Where is Canon these days?

[Jad]

I have been a Canon user since 1970 starting with the F1 series. I started into digital in 2008 with the 5D11. Prior to digital, most of my photography was done with a large format camera. I am not into upgrading equipment every time a new product comes on the market but I have been waiting for Canon to come out with a new model with improved sensor technology and a modest increase in pixel count above the Mark 111. It seems that is has been a long time since Canon has introduced a middle of the road camera to match Nikons D800. Now I have read that Sony recently came out with the first full frame sensor mirror-less camera the AR7. It has been real quiet at Canon and it makes me wonder if we will see anything new from them in the next year.

[ricktas]

The 5D mkIII was announced in March 2012. Therefore its replacement is probably going to be announced in 2015/2016 based on the 3-4 year upgrade model path used in the past, not just by Canon but by the other manufacturers as well.

The 5D MkII was announced in Sept 2008 and the original 5D was August 2005.

The 5D MkIIi is only 18 months old at present. So expect at least another 18 months or so before an announcement is made. So it has not really been that quiet at Canon.

[Kym]

Leap frog. Nikon (D800), Pentax (K-3) and a rumoured 645Dii, Canon (??).

[Jad]

The 5D mkIII was announced in March 2012. Therefore its replacement is probably going to be announced in 2015/2016 based on the 3-4 year upgrade model path used in the past, not just by Canon but by the other manufacturers as well.

The 5D MkII was announced in Sept 2008 and the original 5D was August 2005.

The 5D MkIIi is only 18 months old at present. So expect at least another 18 months or so before an announcement is made. So it has not really been that quiet at Canon.

It is true that Canon upgrade to the 5D111 18 months age. For those of us that own the 5D11, the Mark 111 wasn't worth the high cost to upgrade for basically the same camera. It was around the same time Nikon came out with the D800 for less than the 5D111. I feel Canon made a mistake with the pricing along with the minimal upgrade they gave to the 5D111. Hopefully they will come out with a mid priced camera that will make 5D11 users want to upgrade. I am happy with the 5D11 and will continue to use it for many years. I would like to purchase a backup camera at some point and will wait to see what Canon will come out with. It just seems to me that Canon has not been keeping up with the other brands lately, but I hope I am wrong.

[ricktas]

It is true that Canon upgrade to the 5D111 18 months age. For those of us that own the 5D11, the Mark 111 wasn't worth the high cost to upgrade for basically the same camera. It was around the same time Nikon came out with the D800 for less than the 5D111. I feel Canon made a mistake with the pricing along with the minimal upgrade they gave to the 5D111. Hopefully they will come out with a mid priced camera that will make 5D11 users want to upgrade. I am happy with the 5D11 and will continue to use it for many years. I would like to purchase a backup camera at some point and will wait to see what Canon will come out with. It just seems to me that Canon has not been keeping up with the other brands lately, but I hope I am wrong.

Perhaps they are waiting till they get their new sensor perfected to get that into a model: http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...the-sensor-war

So rather than keeping up, perhaps they thought, lets beat em..and its taking just a little longer to do so

[Tannin]

For those of us that own the 5D11, the Mark 111 wasn't worth the high cost to upgrade for basically the same camera. It was around the same time Nikon came out with the D800 for less than the 5D111. I feel Canon made a mistake with the pricing along with the minimal upgrade they gave to the 5D111. Hopefully they will come out with a mid priced camera that will make 5D11 users want to upgrade.

Not even remotely close, mate. The 5D III was a huge upgrade on the 5D II; not just modernised and improved in the usual ways, but lifted up in the model line-up unit to sit closer to the 1 Series models at the cost-no-object extreme. Not equal to the 1 Series, but absolutely a pro machine designed for demanding professional users. Compare with the 5D II, which was essentially a cheapish mid-range semi-pro metal body similar to the 20D-30D-40D-50D, with an extraordinarily capable high-res sensor, and (presumably to keep costs down) some very low-rent systems, notably the focus system which was just plain bad (significantly inferior to the AF systems of much older, much cheaper Canon bodies; even the 400D had better AF) and the exposure system which was no-frills and, all things considered, inferior to that of models like the 40D. But in those days, full frame sensors were very expensive to manufacture, so the 5D II cost quite a lot just the same. Later on, of course, it became much cheaper.

