What has happened to Canon?

[Jad]

What are your thoughts about Canons delay on new models?

I hate to break it to you but Cannon releases new models all the time. Just because those models don't fit what you want does not mean there is a delay.

I have been a Canon user since 1970 starting with the F1. I currently am using the 5D11 and have been waiting for several years for them to come out with a big mega pixel camera. Nikon has the D800 which has been on the market for over two years. I would have thought Canon would have brought out a camera to match them in price and mega pixel. Sony just introduced a full sensor mirror less big mega pixel camera that will take Canon lenses. I am starting to think that my next new camera may be a Sony if Canon doesn't get it's act together. What are your thoughts about Canons delay on new models?

According to your post you are using a 5D11 that's at least 8 generations newer that the currently available 5d3 so I don't know that your complaining about.

Cameras are just a tool nothing more. If your tool is not getting the job done the get a different tool, why should you care who makes it or how long you have been using one brand vs another. It's just a tool.

If you really just want lots of megapixels then why a you shooting digital anyway. A good scan from a large format film negative will give you more megapixels then any digital camera you available today.

"Cameras are nothing but a tool nothing more" That is an old and worn out phrase, that really doesn't apply to the computer/digital world we live in. How many computer/software/camera upgrades have you done in the past ten years? When I worked with film I used the same camera and lenses for forty years. I bought the best I could afford and had never a need to upgrade them. The one thing that did get upgraded and improved on a regular basis was the film, chemicals, and the print papers. Now we are working without film and we rely more on equipment upgrades, cameras, printers, and computers, ect. to get improved quality to our images, not the simple materials upgrades of the past. It just a tool alright, but one that gets outdated quickly.

 

[tecboy]

I have two computers with i7 core processors inside. These work very well with a single 20mp image at a time in Photoshop. I'm an artist. I do a lot of heavy editing and working with multiple tiff images at a same time in one machine. It can adds up to a gig of file size plus I use it for animation. It bogs the system down. Unless, I get a workstation with multiple processors, 128 gig of rams, and top of the line graphic card. I have bough a 2TB of hard drive like everyone keeps saying it is cheap. However, I don't want to spend money for another hard drive with 4TB.

My 70D is not even near the full frame, mirrorless full frame, or medium format sensor. It has some impressive features like live viewing. I use it a lot in the crowded people that I have to raise my camera up high just to shoot pictures. It has incredible AF feature even it only has 19 AF points. It is so much easy to use unlike other highend dslr with 50 to 60 AF points. Canon may not have higher resolution sensor, but it has other features that is better qualilty.

 

[pgriz]

Why outdated? If the digital tool does the job for you in the way you want it done, then what does an upgrade get you? If, on the other hand, the existing tool is holding you back in some way, then an upgrade does make sense as long as it remedies the deficiency you were experiencing before. For instance, my current camera has so-so autofocus and low-light performance. However, for the type of pictures I usually take, those are not serious issues, and I cannot justify dropping major dollars to fix a problem that for the most part I don't have. If I changed my pictorial interests and started something that needed that kind of performance, then that would be a different scenario.

I'm pretty confident that the product managers at Canon, Nikon, etc. have pretty clear ideas of the profile of the customers they are targeting each type of product at. If I or you don't happen to fall into one of those profiles, we may consider ourselves underserved, but for most companies, it does not make sense to pursue each and every potential customer. Of course, if the company does not pay attention to the evolution of its customer base, it risks becoming irrelevant, uncompetitive, and will fail. Trying to defend yesterday's cash cow is a quick way to oblivion, as Kodak, Polaroid, and others have found. But I am not convinced that Canon or Nikon are in immediate danger of following them.

There has been another thread about the potential disappearance of the DSLR, but that discussion seems to have been rather inconclusive. In the computer arena, there's the trend that the number of PC's is dropping, with users going to tablets, smart phones and similar devices for entertainment and information sharing. Businesses, on the other hand, continue to need data processing tools, databases, spreadsheets, word processors, and the like which the PC's host reasonably well. Microsoft has tried to move the business computing market in the direction of the handheld devices with Windows 8, and has been met with a resounding chorus of boos from the business crowd. Essentially, users do NOT need continuous upgrades, unless the upgrades give new functionality that is important to the business. And so it is with the camera technology - if you have tools that give you what you want, upgrading may not be needed.

Having looked at your blog, I can see that you have a well-developed vision and a skill-set to match. You may be pushing the boundaries much more that I need to, and in your situation, it may make sense to look for those upgrades. But if you are able to achieve what you want with your current gear, are your images going to be that much better if you upgrade? I'm not sure.

 

[play18now]

I too find I'm more interested in "low noise at high iso" than MP size. But people have different needs for their cameras. I never blow anything up past 8"x12" so I don't have a need for more that my 13 mp. Maybe the OP does have a need for that, which is a perfectly valid reason to want a high-mp camera. Unfortunately the 5D3 isn't THAT old and is a fabulous camera, so I don't see a new FF on the near horizon any time soon

 

[kathyt]

For what it's worth, I just had to go look at my Mark III's manual to see how many MP's it truly is, because honestly that was not a factor in my purchase at all. Top two factors....focus and ISO.

 

[Jad]

I too find I'm more interested in "low noise at high iso" than MP size. But people have different needs for their cameras. I never blow anything up past 8"x12" so I don't have a need for more that my 13 mp. Maybe the OP does have a need for that, which is a perfectly valid reason to want a high-mp camera. Unfortunately the 5D3 isn't THAT old and is a fabulous camera, so I don't see a new FF on the near horizon any time soon

I probably started off my post in the wrong direction by mentioning high pixel count. New sensor technology is probably more important than the increased pixel count, but I would prefer both when I choose to upgrade my Canon 5D11.

