Where do you think Canon 'missed the boat'?

pwm2 wrote in post #15524326
Please read slower. I haven't said that it isn't possible to have a mechanical solution.

But look at the alternatives between Sony and Canon. Canon have a big offering of good lenses with very good IS. Sony hasn't.

So Sony is way more motivated to spend a huge amount of time implementing and testing a mechanical IS in the camera, because of the even larger amount of time and cost to release a new set of lenses with IS.

One disadvantage with IS in the camera is that it doesn't work in the view finder so with big tele lenses it will still be hard to hand-hold and aim carefully.

Another thing here is that a small shake with a wide-angle lens hardly gives any camera shake in the photo. While a small shake with a big tele lens gives a huge blur in the photo. IS in the lens works better because it is designed specifically with the relevant focal length in mind. And while sensor solutions normally just shift the sensor sideways, an optical solution can twist the lens element when you twist the lens.

Shaking the sensor easy? Remember one thing. The sensor is an electronic component designed to read out hundreds of megabyte of data every second. Shaking it is a bit more complicated than shaking a piece of glass that isn't attached to the rest of the camera equipment with any electrical wires. If the electrical connects to the sensor fails, your camera is dead. If the IS in a lens fails, you can switch lens. Or you may even be able to continue to use that lens, but without IS.

A sensor failure in a $100 camera isn't an issue. Having the same in a $3500 camera just after the warranty ended, would be a much bigger issue. The sensor isn't exactly the cheapest part in a high-end DSLR.

So no, your "shaking the sensor should be cake in comparison" really sounds like you have ignored a couple of steps when you made your conclusion.

couple points
1. In body IS and lens IS can and should be mutually exclusive.
2. shaking the sensor has existed for over a decade, maybe longer. It's not new tech, especially for a company like canon... it's cake to them.
3. Dont see how a shaking sensor would be less reliable than a slapping shutter.

pwm2 wrote in post #15524326
Your not saying that Canon's missing the boat? Read the thread title again, and please remind me what the goal with this thread is about.

no I'm not, I'm saying that canon IS the boat, they can get away with skimping features != missing the boat (falling behind)

clearly canon is a strong company, and I dont think they are falling behind in terms as sales and market presence compared to nikon or sony.

Charlie wrote in post #15524441
couple points
1. In body IS and lens IS can and should be mutually exclusive.

Of course.

Except that the normal thing is that video cameras have had digital IS - the sensor have extra pixels and the software compares the two frames to decide how many pixels to shift the image vertically and horisontally.

And the other thing is that most mechanical solutions have truly been tiny sensors.

No. But look at the cost of replacing a shutter. Figure the cost of replacing a sensor instead...

pwm2 wrote in post #15524326
Please read slower. I haven't said that it isn't possible to have a mechanical solution.

But look at the alternatives between Sony and Canon. Canon have a big offering of good lenses with very good IS. Sony hasn't.

So Sony is way more motivated to spend a huge amount of time implementing and testing a mechanical IS in the camera, because of the even larger amount of time and cost to release a new set of lenses with IS.

One disadvantage with IS in the camera is that it doesn't work in the view finder so with big tele lenses it will still be hard to hand-hold and aim carefully.

Another thing here is that a small shake with a wide-angle lens hardly gives any camera shake in the photo. While a small shake with a big tele lens gives a huge blur in the photo. IS in the lens works better because it is designed specifically with the relevant focal length in mind. And while sensor solutions normally just shift the sensor sideways, an optical solution can twist the lens element when you twist the lens.

Shaking the sensor easy? Remember one thing. The sensor is an electronic component designed to read out hundreds of megabyte of data every second. Shaking it is a bit more complicated than shaking a piece of glass that isn't attached to the rest of the camera equipment with any electrical wires. If the electrical connects to the sensor fails, your camera is dead. If the IS in a lens fails, you can switch lens. Or you may even be able to continue to use that lens, but without IS.

A sensor failure in a $100 camera isn't an issue. Having the same in a $3500 camera just after the warranty ended, would be a much bigger issue. The sensor isn't exactly the cheapest part in a high-end DSLR.

So no, your "shaking the sensor should be cake in comparison" really sounds like you have ignored a couple of steps when you made your conclusion.


Your not saying that Canon's missing the boat? Read the thread title again, and please remind me what the goal with this thread is about.

I think that's a HUGE disadvantage to in body IS.

Not only does it not stabilise the viewfinder it doesnt stabilise the image for the autofocus / pdaf sensor.

Sensor shift IS is OK for P&S but please keep it on the lens for SLR...

The main and sole issue with Canon currently is falling behind in sensor technology. And that's basically it.

Using this chart http://home.comcast.ne​t/~NikonD70/Charts/PDR​.htm to compare dynamic range VS ISO of 5dmiii, 1dx with D600, D800E. Basically Canon did not have any new sensor technology since 2008. 5dmkiii and 1dx have the same sensor as in 5dmkii. Any perceived improvements (small) are due to better processing not because of a better sensor.

