Where do you think Canon 'missed the boat'?

mystik610 wrote in post #15526382
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!

Says the guy with the finest gear

For me these were the main reasons to drop canon:

1) Size

The bodies are not compact. I see no effort at all to decrease the size. The only compact models are the rebel line, which I don't want to use. Prosumer models are huge bricks. Pro models have non removable grips. I don't want to carry around cameras which are this big.

2) Lens lineup

Only the L glass is good and that's where the research goes. It comes down to size, weight and price. All of the 70-200 are great, but I don't want to carry them around. Or take 35 L for example and 35/2. I don't want to pay a grand for a huge piece of glass which weighs a pound. I want a USM motor in 35 f/2 and I want them to redesign it so that it doesn't give chromatic aberration at 2.8 and wide open.

I think Canon is an awesome system for pros and dedicated amateurs who don't mind the bulk.

But I want something lighter and smaller, but not crippled, because I can't casually take a prosumer body and a mid range zoom. It's too much of a brick.

So the fact that one needs a backpack to tote around their photo system speaks for itself.

Charlie wrote in post #15526992
Says the guy with the finest gear

Envy is a horrible thing to suffer from.

Canon still does a lot of things right. IMO their XD and X0D cameras have the best ergonomics, AF (except between the D700 vs 5D2), and user interfaces. They still have probably the best repair service. They have slacked off on updating their sensors and to an extent their non-L EF lenses. Nikon has been a lot more active in these areas.

On mirrorless, the EOS M was a dud, but maybe that was intentional. I don't think Canon intends to seriously compete in this market.

kf095 wrote in post #15521857
Canon DSLRs in auto modes have no single AF point selection. Nikon has.
What's the point to sell entry level, dowgraded DSLRs like D1100 and have no center point AF in auto modes?

Seriously are you complaining about that? I really hope you are being sarcastic.

Regarding controls not in the same position as previous models...How many recall when where you put your key to start your car was on the right side of the dash....but some were on the left? Or, even after moving the key to the steering column for anti-theft reasons, Chevy decided to put the key on the top right of the dash? Or the wiper controls on the dash? Or the bright-lights switch on the floor? Technology doesn't stop moving. Controls move. Deal with it.

Or Canon doesn't have this capability, or that capability, or does a not-so-good job on the other thing? Fine! Sell your Canon and buy a Nikon! They'll be happy to have you whining about what they do worse than Canon, etc.

Bottom line, there's nobody holding a gun to your head forcing you to buy Canon. Plain and simple, the grass =IS= greener on the other side of the street. Feel free to go there!

bratkinson wrote in post #15527461
Or Canon doesn't have this capability, or that capability, or does a not-so-good job on the other thing? Fine! Sell your Canon and buy a Nikon! They'll be happy to have you whining about what they do worse than Canon, etc.

Bottom line, there's nobody holding a gun to your head forcing you to buy Canon. Plain and simple, the grass =IS= greener on the other side of the street. Feel free to go there!

Canon's got the best lenses for the most part, the best support and the best ergonomics and menus. And only falls short on the sensor. I do not want to have to get an inferior house to get greener grass that is a losing deal. I want Canon to get a better gardener.

I nearly dropped Canon and bought a K-30 around Christmas when they were cheap in the UK. My son did buy one and I'm jealous in many ways:
- the body is smaller and just as good
- image stabilisation is in the body so a) it works with legacy lenses (many M42) and b) new lenses are cheaper
- there are some really great small size primes. Canon has nothing like e.g. the 21/3.5 in size and image quality or the 35/2.4 in price and image quality.
- Just about everything Pentax is smaller than just about everything Canon.
- A lot of the lenses and bodies are WR.

I was stopped from switching by my legacy Leica R and Contax glass - nothing special, just the usual suspects but they're nice lenses and I like the IQ.

But I was very tempted..........

Since January prices on Pentax gear have shot up - madness. Now everything new is overpriced, including Canon. But at least with a Canon body the legacy glass is cheap and some of it is incredibly good. They got the register and wide bayonet mount right. And bodies from the 20D to the 50D are really good value on the used market.

Charlie wrote in post #15526992
Says the guy with the finest gear

Never said I wasn't guilty lol

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #15527123
Only the L glass is good and that's where the research goes. It comes down to size, weight and price. All of the 70-200 are great, but I don't want to carry them around. Or take 35 L for example and 35/2. I don't want to pay a grand for a huge piece of glass which weighs a pound. I want a USM motor in 35 f/2 and I want them to redesign it so that it doesn't give chromatic aberration at 2.8 and wide open.

I think Canon is an awesome system for pros and dedicated amateurs who don't mind the bulk.

But I want something lighter and smaller, but not crippled, because I can't casually take a prosumer body and a mid range zoom. It's too much of a brick.

So the fact that one needs a backpack to tote around their photo system speaks for itself.

reduced chromatic abberation wide open = more elements = more size = higher cost. You can shrink down the size of the camera all you want, but when it comes to lens design, you still can't ignore physics. You can't have a zoom lens, built for a decent sized sensor, with a large fixed aperture, and high quality optics without some size. Unless some engineering breakthrough develops one day, when it comes to lenses, small inevitibly = crippled.

