point, they are Damn Hell expensive

From all of your posts, it sounds that we should keep higher MP for MF only, no need to go over 20+ mp on 35mm DSLRs, even if i use film, i never used 35mm but scanning few compared to 6x4.5 and bigger, 35mm always left behind as resolution to MF, so i think same in digital area, MF sensors are bigger than all of those 35mm DSLRs so their mp resolution are at different class or level, and it shows me that those companies of Canon/Nikon/Sony trying to cheat us by producing those 35mm DSLRs to have nearly medium format mp [30-40mp], and they forget about their sensors sizes.

I'm not sure what most of that has got to do with canon however I do wonder what the 30-40mp sensors mentioned near the end that canon are supposedly "cheating" with are.

I do see a benefit in nikons favour due to the increased resolution and better dr and I'm surprised canon haven't got something out yet that competes like for like. However maybe they just know their market and believe that the demand for the new technology wouldn't currently be sufficient for their costs to change. Obviously as time passes tech costs tend to come down so their 'progress' may be waiting until it's less expensive and worth the expenditure.

As for now I'll continue to use my antiquated 5d2 and 7d and continue to struggle with the low resolution and outdated technology.

 

[HoppyUK]

IMHO, a big advantage of the D800's high pixel count is that it's kinda two cameras in one. Hi-res FF and then 16mp APS-C camera (basically a D7000). Add the battery grip and it will also run at 6fps in APS-C mode, making it a very capable sports and wildlife camera.

You don't have to shoot at 36mp. There are also medium and small file size options of 20mp and 9mp, plus other format choices - FX, DX, 5x4 and 1.2x. Where's the downside?

 

[AJQS]

IMHO, a big advantage of the D800's high pixel count is that it's kinda two cameras in one. Hi-res FF and then 16mp APS-C camera (basically a D7000). Add the battery grip and it will also run at 6fps in APS-C mode, making it a very capable sports and wildlife camera.

You don't have to shoot at 36mp. There are also medium and small file size options of 20mp and 9mp, plus other format choices - FX, DX, 5x4 and 1.2x. Where's the downside?

Precisely. At the weekend I had a very good chat with a photographer who I've admired for a long, and he now shoots a D800. He was saying how great it was simply because he only needed carry the one lens around (a 24-120 in this case) and cropping could take care of the rest without even touching on quality reduction. I on the other hand was shooting with an 80-200 on my 6Mp machine would have no chance for error.

I personally just love the detail it's possible to get out of something like that and wouldn't mind the price of massive files to work with. I do mind the body the sensor comes in but that's a whole other thread....

 

[EspressoJunkie]

IMHO, a big advantage of the D800's high pixel count is that it's kinda two cameras in one. Hi-res FF and then 16mp APS-C camera (basically a D7000). Add the battery grip and it will also run at 6fps in APS-C mode, making it a very capable sports and wildlife camera.

You don't have to shoot at 36mp. There are also medium and small file size options of 20mp and 9mp, plus other format choices - FX, DX, 5x4 and 1.2x. Where's the downside?

The fact that your RAW files have to be 36mp is IMO a clear disadvantage. The medium and small sizes are for Jpeg only.

 

[boyfalldown]

The fact that your RAW files have to be 36mp is IMO a clear disadvantage. The medium and small sizes are for Jpeg only.

The different crop sizes effect the raw as well. Although not the 20 & 9 mp options

 

[HoppyUK]

The fact that your RAW files have to be 36mp is IMO a clear disadvantage. The medium and small sizes are for Jpeg only.

Oh. So not like Canon's sRAW That's not so good, thanks for the correction.

 

[fracster]

The fact that your RAW files have to be 36mp is IMO a clear disadvantage. The medium and small sizes are for Jpeg only.

Nope, they don`t have to be 36 mp. As Hugh states, the differing built in crop ratio affects file size.

 

[EspressoJunkie]

Nope, they don`t have to be 36 mp. As Hugh states, the differing built in crop ratio affects file size.

That's true, but in my eyes its not really a substitute for a smaller file size. I can't understand why Nikon don't offer a smaller raw option (apart from compressed / uncompressed ).

 

[fracster]

I don`t see a need for smaller RAW files to be honest bud. I`m pretty sure that most people edit raws, in some way or another, then save as a differing format. You can use the file "save as " to determine output file size.

The D800, to me, is an all in one camera, a great FF body, an equally good crop body and the video seems ok tome, though I am very inexperienced in video. Sure, it has its downsides as ,I suppose, most camera bodies do. But is not a bad body at all.

 

[boyfalldown]

That's true, but in my eyes its not really a substitute for a smaller file size. I can't understand why Nikon don't offer a smaller raw option (apart from compressed / uncompressed ).