The 5D III, in other words, despite the name, isn't really a 5D II replacement; it's an all-new model. The actual 5D II replacement is the 6D. Like the 5D II, the 6D is a good semi-pro body with a state-o-the-art sensor. Like the 5D II, it has a fairly simple, inexpensive focus system. Unlike the 5D II (or so I understand) the 6D AF system actually works very well and won't drive you spare with its primitive inability to deal with any situation beyond the easiest one. Compare with the 5D III, which has an AF system very similar to the 1 Series systems - i.e., easily best in class.

So if you want a good cheap(ish) camera to upgrade your 5D II, get a 6D. If you want a poor man's 1 Series and don't mind paying a bit extra, the 5D III is the go.

[Bennymiata]

I think Canon have been quite hard at work this year.
Check out the 100D, the world's smallest APS-C DSLR, which I think will give a lot of mirrorless cameras a bit of a wake-up call.
The new 700D is also a big step forward as far as live-view and video focussing are concerned.

I agree with Tannin on the 5D3 too. It is a magnificent camera and seems to do a remarkable job in virtually any situation.
If you haven't tried one yet, don't, as you will want to buy one when you realise that it is probably the best all-around camera you can buy.
The older MkII was virtually a 60D with a bigger sensor, much like the 6D is now, but the 5D3 is quite a step above in so many ways.

Canon have also been doing a lot of work in video, as many professionals are now having to offer video as well as stills for events and even real estate work.

I think we'll see some new DSLR's coming out early next year, like the 7D MkII which will have to be quite an improvement on the current model, as the new 70D does virtually everything the 7D does, but for less money.
There is a lot of speculation about a 40+megapickle sensor coming, as well as talk of Canon getting into medium format cameras in the coming year, so I wouldn't say that Canon have been sitting still.

[Jad]

Not even remotely close, mate. The 5D III was a huge upgrade on the 5D II; not just modernised and improved in the usual ways, but lifted up in the model line-up unit to sit closer to the 1 Series models at the cost-no-object extreme. Not equal to the 1 Series, but absolutely a pro machine designed for demanding professional users. Compare with the 5D II, which was essentially a cheapish mid-range semi-pro metal body similar to the 20D-30D-40D-50D, with an extraordinarily capable high-res sensor, and (presumably to keep costs down) some very low-rent systems, notably the focus system which was just plain bad (significantly inferior to the AF systems of much older, much cheaper Canon bodies; even the 400D had better AF) and the exposure system which was no-frills and, all things considered, inferior to that of models like the 40D. But in those days, full frame sensors were very expensive to manufacture, so the 5D II cost quite a lot just the same. Later on, of course, it became much cheaper.

The 5D III, in other words, despite the name, isn't really a 5D II replacement; it's an all-new model. The actual 5D II replacement is the 6D. Like the 5D II, the 6D is a good semi-pro body with a state-o-the-art sensor. Like the 5D II, it has a fairly simple, inexpensive focus system. Unlike the 5D II (or so I understand) the 6D AF system actually works very well and won't drive you spare with its primitive inability to deal with any situation beyond the easiest one. Compare with the 5D III, which has an AF system very similar to the 1 Series systems - i.e., easily best in class.

So if you want a good cheap(ish) camera to upgrade your 5D II, get a 6D. If you want a poor man's 1 Series and don't mind paying a bit extra, the 5D III is the go.

I am sure all you say is true. If the 5D111 is a totally different camera from the 5D11 then Canon should have marketed it better. They should have released it as a new camera model and not an upgrade of the 5D series. There timing couldn't have been worst with Nikon coming out with the D800 for less money. I know many 5D11 users that would not spend the extra $1,000 for the 5D111 that has about the same mega pixel count. I know 5D111 has the next generation sensor and they improved the video, which I never use. Canon has spent a lot of time on the video market and the small snapshot cameras. Canon has been the leader in the digital market for a long time but in the past couple of years they are getting passed by other brands. Hopefully they will come out with new sensor technology that will leave the competitors in the dust.

[ricktas]

I am sure all you say is true. If the 5D111 is a totally different camera from the 5D11 then Canon should have marketed it better. They should have released it as a new camera model and not an upgrade of the 5D series. There timing couldn't have been worst with Nikon coming out with the D800 for less money. I know many 5D11 users that would not spend the extra $1,000 for the 5D111 that has about the same mega pixel count. I know 5D111 has the next generation sensor and they improved the video, which I never use. Canon has spent a lot of time on the video market and the small snapshot cameras. Canon has been the leader in the digital market for a long time but in the past couple of years they are getting passed by other brands. Hopefully they will come out with new sensor technology that will leave the competitors in the dust.

perhaps write to Canon with your concerns then? After all, they are the only ones who can change this.

