john kriegsmann said:
They're #2 in global MILC sales, and while that's not quite 'cleaning up', it's rather good given their relatively limited investment to date.
Upvote
0
Poll Added: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Should
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
They're #2 in global MILC sales, and while that's not quite 'cleaning up', it's rather good given their relatively limited investment to date.
unfocused said:
I think Canon's innovation is great. I think they have some great technology it is just hard to get it in one package. I love my 5d4, but would love it more with a tilt screen. The 6d2 would make a great camera with a bit better sensor. Not that it is bad, but it could have been better. Yes I am an ISO 100 tripod guy for the most part. The 1dx2 is great, but wish it had a few more mega pixels. If they did a good better best market then i could get that. They do in a way, but leave off features at each level.
I look forward to the 5DSR2. I hope it stays at 50mp gets a better sensor and a tilt screen. I would gladly pay 1dx2 money for a 1dx2 without a built in grip, the 5d4 sensor, tilt screen and fps reduced to 10. Basically a d850.
Upvote
0
Re: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.
You're missing my point, perhaps it's the language barrier. There's a meaningful distinction between a professional who uses a phone, and a "phone professional" - the latter doesn't really exist. The original post was making a comparison with professional photographers, i.e. those whose profession is photography/those who use cameras to make a living. No equivalent exists in the world of mobile phones (as *phones*, rather than phone cameras, which are used occasionally by professional *photographers*).
Anyway, this is way off topic.
snoke said:
You're missing my point, perhaps it's the language barrier. There's a meaningful distinction between a professional who uses a phone, and a "phone professional" - the latter doesn't really exist. The original post was making a comparison with professional photographers, i.e. those whose profession is photography/those who use cameras to make a living. No equivalent exists in the world of mobile phones (as *phones*, rather than phone cameras, which are used occasionally by professional *photographers*).
Anyway, this is way off topic.
Upvote
0
scyrene said:
There seems to be an alternative universe where everybody knows that Canon is falling further and further behind because other cameras are so much better for shooting 4K video, apparently hand held, using the EVF. Not that I have seen any output.
Upvote
0
Re: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.
i have friends at Ericsson who would disagreescyrene said:
Upvote
0
john kriegsmann said:
Congratulations on your 5D4. I hope you really enjoy it!
The Canon 6D2 was designed to be a $1,500 camera (street/sale), not a $2,500 camera. But from what you've described, you're basically saying, you'd really have liked the Canon 6D2 to be a 5D4, but cheaper. Out of everyone who has objections to the 6D2, that seems to basically be what it boils down to.
But the idea of the 6D2 was to provide an entry level full-frame camera, with similar low light performance, but all around, a little less, for a lot less money.
The M5/M6 seems to be designed for size and price point, and Canon seems to have hit the mark with it, in terms of it being very popular. Here, what I think you're saying is, you'd like Canon to commit to high end mirrorless, rather than prosumer mirrorless. A lot of people who are sold on mirrorless echo this; it probably won't be happening in 2018.
But I'll tell you one thing for sure, if the 5D4 is a perfect tool for you, I don't think a Canon-made A7R3 would be, and vice versa. They're just different at what they're good at (the Sony A7R3 and the Canon 5D4), and they excel at different things.
For almost all the things I do, I would take a Canon 5D4 any day of the week. This is because I don't shoot many candids (nearly none). Everything I do is either indoors, in an environment where I supplement lighting with off-camera strobes -- or wildlife. In both cases, mirrored TTL OVF is just much more comfortable to use. However, if you like street photography, prefer candids, or do a bunch of video, I can definitely see the attraction of mirrorless.
I would love a Canon-made DSLR with many of the D850 features, but I wouldn't switch (back) to Nikon, because of a variety of reasons, mostly EF lens system, color science, and ergonomics; with DPAF a factor -- I hardly ever use DPAF, but liveview AF on a Nikon is like t2i.
Is any camera perfect? No, but I think that the 6DII is an amazing camera for its price.
Upvote
0
I'm not sure how relevant this is to this discussion, but it is something that I have recently realized from my experience, and people are commenting here about color science as one reason they prefer Canon cameras.
I almost always shoot RAW files. I currently use a 6D2 and for travels a G7X II. Earlier I shot with Rebels and the S95 and then the S120. So I open my pictures in ACR, and when I look at the color I might try "Auto" and some of the presets. Almost invariably "As Shot" is the best looking one of the bunch. Then I may well go on to tweak the sliders, sometimes a compromise between "As Shot" and "Auto" when they each have their advantages, sometimes just a "that's not the way I remember it" adjustment to imitate my recollection of reality.
