'Dynamic Range' handling

[Derrel]

I think a big factor is that Nikon Corporation fired a huge percentage of older mid- and high-level executives and engineers in the mid-2000's in basically what was a "housecleaning", and promoted many younger men to the highest levels of the company, with the admonition that they either produce at a very high level, or be similarly removed. Getting rid of the old guard made possible the Nikon resurgence that we saw with the D3 generation. Nikon redoubled its efforts, and made some very significant progress against Canon. Fresh, younger, newly-empowered engineers and management can have a major positive impact in a company. Old, cautious, dead-wood left over from the film era had not really been getting the job done. Nikon struck first with the D1, but after that, I think Canon pulled ahead more or less continually for seven years. The D2h and D2Hs and D2x cameras were the death knell for the old executives and engineers at Nikon. Those cameras were inferior to what Canon offered, and the "housecleaning" came about as a result of those embarrassing cameras.

Canon is a huge, multi-division, diversified corporation, while Nikon is smaller, and is primarily an imaging company. I think Nikon realizes that, as #2, it simply MUST try to push the envelope. Nikon can't rely on the photocopier division. Nikon needs to offer cameras that have the BEST sensors that can be had, and they buy them from Sony and Toshiba, which themselves are huge industrial conglomerates, with their own incentive to have updated to state of the art sensor fabrication. Canon on the other hand, is making its own sensors, and has not seen the need to update its outdated technology in sensor fabrication. And why would they? They are still number one in the camera business. They could drop 10 billion Yen into new fabrication capability, but what would that gain them? They're already #1 in sales. They have the lead, and they are trying to stay in that spot. What they have been offering is already selling well.

 

[Overread14 2]

Video is big for Canon as they were able to tap not only into the amateur and small studio video side of things, where normal highly expensive or limited rental gear wasn't suited to them and the DSLR offers a much cheaper option; But also the mainstream TV and film industry who sometimes want to shoot in tighter spaces on sets or in the real world and where a normal video camera is just too bulky.

It makes sense for them to develop this market area since its a great area for new customers; furthermore it opens up the option for more own brand accessories and (like most camera companies) the chance to put a high mark-up on simple accessories compared to their lower markup lenses and bodies makes a sound business choice.

In the end video will only go so far and then its back to improving visual quality - which benefits stills and video

 

[Derrel]

Yeah, I think the video capabilities in the 5D-II were a huge selling point for Canon. Video is also one of the areas where it's EASY for the camera companies or their payed representatives to make good video demonstrations and short, arty films showing the advantages and capabilities of specific cameras. I mean...the movie Canon payed Vincent Laforet to shoot when the 5D launched...Reverie....that movie and associated video was worth MILLIONS of dollars worth of sales! Video is an exciting field to many people, and now that we've moved into the YouTube era, video has an allure to many people. It's just smart business to promote cameras that shoot video using video.

http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/galleries/galleries/sample_videos/reverie.shtml

Here is Laforet's video with the Canon "pro flagship", Nocturne, shot in downtown Los Angeles (the cinema and movie-making capital of the world...)

"Vincent Laforet,PRO,Director/DP * - Shot for Canon USA in downtown Los Angeles with all available light. No outside light sources were used. * I directed this short with co-directors Stu Maschwitz and David Nelson."

[video=vimeo;7152063]http://vimeo.com/7152063[/video]

 

[robbins.photo]

Video is big for Canon as they were able to tap not only into the amateur and small studio video side of things, where normal highly expensive or limited rental gear wasn't suited to them and the DSLR offers a much cheaper option; But also the mainstream TV and film industry who sometimes want to shoot in tighter spaces on sets or in the real world and where a normal video camera is just too bulky.

It makes sense for them to develop this market area since its a great area for new customers; furthermore it opens up the option for more own brand accessories and (like most camera companies) the chance to put a high mark-up on simple accessories compared to their lower markup lenses and bodies makes a sound business choice.

In the end video will only go so far and then its back to improving visual quality - which benefits stills and video

True, big question in my mind though is how long that will take and how that will affect Canon's upgrade path. When I originally purchased my little Nikon d5100 I did so knowing that I'd most likely be upgrading the camera body at some point. Everytime Nikon comes out with a new offering the prices on the old stuff drops of course, making a lot of cameras that may have been out of my price range originaly more affordable. Right now I've got a few different options to consider, I can go with a D5200, D5300, D7100, etc - all have various features that would be nice to have and all of them will be a step up in image quality from what I have now.

With Canon though, had I bought say a T3i instead, well I really don't get much in the way of a "upgrade" till I get to the 70d. Sure I get a few features here or there or maybe a bonus to shooting speed, but my IQ and my lowlight performance stays pretty much flatline, right where I'm at. Even my lowlight performance doesn't seem to get much of a boost if I go from the T3i to the 70d, really I have to upgrade to the full frame 6d to see much in the way of benefits there.