[MarkChap]

Well it seems all of my replies have been well and truly covered.

You have to also remember that Canon has quite a regimented naming convention for their body range from way back in the film days-
EOS1 (in it's various incarnations) Top of the line professional body - Now becomes EOS1D (in it's varied digital incarnations)
EOS5 (again in varied ranges through the years) Semi professional, serious enthusiast- becomes, you guessed it EOS5D (in all of the varied incarnations)

And so it goes down through the ranges - the more numbers the further down the tree it is aimed

Why would they change that naming convention now

The 5D MkIII, is streets ahead of the 5D MkII, and I don't know of any body that would for the sake of $1000.00 buy a MkII over a MkIII
Do I own one, not yet, do I want one, my word I do

[arthurking83]

...... I know many 5D11 users that would not spend the extra $1,000 for the 5D111 that has about the same mega pixel count. ......

These 'photographers' need re-edumacation me thinks.

I believe that manufacturers(and this need not be tied to Canon only!) assume that high end DSLR purchasers will usually know more about photography and gear than the average joe/jane purchasing their first lower end((sub $600) DSLR.
These photographers that are supposed to know, will know one thing .. greater pixel count doesn't make a camera.
This is common knowledge amongst folks that shoot lots and are passionate about photography.

The average joe/jane will see the megapixel count on the front of the advertising material(usually the most prominent feature) .. and they'll choose what they believe to be the best brand or model based on this point.

I see them regularly, I (over)hear conversations on this topic constantly ... "Oooh! it's got 1024Gigtapixels ... oh! It must be a good camera!" never mind that all these pixels may only render a mess of coloured dots and if not, then just smeary blurry detail due to massive application of noise reduction.

As already said, there is more in this camera if the time is taken to research what these additional enhancements actually do. Better lower light focusing ability(and in almost total darkness) .. faster more accurate focusing .. etc, etc.
Extra video features are a moot point. They don't actually cost all that much more to implement, and some of their implementations are as a result of better or more capable hardware, or vise versa
(ie. faster data throughput due to faster CPUs).

So what you see as features that you may never use(ie. the video), others see quicker frame rates, reduced bottlenecks when shooting in continuous mode, and almost certainly better high ISO capability due to less congested data transfer from sensor to ADC.
All those still image advancements are most likely due to the implementation of video in DSLRs, which usually requires higher data bandwidth, which then increases still image capture rates and quality.

Never mind the onset of useful PDAF now (not on the 5DIII but on the whole across many newly released brands of camera) .. again, an advancement most likely attributed to the addition of video in still cameras.

Forget the sensor. It probably has too many pixels as of now anyhow. Do you regularly print at A1 sizes for display under a microscope?

I can almost guarantee you that with the introduction of the next over-pixeled Canon camera, no matter the cost of this camera model, factor in a new massively specced computer into the price too. Your old one will feel outdated.

If you're printing image large for fine art purposes, you probably should be shooting MF anyhow. If you're not, those extra megapixels are almost certainly a pointless exercise for the vast majority of photographers.

[Tannin]

Right answer, wrong decade, Arthur me old mate.

Canons haven't been "over-pixelated" since the end of the previous decade (assuming we grant, for the sake of discussion, that they ever were) when the 7D was released. 18MP in an APS-C body was a lot back then. In full frame, the 1Ds III (2007) and the 5D II (2008) were both fairly modest 21MP designs. At the time, Nikon cameras were generally regarded as under-pixelated, with the D3, the D3s and the D700 all stuck at just 12MP, but the insanely expensive new D3S pointed to Nikon's future with its 24MP chip. Ignore the D3S - it was a very small part of Nikon's lineup after all - and you'd say without a doubt that Canon was pushing the pixel density barrow harder than anyone else (especially with the 7D) while Nikon was "pushing the more pixels isn't the answer" theme very hard.

Fast forward to the Century of the Fruitbat now, and everything is reversed. Nikon's D800 is a whopping 36MP, the cheaper D600/D610 is 24MP, and the APS-C models are 24MP units. Only the (quite elderly) top-line pro body, the D4, goes the other way with just 16MP. "More pixels is better!" shoult the Nikon fans. "No it isn't - we were wrong before, now we see that less pixels is better!" says the Canon crowd. Why? Because the top-line APS-C Canon is still the elderly but evergreen 18MP 7D; the 550D, 600D, 650D, 700D, and 60D all stayed at 18MP and even the latest 70D is just barely higher at 20MP; while the full frame cameras are all around 21MP (5D II and 6D) or, quite extraordinarily, in the case of the cost-no-object 1D X, decreased to just 18MP.