I don't think it an issue really. Just looking at some mk iii files v my d800 the file size are 30(ish) mb vs 45(ish) mb. There doesn't seem at noticeable difference on export from lr or opening (& saving) files in ps. That means over a year I'd of saved about 180 gb, or less then 10% of my available storage. ( I'll deliver about 12000 photos this year ). To me that's not a big deal. But everyone is different. All of which detracts from the point of the thread. I answer to that I don't think so. As with always with this question you'll get points scoring on minor issues, but at the end of the day I can deliver mkiii files to my clients and they can't tell them apart from d800 ones. So it's the age old question of preference

 

[Krichton]

Who came up with the myth that Nikon cameras are more advanced or better than Canon ones?

 

[EspressoJunkie]

Who came up with the myth that Nikon cameras are more advanced or better than Canon ones?

It's more to do with sensors. Nikons latest few have scored very highly in DXO Marks lab tests, where as Canons are somewhat down the list.

 

[Fireproof Creative]

A friend of mine shoots with a D800 and unlike the majority in here, MP do make a difference to me. I have to say I am envious of the D800, only because of the MP count (I prefer my MKiii for everything else) - the level of detail in the files is superb at 100%, the crop flexibility is such that it can negate being forced to shell out for longer lenses, which by and large, cost at least double the price of the body especially in the 3/400mm+ bracket.

Granted this is firmly dependent on the quality of the sensor, which in both brands are spectacular. I love the 5Diii, it does everything I need it to do with excellent IQ (I prefer the way it handles colors, greens particularly on the Nikon all look a little iffy). But an extra 15MP whilst retaining said IQ would be a sensational thing for me and the way I use the camera.

Sure its not an issue for a lot of people - its not even really an issue for me - but I would welcome it if it were introduced.

 

[odd jim]

A friend of mine shoots with a D800 and unlike the majority in here, MP do make a difference to me. I have to say I am envious of the D800, only because of the MP count (I prefer my MKiii for everything else) - the level of detail in the files is superb at 100%, the crop flexibility is such that it can negate being forced to shell out for longer lenses, which by and large, cost at least double the price of the body especially in the 3/400mm+ bracket. Granted this is firmly dependent on the quality of the sensor, which in both brands are spectacular. I love the 5Diii, it does everything I need it to do with excellent IQ (I prefer the way it handles colors, greens particularly on the Nikon all look a little iffy). But an extra 15MP whilst retaining said IQ would be a sensational thing for me and the way I use the camera. Sure its not an issue for a lot of people - its not even really an issue for me - but I would welcome it if it were introduced.

Why is MP so important to you, out of interest?

 

[Rudlin]

It's more to do with sensors. Nikons latest few have scored very highly in DXO Marks lab tests, where as Canons are somewhat down the list.

Somewhat I have to disagree with this notion, DXO has got little to do with real life photography.

Nikon D3200 > 5D MK3?
Sony A99 >>>> Canon 1DX?

Can't be true

 

[EspressoJunkie]

Somewhat I have to disagree with this notion, DXO has got little to do with real life photography.

Nikon D3200 > 5D MK3?
Sony A99 >>>> Canon 1DX?

Give me a break.

Oh I agree, I was simply stating where I believe that a lot of the opinions etc come from on the whole Nikon / Canon debate, especially recently.

 

[Rudlin]

Never mind me, just got bit agitated by this whole dxo thing.

 

[fracster]

I honestly believe that too many people spend far too long looking at review sites and other such internet sites of expertise and correctness, rather than using the cameras and seeing if they like what they produce with there cameras.

That is not leveled at anybody in this thread at all,I hasten to add, just something that bugs me.

 

[Professional]

I used several Canon cameras and i was happy with them all, i just upgrade to have more features to make me life easier not necessary to make my skill better, for example, i was happy using my 1D mark3 and had amazing results from it, i've got 1DX and forgot about 1D3 completely, but doesn't mean i hate 1D3, just that 1DX making me shooting more easier and somehow better with performance that it has its place in quality as well, i don't like people keep saying that new technology doesn't affect quality and only the photographer is making quality, and to me i feel that it is like saying the photographer make quality equal from 10 years old cameras and 1 month new camera in some areas of photography, forget landscape or nightshots or macro.

 

[dalegt4]

Somewhat I have to disagree with this notion, DXO has got little to do with real life photography.

Nikon D3200 > 5D MK3?
Sony A99 >>>> Canon 1DX?

Can't be true

I agree, DXO anything DXO state in my eyes is just total dog poo.

Apparently all canon sensors are total tat according to them, obviously I mean there are no good photos at all that have ever been taken on a canon body.

Like you say, everything they state, I ignore.

 

[Radiohead]

If Canon don't provide equipment 'good' enough for you then the problem is not with them. And I use Nikon.

4 pages of pixel-peeping *******s.