So I guess what would concern me if I'd invested in Canon is how long it will be before they truly make some improvements in still images, not just one generation but two or three - because it takes a while for the savings to filter down to where I'm at and that stuff that was new just a year or two ago gets into a range where I can consider it. Right now it seems they've taken a very tiny step forward with the 70d, and while that drops the price of the 60d really the 60d doesn't take any better pictures than a T3i. So for the 70d to price drop I'll have to wait for canon to bring out it's replacement, and probably it's replacement's replacement - but even then the 70d really isn't a huge step up in IQ from the T3i.

So really the longer Canon waits to make those improvements the worse it gets. I guess we'll just have to see how it affects their overall marketing. And no, for the record, I do not believe that Canon is doomed.. rotfl

 

[Derrel]

How long until Canon decides to make a significant change??? Maybe Quarter 3, 2014? Not kidding either.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/full_frame_myth.shtm

Scroll down to the subsection entitled "The Coming Shift", and note the comments about moving away from the traditional Bayer-array sensor design, Fuji's X-Trans sensor, and also the Foveon-style approach. There's speculation that the Foveon-styled multi-layered sensor will become dominant within a few years. I've read persistent reports of a 75-megapixel Canon 1D-series multi-layer sensor camera prototype already developed. When one looks at the medium-format-like quality of the Sigma DP-1 and DP-2 with their relatively low-MP count Foveon,multi-layer sensors, I think the answer for Canon's unwillingness to advance is because they do not see a long-term upside to developing new fab capabilities for Bayer array sensors when they will very soon, begin transitioning to an all-new sensor type.

We might already be living at the end of the Bayer array era, and not even realize it just yet...kind of like back when CD's replaced vinyl records.

 

[robbins.photo]

How long until Canon decides to make a significant change??? Maybe Quarter 3, 2014? Not kidding either.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/full_frame_myth.shtm

Scroll down to the subsection entitled "The Coming Shift", and note the comments about moving away from the traditional Bayer-array sensor design, Fuji's X-Trans sensor, and also the Foveon-style approach. There's speculation that the Foveon-styled multi-layered sensor will become dominant within a few years. I've read persistent reports of a 75-megapixel Canon 1D-series multi-layer sensor camera prototype already developed. When one looks at the medium-format-like quality of the Sigma DP-1 and DP-2 with their relatively low-MP count Foveon,multi-layer sensors, I think the answer for Canon's unwillingness to advance is because they do not see a long-term upside to developing new fab capabilities for Bayer array sensors when they will very soon, begin transitioning to an all-new sensor type.

We might already be living at the end of the Bayer array era, and not even realize it just yet...kind of like back when CD's replaced vinyl records.

Ella just doesn't sound quite the same without all the random popping and hissing sounds.. {sigh} Lol - well I would imagine when they do first come out with this new super sensor it's probably going to be priced way out of the hands of us mere mortals, but on the upside my guess is I'll probably be able to pick up what is top of the line now dirt cheap not long after that happens.

 

[Overread14 2]

It's all a guessing game - we have to somewhat trust the main companies to keep advancing; however in todays fast paced market I don't think Canon ignores the fact that if the don't keep up they'll be left behind. They have a big market share now and they don't want to lose that - in fact they likely can't*. Honestly I'm not worried about Canon - sure I might not have the best pixels today but its a moot point - I've got fantastic performance as it is and it only takes a second to look back 5 years and see great shots being made on old cameras then - heck even 10 years ago!


*like most big firms they grow to accommodate their market - thereafter its about keeping that market the same size with more minor increase. If they suddenly start to lose the market they can quickly find themselves paying to run a huge company that is just too big and expensive for its new income. Failure to either remain at the cutting edge or to adapt to that shift kills the company - look at Kodak - didn't move into DSLR's market quick enough and then didn't downsize their operation quick enough to really suit a smaller film market.

 

[JacaRanda]

Video is big for Canon as they were able to tap not only into the amateur and small studio video side of things, where normal highly expensive or limited rental gear wasn't suited to them and the DSLR offers a much cheaper option; But also the mainstream TV and film industry who sometimes want to shoot in tighter spaces on sets or in the real world and where a normal video camera is just too bulky.

It makes sense for them to develop this market area since its a great area for new customers; furthermore it opens up the option for more own brand accessories and (like most camera companies) the chance to put a high mark-up on simple accessories compared to their lower markup lenses and bodies makes a sound business choice.

In the end video will only go so far and then its back to improving visual quality - which benefits stills and video

True, big question in my mind though is how long that will take and how that will affect Canon's upgrade path. When I originally purchased my little Nikon d5100 I did so knowing that I'd most likely be upgrading the camera body at some point. Everytime Nikon comes out with a new offering the prices on the old stuff drops of course, making a lot of cameras that may have been out of my price range originaly more affordable. Right now I've got a few different options to consider, I can go with a D5200, D5300, D7100, etc - all have various features that would be nice to have and all of them will be a step up in image quality from what I have now.