 

[kathyt]

I too find I'm more interested in "low noise at high iso" than MP size. But people have different needs for their cameras. I never blow anything up past 8"x12" so I don't have a need for more that my 13 mp. Maybe the OP does have a need for that, which is a perfectly valid reason to want a high-mp camera. Unfortunately the 5D3 isn't THAT old and is a fabulous camera, so I don't see a new FF on the near horizon any time soon

I probably started off my post in the wrong direction by mentioning high pixel count. New sensor technology is probably more important than the increased pixel count, but I would prefer both when I choose to upgrade my Canon 5D11.

You do have some nice work on your blog OP, but I am curious what would you do with more megapixels? More than 23 perhaps?

 

[Juga]

I too find I'm more interested in "low noise at high iso" than MP size. But people have different needs for their cameras. I never blow anything up past 8"x12" so I don't have a need for more that my 13 mp. Maybe the OP does have a need for that, which is a perfectly valid reason to want a high-mp camera. Unfortunately the 5D3 isn't THAT old and is a fabulous camera, so I don't see a new FF on the near horizon any time soon

I probably started off my post in the wrong direction by mentioning high pixel count. New sensor technology is probably more important than the increased pixel count, but I would prefer both when I choose to upgrade my Canon 5D11.

Many may not agree with this but I find that for technology in general you have to wait at least two generations/models for a significant difference. Take the iPhone for example does the 'in between' model phone. IE iPhone 4 then 4S with significant difference going to the iPhone 5 now they have the 5S/5C which isn't a huge differences. I would look for the next 5D model to have the significant upgrades you desire...just speculation but there is how I personal follow technology.

 

[Steve5D]

I have been a Canon user since 1970 starting with the F1. I currently am using the 5D11 and have been waiting for several years for them to come out with a big mega pixel camera. Nikon has the D800 which has been on the market for over two years. I would have thought Canon would have brought out a camera to match them in price and mega pixel. Sony just introduced a full sensor mirror less big mega pixel camera that will take Canon lenses. I am starting to think that my next new camera may be a Sony if Canon doesn't get it's act together. What are your thoughts about Canons delay on new models?

As others have said, Canon releases new gear regularly.

If they were to introduce a 35MP body tomorrow, would you buy it?

 

[Steve5D]

"Cameras are nothing but a tool nothing more" That is an old and worn out phrase, that really doesn't apply to the computer/digital world we live in.

It absolutely does apply.

I shoot with a 5d and a 40D. The 5D came out in 2005, and the 40D came out in 2007. Both provide the results I need and want from them.


If you can't get image you want with a 5D MKII, might I suggest you take up knitting.

How many computer/software/camera upgrades have you done in the past ten years?

Computerwise, just one, because my old laptop died on me. Software? I use Elements 10, which I upgraded from Elements 9, so there's another upgrade. Camerawise, I've gone from a Rebel to a 20D to a 40D (which I'm still using), and then I added the full frame to the mix. So, a couple upgrades there.

Looks like five upgrades in all...

When I worked with film I used the same camera and lenses for forty years. I bought the best I could afford and had never a need to upgrade them.

You've just answered your own question or, perhaps, have just brought up an important one.

Why do you need a large MP sensor?

It just a tool alright, but one that gets outdated quickly.

"Outdated". Man, talk about old, worn out, tired phrases.

My 40D does everything it was designed to do. My 5D does everything it was designed to do. Neither one is suddenly producing inferior images. The images were great five years ago, and they're great now.

You seem to be unhappy with the 5D MKII. If I might ask, why did you buy it? Were the specifications not available to you? Or (and this is probably far more accurate) is the camera still producing the same high quality images it did when you first bought it?

I drive a 14 year old truck. I live in a house that was built 25 years ago. How is it that I've survived for so long with such "outdated" things? Somehow, the roof on the 25 year old house keeps the rain off my head as well as the roof on a house built yesterday. The truck still runs as it did when I bought it, and it still gets me where I need to go in comfort.

Maybe what you need to start out with is a definition of "outdated". Just because something is old doesn't mean it's outdated. It's outdated when it won't do what you need it to do...

 

[imagemaker46]

The 5D mklll is light years ahead of the mkll when it comes to iso capabilities and well pretty much everything else. MP has little to do with the end result of the image. I shot with 1D's for years and the images are still great(4.3mp) they didn't change because the technology got better. People seem to believe that more is always better, at some point it means very little to the average camera user. High end fashion and portrait sure use 35-40mp cameras. I doubt the average person really cares. The camera geeks love to chatter about the technical side they read about.

 

[Steve5D]

The camera geeks love to chatter about the technical side they read about.

That's the long and short of it, yeah...

 

[grafxman]

Apparently a few folks either didn't read my post of 18 Sept or else they forgot about it. Other things are a little more important than size alone to some people.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/canon/339853-pretty-stunning.html

Canon's Ridiculously Sensitive CMOS Sensor | Videomaker.com

 

[bentcountershaft]

Apparently a few folks either didn't read my post of 18 Sept or else they forgot about it. Other things are a little more important than size alone to some people.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/canon/339853-pretty-stunning.html

Canon's Ridiculously Sensitive CMOS Sensor | Videomaker.com

You didn't say there was going to be quiz later.

 

[grafxman]

Apparently a few folks either didn't read my post of 18 Sept or else they forgot about it. Other things are a little more important than size alone to some people.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/canon/339853-pretty-stunning.html

Canon's Ridiculously Sensitive CMOS Sensor | Videomaker.com

You didn't say there was going to be quiz later.

You should have asked!