(Presumably my experience in Lightroom would be the same, if I preferred to work that way.)
I take it then that had I been shooting JPEGs, the camera would have got the color on the nose or very close (to my eyes at least) almost all of the time.
I do sometimes shoot other than AWB, for example I'll use the "Daylight" setting if I want to preserve the look of late afternoon sun, so that when it comes up in ACR it looks like near-sunset light. Some of you here have encouraged me to do it that way. Even then, I find that Canon's idea of "Daylight" is more to my liking than Adobe's, though the difference is not huge. Seeing the two slightly different versions of reality is often helpful in my adjustments.
I got my first Rebel about ten years ago, so I concede there might be something like confirmation bias here. Maybe my Canon cameras have taught me to see color their way.
I almost always shoot RAW files. I currently use a 6D2 and for travels a G7X II. Earlier I shot with Rebels and the S95 and then the S120. So I open my pictures in ACR, and when I look at the color I might try "Auto" and some of the presets. Almost invariably "As Shot" is the best looking one of the bunch. Then I may well go on to tweak the sliders, sometimes a compromise between "As Shot" and "Auto" when they each have their advantages, sometimes just a "that's not the way I remember it" adjustment to imitate my recollection of reality.
(Presumably my experience in Lightroom would be the same, if I preferred to work that way.)
I take it then that had I been shooting JPEGs, the camera would have got the color on the nose or very close (to my eyes at least) almost all of the time.
I do sometimes shoot other than AWB, for example I'll use the "Daylight" setting if I want to preserve the look of late afternoon sun, so that when it comes up in ACR it looks like near-sunset light. Some of you here have encouraged me to do it that way. Even then, I find that Canon's idea of "Daylight" is more to my liking than Adobe's, though the difference is not huge. Seeing the two slightly different versions of reality is often helpful in my adjustments.
I got my first Rebel about ten years ago, so I concede there might be something like confirmation bias here. Maybe my Canon cameras have taught me to see color their way.
Upvote
0
unfocused
Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
stevelee said:
Exactly my experience. Canon's RAW "as shot" is remarkable. I rarely have to adjust the color much at all. I shoot indoor sports a lot and even under those conditions, I rarely have to have to make an adjustment. Even with stage lighting and mixed natural and artificial, the out-of-camera colors almost always look better or only need a slight tweak to add or subtract a little warmth to make it more pleasing.
Upvote
0
That's funny, I can't stand the Adobe version of 'As Shot', it is world's away from the DPP version. I always make custom profiles for my cameras and they are always much closer to DPP, Canon colors, than Adobe.
Upvote
0
unfocused said:
I live in a small college town. My main video project each year comes in June during the boys' basketball camp. I don't photograph the campers, but I go into arena just after 9 pm when they are wrapping up for the day. Shortly thereafter there is a series of pick up games that include counselors and guests. The counselors include current men's basketball players including the entering freshmen, and alumni who are mostly playing pro ball in Europe. Guests include hopeful prospects, players' little brothers, and, up until things got hectic for him a few years ago, an NBA star and his little brother who was playing for Duke would show up for a night or two. It's a fun occasion and great to see alumni back on the court and to renew acquaintances. A bunch of us old guys will show up and watch, and the head coach, who is not supposed to watch the games, will wander by some nights to say hello.
Where the video comes in is for folks in other parts of the country who want to see the entering freshmen on our court for the first time, playing with and against current players and some pros. Often I will use whatever is my newest camera, in large part to see how well it does, and especially if it is quite new, to learn how to use the camera and to get used to it. I sometimes learn from stupid mistakes, such as when I somehow had accidentally turned on something in the S95 that substituted magenta for the grays. The second night I learned how to turn that off.
There are two main problems to deal with (not counting the head coach if he thinks rival teams will use my videos to scout the new players). There is plenty of light, but they have the "TV lights" turned off. So the color temperature is a little off and seems to miss some frequencies. Also, the school's colors are red and black. Since hardly anybody is in the stands, the camera mostly sees a sea of red seats across the way, and will add a cyan bias to the already wonky color balance. A couple years ago, I shot 4K with my iPhone 6S and used FCP X to edit, zooming in on the action. The iPhone dealt with the color balance rather well.
Last June I used my G7X II, and the color was not that good. I'm not good at color grading in FCP, and I'm not adept enough in Premiere (where I can adjust the colors better) to get the project done in a timely manner. I was not happy with the color, but my intended audience didn't care. They watch to see the players' artistry, not mine, but I'd still like to do a better job. I've wondered about taking a white sheet of paper with me and setting up a custom color balance in the camera.