Figure all that out if you can!

My take on it is - and I reckon you might nearly agree with me here - that pixel count just isn't the main thing to look at these days. So long as it is enough - and for most (not all but most) uses anything over 15MP or so is fine and 8MP will do at a pinch - then we should look at the other factors.

[Dug]

It seems that is has been a long time since Canon has introduced a middle of the road camera to match Nikons D800.

Going by the rumor mill the next jump in pixel count from Canon will be a 1D series.
They are probably not in a big hurry to do it, so if you must have 30+ mpx then you have time to save.
There is currently the sporty 1DX and the Cine 1DC so a studio orientated 1D with out the blistering FPS is not a stretch to imagine.
As mention the 5D mkIV is not due anytime soon, it is possible it might get a hand me down big mpx sensor from the 1D series and by then extra processing power will be able to retain the all rounder package that makes the 5D mkIII such a great camera.

[swifty]

My take on it is - and I reckon you might nearly agree with me here - that pixel count just isn't the main thing to look at these days. So long as it is enough - and for most (not all but most) uses anything over 15MP or so is fine and 8MP will do at a pinch - then we should look at the other factors.

+1 on this point.
But whilst anything and everything out there is adequate today, MP will continue to be a marketing strategy.
All else being equal, more MP does equal better image quality (but at the expense of other things). Whether you can take advantage of those extra sampling points is another matter.
So more MP will still be attractive but it becomes an increasingly specialist field since as we agree, anything out there atm is already adequate.

PS: To alleviate confusion, you're referring to the D3x, not D3s when talking about the last generation Nikon 24MP flagship.

[arthurking83]

Right answer, wrong decade, Arthur me old mate.

....

I just re read my previous reply and I wasn't clear as I could have been.

My reference to overpixelisationing was about what I think is about to manifest in the next few incarnations of camera models, rather than the past few years.
Save for the D800's, pixels on sensors are about at the point where they should be.



I think 24-ish Mp is about as much as 'we need' in a 35mm sensor. I think Canon were smarter in holding back at 20Mp on their newest sensor.
36Mp is acceptable in that I have one of those devices and there's no way for me to change it myself.

Had I had a choice, I would have gone with 24Mp and not 36 .. but this option wasn't a consideration ... so I was 'forced' into a 36Mp sensored camera.(my main priority was for a specific body type and feature set!).

Had I had the money, a D4 would have been my ultimate choice.

The fear is that Canon-Nikon will once again go into battle to restore themselves as the 'leader of the pixels race' ... and in a few years time, when it may be time to 'update the camera', my only choice (in this hypothetical future time) may be a gigapixel too many.


Damned I wish I had a Delorean!(imagine the good I could do in eliminating the vast majority of camera manufacturer marketing gurus ... of the future! )

Of course there are those that always appreciate the need for more pixels, for example for the sake of cropping more, or whatever other endeavour they choose to subscribe too.


Strange thing is, even with the ability I now have to crop more(heavily) than before .. I have still yet to do so(other than to display a technical crop .. of detail/camera/lens sharpness, or some other such trivial purpose).

I think you're right Tony .. 15-25Mp(or any number thereabouts) is about as many as any of us really need.
I'm hoping that one of the manufacturers will take up the challenge of offering more unique sensor features.

Features such as individual pixel gating, or something to that effect, where you could set the camera up to stop over exposure, or conversely increase gain in underexposed individual pixels with a single exposure. The idea is a realtime ND effect at the time of exposure. Massive increases in dynamic range would result ... makes for easier processing and so forth.

New sensor technology is the actual answer.. not more pixels. Something along the lines of a foveon/x-trans/bayer/black silicon/E. coli bacteria hybrid sensor that not only sees in pitch black darkness at 1/8000s, but can also imagine the photo for you(for those times when you can't be bothered to do it for yourself .. would be cool.

[Jad]

I just re read my previous reply and I wasn't clear as I could have been.

My reference to overpixelisationing was about what I think is about to manifest in the next few incarnations of camera models, rather than the past few years.
Save for the D800's, pixels on sensors are about at the point where they should be.



I think 24-ish Mp is about as much as 'we need' in a 35mm sensor. I think Canon were smarter in holding back at 20Mp on their newest sensor.
36Mp is acceptable in that I have one of those devices and there's no way for me to change it myself.