D600 and D800E has better dynamic range than 5dmkiii until about ISO800 and they are about equal after that. Still in many situations, if you can use optimal ETTR exposure you can achieve quite a clean shadow with current Canon sensors.

On the other fronts such as lens selection, auto-focus, ergonomics, service and support etc., Canon is at least equal or still having a competitive advantage.

Of course, there are other small nit-picking features Canon doesn't have but they aren't that important to say "missing the boat".

Canon hasn't missed the boat.

They are right were they want to be.

If the dynamic range examples given, were the only criteria then I would agree (Canon missed the boat). Fortunately there are many more facets to photography.

davidc502 wrote in post #15525616
Canon hasn't missed the boat.

They are right were they want to be.

If the dynamic range examples given, were the only criteria then I would agree (Canon missed the boat). Fortunately there are many more facets to photography.

Definitely +1

I really didn't have any complaints until I read this thread. I guess the two things mentioned that I would most like to see are some built-in memory, and a return to the option of eye-controlled AF. The memory could be done for pennies for 4GB, and ECAF would be a snap with today's lightning fast processors. My Elan 7NE can do what ever I ask it to do. I don't use ECAF much, but it has never resulted in a bunch of OOF shots.

I think Canon's issues started when they started spending a huge portion of their R&D budget in the Mid 2000s on trying to get into the TV business. Canon wanted to be the leader in high end OLED TVs and spent tons of money on the effort. The big spend on TVs seem to correspond with a decline in cutting edge camera developments.

One of the other big declines started with the release of the original Rebel. They took the insides of a 10D, put it in a cheap body and then commented out code to lower the ability of the camera. After this for a number of years Canon seemed more concerned about keeping 1Dxx sales high by lowering camera capabilities. A classic example is the 5DMK2. Canon had several decent AF system they could have modified for use, but in my opinion they kept the 5Dc's AF to keep it from hurting 1Dxx sales.

I don't think they have missed the boat. Do they give us the best, most useful cameras for the dollar? No, at least not always. But their goal isn't to give us what we want or what we need - rather, it is to get us to spend our money on their products. They are very good at achieving that goal, and I really don't see what all they could have done to get more of our money (without them spending too much to get it).

vaflower wrote in post #15525539
The main and sole issue with Canon currently is falling behind in sensor technology. And that's basically it.

True though... the shadow noise performance of the 6D is improved over the 5D3. There is a slight improvement in dynamic range, 11.7 EV vs 12.1 EV. But more importantly there is less noise near the bottom of the range in the 6D. The 6D has Canon's best sensor, certainly isn't matching the D800 but getting closer.

I love Canon and NIkon both, they both make quality gear. Comptetition is good for us.

I think canon really missed it onthe 6D by only ONE card slot and no pop up flash. A pop up flash to me is like a 300 add on for canon via a wireless canon trigger vs a built it one on a nikon. I"m sure their some cheaper ones like radio poppers, but looks like this should be built in the cameras now. They should just build in RF to all the bodies.

I really wondor where cameras will be in 10 years?

davidc502 wrote in post #15525616
Canon hasn't missed the boat.

They are right were they want to be.

If the dynamic range examples given, were the only criteria then I would agree (Canon missed the boat). Fortunately there are many more facets to photography.

Exactly. And Nikon's cameras, as good as the sensors are, are far from perfect. i.e. look up all the issues they have with dust, and AF hesitation, and AF accuracy issues with the outer points. Granted, just like anything else on the internet, these issues are likely blown out of proportion (like the supposed terrible DR of the canon's FF sensors), but it illustrates the point that no camera is ever perfect, and its useless to get butt-hurt over how a camera performs on paper, or how it performs in shooting conditions that are irrelevant to real world use.

In real world shooting, the differences between Canon and Nikon's offerings at a given price point is marginal, and the photographers skill will always take precedent over the performance of the camera. As such, I think sometimes we spend too much time obsessing over gear, and not enough time obsessing over technique!

mystik610 wrote in post #15526382
(like the supposed terrible DR of the canon's FF sensors),

And crop sensors. The EV range on the 5D3 is 11.7, on the 7D it's also 11.7. The D7000 has an EV range of 13.9 and the D800's is 14.4.
So the dynamic range advantage Nikon has is similar on both crops and full frames.

Ruggo wrote in post #15518783
Agreed, loved it on my EOS 3. Also, as I'm a lazy bugger, I loved that Auto DOF ability on the EOS 3.

YES! I want my eye control AF back! I remember when I first got my 7D and thinking "I have all these AF points and I need to manually scroll two controls or a joystick to select one?" It was really weird after all those years in the 1990s having access to technology that would let me choose my point by simply looking at it.