Since the 6D2 is my new toy this year, I guess I will use it and the STM kit lens. Focus has not been a problem in the past. From my hyperlocal distance calculations, everything in the arena should be in focus in that amount of light anyway. But I've not used a FF camera before on this project, so the math is different, and I might zoom in a little more, lessening the depth of field. Maybe not, though, since the danger of getting in tighter is of missing something. And FCP allows a decent amount of blowup without much loss of quality. But anyhow, it might be good to see how the focus tracking of the 6D2 deals with basketball.
Upvote
0
I'd like Canon to give the consumer more sensor options to choose from in the 5D and 1D bodies. Personally, I'd like to have the 30MP sensor in a 1DX body. Here is what I envision:
1DX body with 3 different sensors to choose from for those who want the flagship pro body:
* 18-20 MP sensor with the highest FPS and best ISO performance (14-16 FPS)
* 50-60 MP sensor for those who want the best dynamic range and resolution, but are not as concerned with FPS (6-8 FPS)
* 30-36 MP sensor for those who want a compromise between resolution, ISO performance, and FPS (10-12 FPS)
5D body with 3 different sensors to choose from:
* 18-20 MP sensor with the highest FPS and best ISO performance (10-12 FPS)
* 50-60 MP sensor for those who want the best dynamic range and resolution, but are not as concerned with fps (5-6 FPS)
* 30-36 MP sensor for those who want a compromise between resolution, ISO performance, and fps (7-9 FPS)
1DX body with 3 different sensors to choose from for those who want the flagship pro body:
* 18-20 MP sensor with the highest FPS and best ISO performance (14-16 FPS)
* 50-60 MP sensor for those who want the best dynamic range and resolution, but are not as concerned with FPS (6-8 FPS)
* 30-36 MP sensor for those who want a compromise between resolution, ISO performance, and FPS (10-12 FPS)
5D body with 3 different sensors to choose from:
* 18-20 MP sensor with the highest FPS and best ISO performance (10-12 FPS)
* 50-60 MP sensor for those who want the best dynamic range and resolution, but are not as concerned with fps (5-6 FPS)
* 30-36 MP sensor for those who want a compromise between resolution, ISO performance, and fps (7-9 FPS)
Upvote
0
Re: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.
I would argue that the enthusiast market is bigger than the pro market, even if we are to accept that the enthusiast market isn't the consumer market.
Hesbehindyou said:
I would argue that the enthusiast market is bigger than the pro market, even if we are to accept that the enthusiast market isn't the consumer market.
Upvote
0
Re: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.
I would agree, plus we must consider that there is so much overlap between pro and enthusiast as to make distinctions meaningless......
For example, at work, I am "pro", and at home I am "enthusiast", but I have better gear at home than at work
CanonFanBoy said:
I would agree, plus we must consider that there is so much overlap between pro and enthusiast as to make distinctions meaningless......
For example, at work, I am "pro", and at home I am "enthusiast", but I have better gear at home than at work
Upvote
0
Re: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.
I envy you Don. Lockheed Martin here in DFW is advertising a career for a photographer. They require a degree. That leaves me out.
That will probably be a real nice position for somebody.
Don Haines said:
I envy you Don. Lockheed Martin here in DFW is advertising a career for a photographer. They require a degree. That leaves me out.
That will probably be a real nice position for somebody.
Upvote
0
Re: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.
You should apply anyway, and tell them why the experience you do have more than compensates for the lack of a degree. I've seen people get high-level jobs for which they did not have the supposedly required degree.
CanonFanBoy said:Don Haines said:
I envy you Don. Lockheed Martin here in DFW is advertising a career for a photographer. They require a degree. That leaves me out.
You should apply anyway, and tell them why the experience you do have more than compensates for the lack of a degree. I've seen people get high-level jobs for which they did not have the supposedly required degree.
Upvote
0
Re: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.
Couldn't agree more
The degree-only requirement is often just to avoid a million applicants.
Especially for a job where portfolio and experience matters a lot more than formal education -- photographers, graphics designers, artists, modellers, software developers, etc -- the formal education is almost always overlooked when the applicant has a stunning portfolio.
As long as you can get to the interview phase, you'll be fine. All you need is a good answer to the formal education question, and you're golden. In my opinion, an online portfolio of some of your best work is very helpful to get to that point.
Orangutan said:
Couldn't agree more
The degree-only requirement is often just to avoid a million applicants.
Especially for a job where portfolio and experience matters a lot more than formal education -- photographers, graphics designers, artists, modellers, software developers, etc -- the formal education is almost always overlooked when the applicant has a stunning portfolio.
