Where is Canon?

[jad]

I have been a Canon user since 1970 starting with the F1. I am currently using the 5D11 and have been waiting for several years for a new large pixel camera from Canon. Nikon brought out the D800 a couple of years ago and I would have thought Canon would have had something similar by now. Sony just introduced a full sensor, large mega pixel mirror less camera that will take Canon lenses. I am starting to wonder what has happened to Canon. My next new camera may be a Sony. What are your thoughts on Canons lack of new releases?

[deetheturk]

Hi John,like you I have been waiting for that biggy from canon,my biggest reason for not jumping ship is I have a few l lenses and it would be quite an expense to start again,that said I got tired of waiting and have just ordered a 5d mk 111,now I'm hoping they hold off for a while yet!

[jad]

I have been using the 5D11 from the day it came out and was waiting for the next generation. When the 5D111 came out with a big price increase without much improvement I decided not to buy in. I have been waiting a long time to see if Canon would come out with a new generation of sensors with a higher pixel count. The 5D111 is a very good camera and if I didn't have the 5D 11 I would have certainly have bought it. Everyone I know who has one really likes it.

[RustBeltRaw]

Why do you need the higher pixel count? Do you regularly make very large prints?

Regardless, your ship may be coming in. Canon Rumors reports that Canon is working on a medium-format system (from Phase One buy-out) and a 40MP+ full-frame DSLR. I agree that they need a D800(E) competitor, but it's probably not the camera for me.

[deetheturk]

Like yourself i have had the 5d 11 for yrs John and have been pleased with it but i have got a decent discount on the mk111 so just bit the bullet and went for it! The only thing is i live in Turkey now and have had the camera delivered to my home in Scotland and dont go back for 2wks doh!

[DanK]

I have no idea what Canon will do, but I have to admit that I find the broader discussion of higher density FF sensors (on the web in general, not specifically here) a bit puzzling. On the one hand, there are lots of people advising others to switch from crop to FF to get LOWER pixel densities, which permit larger photosites, which in turn allow lower noise and a higher (smaller aperture) diffraction limit. On the other hand, there are lots of people unhappy with the lower pixel densities of most FF cameras. I can see specific reasons for wanting a higher density--if one prints very large, as Lex suggested, or if one has a need for severe cropping. But for many people, it seems to me, the lower density of FF sensors is a plus. Am I missing something?

[davidedric]

It would also be very interesting to know which segments of the market Canon is really chasing. The 70d shows one clear direction, and it's easy to see that would have absorbed a lot of their energy.

[inkista]

...What are your thoughts on Canons lack of new releases?

Sorry, what? I was looking over the 70D specs and EOS M2 rumors again... [grin].

Just because they're not the releases you wanted doesn't mean there's a lack of releases. Go move to Nikon/Sony, and be happy? Why complain about Canon not making the camera you want if someone else already has? You may simply no longer be part of Canon's market.

And as for using Canon lenses on the new Sonys, a) they'll look kinda silly, and b) most of them won't autofocus (only 7 will and that's with the caveat: "Autofocus speed is very slow and inadequate for most moving subjects. The autofocus speed is unfit for professional use for sure, and it would disappoint most enthusiasts.")--you're really only purchasing a way around the lack of an aperture ring with the $400 Metabones adapter. And then there's Roger Cicala's take on adapters in general.

Just saying.

Off to read up on the tiny Panasonic GM1.

[FootLoose]

Rather than bigger sensors/more pixels, Canon is working on a more 'sensitive' sensor, one that performs significantly better in very low light conditions.

http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/09/c...video-capture/

[Adrian]

Sorry to be a dissenter:are we in danger of focusing on the tool rather than the output?

Unless printing very large (does anyone print much at all these days?) I find it incredibly hard to distinguish megapixel variances between a high end 4/3, Canon 5DIII or the 800E that our graphic designer uses.

We are at the point of diminishing returns for most users and more Mp does not translate into better pictures for most of us.

[Glenn NK]

Where is Canon?