Had I had a choice, I would have gone with 24Mp and not 36 .. but this option wasn't a consideration ... so I was 'forced' into a 36Mp sensored camera.(my main priority was for a specific body type and feature set!).

Had I had the money, a D4 would have been my ultimate choice.

The fear is that Canon-Nikon will once again go into battle to restore themselves as the 'leader of the pixels race' ... and in a few years time, when it may be time to 'update the camera', my only choice (in this hypothetical future time) may be a gigapixel too many.


Damned I wish I had a Delorean!(imagine the good I could do in eliminating the vast majority of camera manufacturer marketing gurus ... of the future! )

Of course there are those that always appreciate the need for more pixels, for example for the sake of cropping more, or whatever other endeavour they choose to subscribe too.


Strange thing is, even with the ability I now have to crop more(heavily) than before .. I have still yet to do so(other than to display a technical crop .. of detail/camera/lens sharpness, or some other such trivial purpose).

I think you're right Tony .. 15-25Mp(or any number thereabouts) is about as many as any of us really need.
I'm hoping that one of the manufacturers will take up the challenge of offering more unique sensor features.

Features such as individual pixel gating, or something to that effect, where you could set the camera up to stop over exposure, or conversely increase gain in underexposed individual pixels with a single exposure. The idea is a realtime ND effect at the time of exposure. Massive increases in dynamic range would result ... makes for easier processing and so forth.

New sensor technology is the actual answer.. not more pixels. Something along the lines of a foveon/x-trans/bayer/black silicon/E. coli bacteria hybrid sensor that not only sees in pitch black darkness at 1/8000s, but can also imagine the photo for you(for those times when you can't be bothered to do it for yourself .. would be cool.

You are correct in saying new sensor technology is the actual answer. I remember when Kodak came out with Tmax film and how it nearly eliminated all of the grain when compared to the old standby Tri-x. It was the new T grain technology that made that possible. My hopes are that Canon can develop a revolutionary sensor that addresses the noise/grain that comes with long and low light exposures. I would like a camera with around 28 mp so I can do cropping to control perspective. After using a view camera for many years and having the ability to correct perspective with the camera, I now make that correction with cropping the image. Having a few more pixels that purpose is an advantage.

[arthurking83]

In that case(the need for cropping) the desire for more pixels makes sense.

Nothing wrong with have a need!

With the D800, and Sony's recently released 36Mp camera, my guess is that Canon won't take this sort of competition for too long.

I think it's only a matter of time when Canon release some 30-40Mp answer.

[Hayaku]

Regarding the updated sensor, Rick did post this thread http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...the-sensor-war.'

The question I guess is when they develop that to an affordable useable body.

[sinequanon]

I'm thoroughly enjoying my 5D3 which I got a year ago. Not too worried about the seeming quietness at the Canon mill. It has a much better AF system than the previous Canon I had - a 40D. The only thing I would love to have Canon add to the 5D3 would be an internal radio flash transmitter. Having said all that, I might tend to agree - if it were suggested to me - that it is busier at Nikon/Sony (even Oly and Pentax) than it would appear to be at Canon now. It seems to me that Canons had always played second fiddle to Nikons during the film days - with the F3 reigning supreme. But Canon's EOS changed all that with DSLRs like the 1D and 1Ds (specifically the 1DsM2) and had a good run for a decade or so. Now, Canon has lost the pixel battle to Nikon and even Sony, but, of course, many (probably me included) will say that that hasn't lost it the DSLR war.

[ricktas]

I'm thoroughly enjoying my 5D3 which I got a year ago. Not too worried about the seeming quietness at the Canon mill. It has a much better AF system than the previous Canon I had - a 40D. The only thing I would love to have Canon add to the 5D3 would be an internal radio flash transmitter. Having said all that, I might tend to agree - if it were suggested to me - that it is busier at Nikon/Sony (even Oly and Pentax) than it would appear to be at Canon now. It seems to me that Canons had always played second fiddle to Nikons during the film days - with the F3 reigning supreme. But Canon's EOS changed all that with DSLRs like the 1D and 1Ds (specifically the 1DsM2) and had a good run for a decade or so. Now, Canon has lost the pixel battle to Nikon and even Sony, but, of course, many (probably me included) will say that that hasn't lost it the DSLR war.

what DSLR War? The only people who mention a 'war' are the one-eyed users who think their brand is always better than any other brand, no matter what. There is not a war between the manufacturers as they buy and sell parts between each other all the time. Any war is and always has been a figment of the imagination of consumers.