As long as you can get to the interview phase, you'll be fine. All you need is a good answer to the formal education question, and you're golden. In my opinion, an online portfolio of some of your best work is very helpful to get to that point.
Upvote
0
Architect1776
Defining the poetics of space through Architecture
Re: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.
Canon used to be first at most things, that's not the case anymore. They built their digital camera business on being first more often than not. Full frame, adoption of CMOS (I think) AF tech, usable DSLR video, price points, sensor tech, liveview, and really getting pros into digital.
That said, I do believe the lens lineup does keep a lot of people in the system.
[/quote]
Actually Canon has not been first very often at all.
The F-1, a most excellent system camera, was contemporary with the Nikon F2 a whole generation behind Nikon. For AF again Canon lagged behind except for the T80 that was not too good. But when they did come out with AF in a serious way they made the entire industry obsolete by over 20 years. As we see all others are trying to catch up even to this day with the EOS system. Mirrorless I believe we will see the same feeling around then a real serious mirrorless camera(s) will be introduced.
Canon still does have firsts that are notable, the AE-1 was a game changer like the EOS system, The DPAF again is a huge game changer as well. But I see Canon watching and looking at others stupid missteps, taking notes then introducing something way out ahead again.
Canon used to be first at most things, that's not the case anymore. They built their digital camera business on being first more often than not. Full frame, adoption of CMOS (I think) AF tech, usable DSLR video, price points, sensor tech, liveview, and really getting pros into digital.
That said, I do believe the lens lineup does keep a lot of people in the system.
[/quote]
Actually Canon has not been first very often at all.
The F-1, a most excellent system camera, was contemporary with the Nikon F2 a whole generation behind Nikon. For AF again Canon lagged behind except for the T80 that was not too good. But when they did come out with AF in a serious way they made the entire industry obsolete by over 20 years. As we see all others are trying to catch up even to this day with the EOS system. Mirrorless I believe we will see the same feeling around then a real serious mirrorless camera(s) will be introduced.
Canon still does have firsts that are notable, the AE-1 was a game changer like the EOS system, The DPAF again is a huge game changer as well. But I see Canon watching and looking at others stupid missteps, taking notes then introducing something way out ahead again.
Upvote
0
Re: Here's Why Canon Doesn't Need to Innovate, But it Does.
Actually Canon has not been first very often at all.
The F-1, a most excellent system camera, was contemporary with the Nikon F2 a whole generation behind Nikon. For AF again Canon lagged behind except for the T80 that was not too good. But when they did come out with AF in a serious way they made the entire industry obsolete by over 20 years. As we see all others are trying to catch up even to this day with the EOS system. Mirrorless I believe we will see the same feeling around then a real serious mirrorless camera(s) will be introduced.
Canon still does have firsts that are notable, the AE-1 was a game changer like the EOS system, The DPAF again is a huge game changer as well. But I see Canon watching and looking at others stupid missteps, taking notes then introducing something way out ahead again.
[/quote]
Yes, as usual people have a perception based on fantasy not reality. First DSLR with video - Nikon. First DSLR with live view - Olympus. First FF DSLR (although Canon was already in development with theirs) - Contax N Digital, First Pro DSLRs (although very pricey) - Kodak. First affordable pro camera (not FF) - Nikon.
Architect1776 said:
Actually Canon has not been first very often at all.
The F-1, a most excellent system camera, was contemporary with the Nikon F2 a whole generation behind Nikon. For AF again Canon lagged behind except for the T80 that was not too good. But when they did come out with AF in a serious way they made the entire industry obsolete by over 20 years. As we see all others are trying to catch up even to this day with the EOS system. Mirrorless I believe we will see the same feeling around then a real serious mirrorless camera(s) will be introduced.
Canon still does have firsts that are notable, the AE-1 was a game changer like the EOS system, The DPAF again is a huge game changer as well. But I see Canon watching and looking at others stupid missteps, taking notes then introducing something way out ahead again.
[/quote]
Yes, as usual people have a perception based on fantasy not reality. First DSLR with video - Nikon. First DSLR with live view - Olympus. First FF DSLR (although Canon was already in development with theirs) - Contax N Digital, First Pro DSLRs (although very pricey) - Kodak. First affordable pro camera (not FF) - Nikon.
Upvote
0
FF is just an artificial convention evolved from using movie film sideways to shoot stills. But it is a handy point of reference for us old guys and how we think of focal lengths.
That's not as weird as measuring small digital camera sensors by TV camera tubes of the 1940s or '50s, though.
That's not as weird as measuring small digital camera sensors by TV camera tubes of the 1940s or '50s, though.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