AFAIK, Canon is in Japan, although some of the lower end lenses are made in China.

I've only been semi-serious about photography since about 1962, and so far the tools seem to be better than I am. Occasionally I get a great image, but not usually. And although I have a 5DII, I often use the 30D for macro work (some of which is at the link in my sig).

Apologies in advance, but I'm afraid that Adrian has put it very well.

Glenn

[GrahamS]

There is a difference between what you need and what you want......

[rpcrowe]

I agree with Graham and "what you need" can be predicated on the type of photography that you "need" to do as well as the ultimate use that you "need" for your images. You should also factor in the price you are willing (or able) to pay and the amount of weight that you are willing (or able) to carry.

Basically any other factors transfer your "needs" over into the category of your "wants!"

[Manfred M]

Unless printing very large (does anyone print much at all these days?) I find it incredibly hard to distinguish megapixel variances between a high end 4/3, Canon 5DIII or the 800E that our graphic designer uses.

Actually I do print a fair bit, and while I would agree with you that for anything displayed on a screen, especially for images posted on a website and viewed in a browser; 10MP or 12MP is plenty.

The flip size is a medium to large print; I do a lot of prints at 17" x 22", and when I compare the images shot with my crop frame 12MP D90 and my full-frame 36MP D800, there is a richness in the image colour that I can't get out of the larger pitch sensor.

While everyone keeps writing about resolution, when looking at sensor size, I find that they are missing another feature. Using the film analogy, I find that a smaller pitch sensor (especially at or near base ISO) is more akin to shooting a slow, fine grain film versus a fast coarse film (large pitch sensor). Yes, one does get higher ISO with the larger pitch sensor, but one seems to sacrifice colour depth and dynamic range; again the slow and fast film analogy seems to apply. Again, this seems to apply to prints as this is not as obvious on a relatively small computer screen.

[ajohnw]

Personally following discussions with a retailer I wonder if Canon are about to be left behind or are maybe working on the same idea. It seems that some manufacturers have switched to Sony sensors based on the eventual appearance of on sensor phase type auto focusing. I bought an Olympus Pen a while ago manly out of curiosity and even with the best of these using the Panasonic sensor I could see the need for this in marginal lighting conditions. Having since bought an EM-5 that uses a Sony sensor I have to wonder if phase focusing is even needed. I have been surprised by it's ability to take photo's in conditions where I would expect to have to use flash. Manual focusing is even possible as the sensor is clearly far more sensitive than my eyes.

All from a dedicated Canon digital man but I don't chase pixel counts. I bear in mind typical F ratio's against diffraction effects and feel if some one really wants anything even near diffraction limited performance they best go large format. Even that is dubious as the pixel counts go up and up and ............ Much of it is just a good way of selling cameras.
-

[Colin Southern]

I have been a Canon user since 1970 starting with the F1. I am currently using the 5D11 and have been waiting for several years for a new large pixel camera from Canon.

The irony is that what you're wanting is a higher pixel count camera, not a camera with "large pixels". I'm not being pedantic when I say that -- I just wanted to point out that the more pixels you have, the smaller the pixels are -- and that in turn affects a whole bunch of stuff like noise levels and processing speed.

Canon actually made a 120MP sensor as an exercise (http://www.canon.com/news/2010/aug24e.html) over 3 years ago (and it was on an APS-H sensor which is about 1/2 way between a crop-factor sensor and a Full Frame sensor), so it's not really a question of "can they do it" but "why would they want to" (in a commercial product).

The fundamental problem is that we just don't need that many pixels. A typical image on the internet - displayed at a more than generous size - is only around 1MP - so you end up throwing away more than a full 96% of your data in most cases. If you're dealing in prints then it usually doesn't help a lot either as the eye just can't resolve the detail it's capable of in a small to medium size print -- and once you start getting into BIG prints like I do (44 -> 66") then the viewing distance increases and again you can't resolve the detail. Plus, print density is a square law function because prints are 2 dimensional so if you have a certain print density on your average 18MP sensor and you want to double it, you actually need a 72MP sensor ... and of course with that comes a LOT of headaches along the lines of storage, frame rate, noise, lens limitations, ISO restrictions (due to the noise).

