Where do you think Canon 'missed the boat'?

jrbdmb wrote in post #15523886
Unfortunately the 6D AF system is a step down from the 60D and the t4i (1 cross point sensor vs. 9). No other way to put it, the 6D AF system is pathetic by design. If they had just used the 60D AF system I think most users would be OK with it, but instead they put in a system barely better than the 5D II.

Absolutely no doubt Canon missed the boat on this one; a $600 Rebel has a better AF system than the new $2000 FF camera.

Well, my 40D AF performs better than my 5D2 AF. So it isn't the first time Canon randomly things fewer digits in model name means cheaper model.

Lowner wrote in post #15523925
That HAS shown you. Thats exactly the major jump that Sony and Nikon have made while Canon has been sleeping. Search here because theres been at least one post where a Nikon user proudly showed us his low noise and high DR images.

What I need is someone who has used both systems on the same shoot and can show that the Sony/Nikon sensor images are far superior to the Canon images.
It's all subjective when it comes down to actually using the equipment rather than reading specifications and reviews in magazines and on the internet.
And no, no-one here could convince me by pointing me at scientific measurements or their own highly subjective standpoints.

Its clear in the last posts here that the Canon product is not as noise free in the shadow and is less able to recover the DR range despite that. That is a "side-by-side" test.

Lowner wrote in post #15524091
Its clear in the last posts here that the Canon product is not as noise free in the shadow and is less able to recover the DR range despite that. That is a "side-by-side" test.

Yes, those pics look pretty conclusive to me.

My nit is specific to me I suppose. When I upgraded in December I wanted to get a 6D due to the geotagging and wifi. I would have love to have seen those features in a 5DIII or in a grip that had a reasonable price point. But its really a small nitpick because I just do my tagging as soon as I walk in the door from where I have been.

There are other things people are talking about like DR and noise reduction where other players might be better. It could be true but at this point I got what I got. I mean I kinda ended up with Canon just on a whim, when I went to buy my dslr the Canon package was a far better value. Pure luck of the draw based on the in store packages. But now? I've got thousands of dollars in equipment that says "Canon" somewhere on it or that is made to go on equipment that says "Canon" somewhere on it. Fiscally there would be a massive cost for me to switch.

Also while they certainly aren't the best pictures ever produced (a lot of you guys shoot stuff that blows me away) I like the pictures that come out of my camera. Actually I love this camera, absolutely love it. I just don't feel like there is anything I can't do with it but truthfully I'm still in my wide eyed infancy with this business/hope.

Mornnb wrote in post #15523601
Let me find an example to point out how Canon's inferior dynamic range might impact a photo you take.
Here's the problem as this review site points out... you might be doing a landscape photo and have an area entirely in shadows. This is what happens on the 5D3 and D800 when you push the shadow slider in Lightroom all the way to 100 at ISO 100. The D800 has two whole extra stops of range to play with, that is no insignificant amount and means more information and therefore less noise in shadows. This is the only major area where Canon is totally missing the boat I think.

http://photographylife​.com/reviews/canon-5d-mark-iii

Though I´ve seen those before and it really reflects what I see from my 5D3 versus my friends D800, this issue is nowhere near as bad as these photos show.
Thing is this CR2 file used for this comparison was imported and processed on Lightroom, and you can get MUCH better deatail and lower noise if you process with DPP.

I know DPP is not practical and actually a mess if you have to use it together with LR, but if you don´t have a lot of photos to push the shadows up, you can get pretty good results from it.
This is probably due to the algorithm Adobe uses to open CR2 files.

On top of that, that much noise on the shadows are only important if you open photos with no texture (like skies) and see them at 100%. On photos like rocks, skin and others you can get away with it pretty easily.

Mornnb wrote in post #15523920
You're missing one thing though, which is the 6D's -3 EV autofocus. It's actually superior to the 5D3 and even 1DX in very low light conditions of the sort you'll be shooting at above ISO 6400. That makes it a much more useful AF system than the 60D's. I think this is a much better design choice than giving it a Rebels AF system.

Okay, here's another example I found from this site. Architecture photography, a residential house with a shadowed porch.
http://www.fredmiranda​.com …dex_controlled-tests.html

Taking something this dark:

And raising the shadows to something usable.
You get this with the 5D3.

And this with the D800.

Now there is a way around this of course which is to use HDR. But the point is with the higher dynamic range sensor on the Nikon you don't even have to.

Too me that just looks amazing. I dont really understand why people have a problem with recognizing that Sony has a better sensor and as a canon user I want that. I would prefer that over wifi and gps, even though I also think those are very nice additions.
What i like about Nikons lineup is that even the lower models have high end specs...moreso than Canons. Canon is a good company but i also like what Sony is doing and also of course Nikon.

elitejp wrote in post #15524140
Too me that just looks amazing. I dont really understand why people have a problem with recognizing that Sony has a better sensor and as a canon user I want that. I would prefer that over wifi and gps, even though I also think those are very nice additions.
What i like about Nikons lineup is that even the lower models have high end specs...moreso than Canons. Canon is a good company but i also like what Sony is doing and also of course Nikon.

this is only at ISO 100, and after that, canon and nikon are about the same. When it comes to HIGH iso past 1600, side by sides usually favor Canon, so it's not a total 1 side beating when it comes to sensors. Aside from sensors, the 1Dx compares significantly better than the nikon D4, so that has to count for something.