With Canon though, had I bought say a T3i instead, well I really don't get much in the way of a "upgrade" till I get to the 70d. Sure I get a few features here or there or maybe a bonus to shooting speed, but my IQ and my lowlight performance stays pretty much flatline, right where I'm at. Even my lowlight performance doesn't seem to get much of a boost if I go from the T3i to the 70d, really I have to upgrade to the full frame 6d to see much in the way of benefits there.

So I guess what would concern me if I'd invested in Canon is how long it will be before they truly make some improvements in still images, not just one generation but two or three - because it takes a while for the savings to filter down to where I'm at and that stuff that was new just a year or two ago gets into a range where I can consider it. Right now it seems they've taken a very tiny step forward with the 70d, and while that drops the price of the 60d really the 60d doesn't take any better pictures than a T3i. So for the 70d to price drop I'll have to wait for canon to bring out it's replacement, and probably it's replacement's replacement - but even then the 70d really isn't a huge step up in IQ from the T3i.

So really the longer Canon waits to make those improvements the worse it gets. I guess we'll just have to see how it affects their overall marketing. And no, for the record, I do not believe that Canon is doomed.. rotfl

I would love to be a fly on the wall at either company to hear their reasons for doing and not doing.

When my wife got her T3I, we were amazed at the picture quality. How much better could it get with every day shooting? Until I found TPF, image quality concerns were no concern at all.
My guess is that the majority of people buying cameras in the range of T3I's and D5200's simply can't tell and won't care that much until they become addicted. If they surf and read enough they will realize as noted by pgriz and Overread - most of every day needs by the average user can be done with most of the cameras in the range.

 

[robbins.photo]

I would love to be a fly on the wall at either company to hear their reasons for doing and not doing.

I know what you mean.. lol

When my wife got her T3I, we were amazed at the picture quality. How much better could it get with every day shooting? Until I found TPF, image quality concerns were no concern at all.
My guess is that the majority of people buying cameras in the range of T3I's and D5200's simply can't tell and won't care that much until they become addicted. If they surf and read enough they will realize as noted by pgriz and Overread - most of every day needs by the average user can be done with most of the cameras in the range.

That's more or less what I'm wondering, if Canon hasn't pretty much decided well, our IQ is good enough for now so lets focus on some other stuff, and we'll revisit this later. For me personally the IQ is kind of a big deal, dynamic range can make a pretty big difference in some of my shots - particularly stuff like deer and similar critters. Harder to make them stand out from the background when the good lord saw fit to make them naturally blend into the background.. lol.

For a lot of folks my guess is the current level of Canon IQ in most of there offerings is most likely sufficient. Just wonder if Canon didn't do some research and come to that same conclusion at least short term.

 

[enzodm]

My first dSLR was a Canon 1000D (do not know the name for you overseas members), because it was better than Nikon D3000. Then I developed some insane interest for old manual focus lenses, and I was glad to have a Canon (on Nikon you cannot mount most of the old lenses). Anyway, I switched to 60D (better viewfinder) and just after, looking at DXOmark and other quantitative reports, I started doubting to have done the right choice (yes, I was tempted by Pentax: same sensor as Nikon, better from my collector point of view).
However, suddenly since about 11 months I'm taking pictures of my twins, no flash because too young, so I have been forced to go ISO3200 and even 6400 (something I never wanted before). And print print print for grandmothers.
Well, who cares of DXOmark if prints are acceptable?

I think almost any camera currently outperforms my capabilities. So I stopped doubting, and I just took a look at 70D but I still do not see huge improvements (from my point of view), excluding microfocus adjustment. I'll stay with 60D for some more time -maybe Foveonized Canons will be an option to change, if they ever come

 

[pgriz]

Really, it's not the actual capabilities, it's what we think it can do. If Derrel is right, it's like the change in CPU's from single core to multi-core multi-threaded processing. Or from propellers to jets. If the sensor technology moves from a single plane (of focus) to multiple levels of focus (essentially from 2D to 3D sensing), it will totally change how we construct images. That gives a much more important role to play to the firmware that assembles the data from the 3-D array. And if that happens, then the next turn of the screw is continuous readout from the sensors and assembly of the image on the fly. Oh yeah. That would change how we see images. In turn, that may also allow us to choose the focus at the time of viewing. Hmmm - everything sharp, or very thin DOF out of the same "exposure". Heck. This may even allow us multiples zones of focus with blurriness in between.

 

[Overread14 2]

Well we've already had one company making a camera that can select the depth of field you want and the point of focus from a single exposure. Something like that would certainly suddenly change the whole way we approached photography at a very fundamental level.