Same story goes for speakers btw!

mystik610 wrote in post #15527626
Never said I wasn't guilty lol

reduced chromatic abberation wide open = more elements = more size = higher cost. You can shrink down the size of the camera all you want, but when it comes to lens design, you still can't ignore physics. You can't have a zoom lens, built for a decent sized sensor, with a large fixed aperture, and high quality optics without some size. Unless some engineering breakthrough develops one day, when it comes to lenses, small inevitibly = crippled.

Same story goes for speakers btw!

The solution is to throw away narrow depth-of-field and go with a camera with a much smaller sensor. Instant weight and size loss.

A problem with the xxxD bodies is that they are so small that most people just have to use a battery grip to be able to hold them when using a significant lens or flash. There is no space for my pinky. Going from a film body, I had to return almost immediately and pick up a battery grip when I bought the 350D. The 5D2 is bigger so can be used without an external battery grip.

Canon can't just focus on petite equipment. Since the lenses have physical limitations to how small they can be made, Canon must look into the balance of the cameras too. A camera that is designed to be good to use, doesn't look the same as a camera designed to be good in a hand bag.

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #15527123
For me these were the main reasons to drop canon:

1) Size

The bodies are not compact. I see no effort at all to decrease the size. The only compact models are the rebel line, which I don't want to use. Prosumer models are huge bricks. Pro models have non removable grips. I don't want to carry around cameras which are this big.

2) Lens lineup

Only the L glass is good and that's where the research goes. It comes down to size, weight and price. All of the 70-200 are great, but I don't want to carry them around. Or take 35 L for example and 35/2. I don't want to pay a grand for a huge piece of glass which weighs a pound. I want a USM motor in 35 f/2 and I want them to redesign it so that it doesn't give chromatic aberration at 2.8 and wide open.

I think Canon is an awesome system for pros and dedicated amateurs who don't mind the bulk.

But I want something lighter and smaller, but not crippled, because I can't casually take a prosumer body and a mid range zoom. It's too much of a brick.

So the fact that one needs a backpack to tote around their photo system speaks for itself.

What non L lenses were you using? I know from first hand experience your statement is not true. For example, the Canon consumer 70-300 IS lens beats Nikon's offering in sharpness by a mile. Same goes with some of the APS glass, like the 10-22. And there are many other examples I could cite. The thing is, nobody has superb lenses across the board.

And you think Nikon cameras are lighter? Have you compared the weight of comparable cameras? Since Nikon puts motors in most of their camera bodies they tend to weigh more. And their lens line up is a nightmare to figure out - AF, AF-S, D, G, etc.

mystik610 wrote in post #15523749
Part of me wishes that the performance of Canon’s sensors could match the Nikon/Sony sensors, but another part of me knows that in reality, I’m chasing stats on paper, and not necessarily a material difference in real world performance (at least for what I shoot). Ie, I’ll outshoot a mediocre photog on a D800 all day on my ‘inferior’ 5D Mark III.

This is a great way to sum it all up.

As written by many others as well, my main complaint is the dynamic range. I tested D800 for few days, and when using ISO 100, I definately could see the difference in dynamic range in favour of D800 over 5DmII (some say 2 stops, I say it's probably about right). I prefer to use low ISO anyway and landscaping so Nikon would probably be the smarter choise for me. It's just too expensive to switch camps just like this. Canon EOS 3D will probably remedy this "issue", but it's still a long way for release of next generation high megapixel Canon DSLR (next year?).

And in conclusion: the difference between Canon and Nikon bodies are overall, very marginal. Every body has disadvantages and advantages, it's the consumer's choise to choose the preferred gear. I'm just saying there always should be room for improvements, so Canon does have the advantage of beeing the market leader so they can hold back in technical innovation to observe what competitors are doing while still holding the market leader status.

bratkinson wrote in post #15527461
Or Canon doesn't have this capability, or that capability, or does a not-so-good job on the other thing? Fine! Sell your Canon and buy a Nikon! They'll be happy to have you whining about what they do worse than Canon, etc.

Bottom line, there's nobody holding a gun to your head forcing you to buy Canon. Plain and simple, the grass =IS= greener on the other side of the street. Feel free to go there!

Love it or leave it, eh? I'm quite happy with my 7D, but was curious about FF. I was hoping that the 6D would present me with a not-as-expensive way to try out FF, but due to the AF I'm not sure I'd be happy with it. I also hope than Canon can improve their sensors.

I don't think that because I'm not thrilled with the 6D or wish Canon sensors were as good as Nikon's that I have to sell all of my Canon gear, and you're a bit silly for suggesting it.

The expression 'missed the boat' sounds very final to me and not very valid in this case.
Judging from a lot of the answers in this thread it's more about what people are missing in the different models/products, which is very personal and depending on individual needs.

Being a huge company they make their decisions based on strategy and money.
Of course one could argue about Canon sensor development or maybe more correct, their priority on sensor development.
The fact that a lot of Canon users would like them to have been further ahead is clear.

I don't think they have 'missed the boat' and I don't think they will miss the boat.
I'm sure we can look forward to many years of competition between the major camera producers