So, why aren't Canon releasing higher MP count cameras? - simple - nobody needs higher MP counts in the real world - what we DO need is higher frame rates - more dynamic range - higher ISO modes.

Hope this helps.

[Manfred M]

I bear in mind typical F ratio's against diffraction effects and feel if some one really wants anything even near diffraction limited performance they best go large format. Even that is dubious as the pixel counts go up and up and ............
-

I think there is far too much attention paid to diffraction limits, without putting it into context of overall IQ.

I remember looking at some MTF charts for a number of lenses and the lost of sharpness from diffraction was about the same as shooting with the same lens that was stopped down two or three stops. It gave better sharpness than shooting wide open or stopping down a single stop or two, yet people still do so to get shallow DoF, yet one rarely hears about soft images as people are too busy discussing the bokeh...

I get optimal sharpness out of my pro lenses when I shoot in the f/8 range, but that does not stop me from shooting at f/2.8 or f/16. I have made those compositional choices knowing that I am sacrificing sharpness for overall effect. Frankly I don't shoot with a heavy duty tripod 100% of the time, so the minor motion blurr is going to override any diffraction softening regardless.

[Colin Southern]

I have no idea what Canon will do, but I have to admit that I find the broader discussion of higher density FF sensors (on the web in general, not specifically here) a bit puzzling. On the one hand, there are lots of people advising others to switch from crop to FF to get LOWER pixel densities, which permit larger photosites, which in turn allow lower noise and a higher (smaller aperture) diffraction limit. On the other hand, there are lots of people unhappy with the lower pixel densities of most FF cameras. I can see specific reasons for wanting a higher density--if one prints very large, as Lex suggested, or if one has a need for severe cropping. But for many people, it seems to me, the lower density of FF sensors is a plus. Am I missing something?

What you're "missing" Dan is the fact that most photographers buying these things are stuck on the marketing treadmill and don't understand the real-world consequences of what they're asking for; as such, they give far too much weight to irrelivent factors (such as ridiculous pixel counts), and completely ignore other factors that have 100 times the impact on their photography (lighting, composition, technique, sharpening).

As such we end up with someone with a 24MP camera producing cr^p photos thinking that they'll be able to take better photos with a 32MP camera when in reality all they achieve is the same cr^p but at a higher resolution.

[Colin Southern]

I think there is far too much attention paid to diffraction limits, without putting it into context of overall IQ.

I remember looking at some MTF charts for a number of lenses and the lost of sharpness from diffraction was about the same as shooting with the same lens that was stopped down two or three stops. It gave better sharpness than shooting wide open or stopping down a single stop or two, yet people still do so to get shallow DoF. I get optimal sharpness out of my pro lenses when I shoot in the f/8 range, but that does not stop me from shooting at f/2.8 or f/16. I have made those compositional choices knowing that I am sacrificing sharpness for overall effect. Frankly I don't shoot with a heavy duty tripod 100% of the time, so the minor motion blurr is going to override any diffraction softening regardless.

I agree.

The absurd thing is that people go totally obsessive over diffraction and then completely ruin the image through resultant factors like insufficient DoF and totally inadequate (or non-existent) sharpening which contribute 20 times as much image degradation.

If folks want to shoot at a particular aperture to minimise diffraction - and that aperture still gives acceptable DoF - then go for it (no harm), but apart from that, JUST FORGET ABOUT DIFFRACTION. It's occurring at a level you'll only see at 100% magnification - and bears no relevance in the real world for all intents and purposes.

Hell, if I need to shoot at F32 then I shoot at F32 - and no client has EVER come back and said "Hmmm - nice photo, but there's too much diffraction at that aperture for my liking".

[Colin Southern]

There is a difference between what you need and what you want......

I think there's an even BIGGER gap between what people need and what they THINK they need.