I actually value the HIGH ISO more than the low ISO, because I'm just a lowly snap shooter, and 95% of my shots are not at ISO 100. Was very very close to switching to nikon, but not for reasons of dynamic range.

Thats good to hear because i think every shooter would prefer more dynamic range given the choice . But heres a Q i have had for a while...the 5d2 had banding along with several other of canons cameras. Do the newer canon linup cameras 5d3, 6d also have banding and do the nikon cameras have banding?

pwm2 wrote in post #15523273
Remember that the cheap $100 cameras are almost like video cameas. They a get constant set of frames from the sensor all the time, so it is easy to perform image processing on the image data.

With most DSLR, you only get this kind of data when switching to live view, since the mirror is there and blocking the sensor the rest of the time. And that huge DSLR sensor will also consume much more power than the tiny chips on cheap P&S bodies.

you may have a point with the way facial recognition is done, but at the same time, nikon provides it for the D800, but canon doesnt for the 5D3.

pwm2 wrote in post #15523273
Next thing - it is way easier to shake a tiny sensor compared to a large sensor, if you want mechanical IS. And for digital IS, you need to be able to read out the sensor multiple times during longer exposures, so you can shift the individual image data before you stack it into the final image. That obviously gets harder with a really high-resolution sensor.

mirrorless can achieve mechanical IS, but DSLR cant? oh wait, they really can, and sony is the one that does it. There are motors that shake lens elements to stabilize, shaking the sensor should be cake in comparison.

pwm2 wrote in post #15523273
So in what way have Canon missed the boat? It isn't really "missing the boat" to have a technical issue to overcome to give you what you want.

I'm not saying that canon's missing the boat.... and lol at technical issues.... canon is just omitting way too much because they're a powerful company, with name recognition, and can get away with it.

elitejp wrote in post #15524228
Thats good to hear because i think every shooter would prefer more dynamic range given the choice . But heres a Q i have had for a while...the 5d2 had banding along with several other of canons cameras. Do the newer canon linup cameras 5d3, 6d also have banding and do the nikon cameras have banding?

Owned a 5D2 at one point, now a 5D3.

The banding is still there with the 5D3, though its not nearly as pronounced.

elitejp wrote in post #15524228
Thats good to hear because i think every shooter would prefer more dynamic range given the choice . But heres a Q i have had for a while...the 5d2 had banding along with several other of canons cameras. Do the newer canon linup cameras 5d3, 6d also have banding and do the nikon cameras have banding?

I'm not sure this is true. I think most wedding/event/landscap​e/wildlife photogs would value high ISO ability more than low ISO ability. As stated previously, canon's low iso ability is good, nikon is just phenomenal vice versa when it comes to high ISO. As for banding, all the full frames have that issue except for the 1 series. It's not a very serious issue since it rarely shows up in any of my photos, but for others, if it shows up at all, it's a huge issue.

Charlie wrote in post #15524170
this is only at ISO 100, and after that, canon and nikon are about the same. When it comes to HIGH iso past 1600, side by sides usually favor Canon, so it's not a total 1 side beating when it comes to sensors. Aside from sensors, the 1Dx compares significantly better than the nikon D4, so that has to count for something.

I actually value the HIGH ISO more than the low ISO, because I'm just a lowly snap shooter, and 95% of my shots are not at ISO 100. Was very very close to switching to nikon, but not for reasons of dynamic range.

Yes, the 5D2 and 5D3 sensors have very good dynamic range. It's just that it hasn't access to the Sony patent to balance away the pattern noise so good data gets overrun by false data. But that only happens at low ISO. All sensors loses dynamic range as the ISO is increased. And that means that at higher ISO, the read-out noise in the Canon sensor will no longer matter. And what then remains is a very good sensor that stands up to any competitor.

The Canon sensor isn't bad. It is just suffering from the single problem that Canon haven't (or isn't allowed to) licensed the Sony technology for balance away the read-out noise. And we really don't know how hard it is to invent a competing solution to be able to circumvent that patent. But it isn't like Canon isn't trying, even if lots of people do write comments that sounds like Canon have stopped working with their sensors.

Charlie wrote in post #15524265
I'm not sure this is true. I think most wedding/event/landscap​e/wildlife photogs would value high ISO ability more than low ISO ability. As stated previously, canon's low iso ability is good, nikon is just phenomenal vice versa when it comes to high ISO. As for banding, all the full frames have that issue except for the 1 series. It's not a very serious issue since it rarely shows up in any of my photos, but for others, if it shows up at all, it's a huge issue.

Banding is a signal processing issue that will affect any sensor in any camera if you underexposed and then pull exposure up enough.

Something 5D owners are freaking notorious for... So high ISo banding shouldn't be a talking point when you ask more of technology than it promises.


With the way prices are falling on digital backs and the D800, canon better release a cheap high resolution camera....quick. As 3200 can buy you 22 canon megapixels or 22 phase one / leaf pixels....

Let's not loose sight of the fact that canon did finally give us pro Af in a small body- Nikon did take speed from the D800

Charlie wrote in post #15524238
mirrorless can achieve mechanical IS, but DSLR cant? oh wait, they really can, and sony is the one that does it. There are motors that shake lens elements to stabilize, shaking the sensor should be cake in comparison.

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.