So this is what Canon has been doing instead of keep it's sensor tech relevant.

http://petapixel.com …eal-canon-cameras-lenses/

you'd think they'd have better lenses to choose from

DreDaze wrote in post #18180630
you'd think they'd have better lenses to choose from

and more recent bodies. Wasn't one of them the 1DX?

Another example of corporate incompetence - a company that has grown so big, changing their way of thinking is like turning a large oil tanker at sea.

Another example of a marketing department gone amuck, using resources and burning money that could be better used by the product development team.

People who want, need, and buy equipment to produce good quality images are smarter than to be manipulated, fooled, and sold by gimmicks. Apparently Canon continues to be stuck in the old school of thinking.

But hey, hasn't that always been Canon's way? To let other companies conceive and develop new ideas? To follow the leads of others and to implement those ideas only after others have shown success with them?

Canon continues to be guided by a bunch of doddering old men who have no vision left.

Those doddering old men have a sufficiently developed prefrontal cortex that is missing in the younger generation.

Canon's sensor tech is not relevant? Where have I been? I'm still getting pretty good shots from my 40D. I think all the low-hanging fruit for sensor development has been picked. We're more or less at the asymptote.

If I recall correctly, Canon designed the first CMOS sensor when everybody else was still using CCDs. Others could no doubt provide other examples.

It seems like a pretty cool application if virtual reality is your thing. I wouldn't put this in the category of "old school of thinking".

Canon spends a relatively minimal amount on building tools and marketing material to help consumers make decisions, and expands that to use some of the latest and most cutting edge software development concepts - The reply? "Canon never innovates!"


This wasn't a billion dollar project by the looks of things. More like something produced in house as experimental software and used to let the company better explore how VR might be useable by the company. Don't forget, Canon does a lot more than just sell cameras. Spending money for first hand VR exploration development work just makes sense. That is the kind of stuff that could be worth billions in medical imaging field, and showing off new tech to upper management types generally goes far better when you can show it directly relating to an existing business segment.

joedlh wrote in post #18180755
If I recall correctly, Canon designed the first CMOS sensor when everybody else was still using CCDs. Others could no doubt provide other examples..

NASA at JPL invented the CMOS sensor and licensed it.

Luckless wrote in post #18180979
Canon spends a relatively minimal amount on building tools and marketing material to help consumers make decisions, and expands that to use some of the latest and most cutting edge software development concepts - The reply? "Canon never innovates!"


This wasn't a billion dollar project by the looks of things. More like something produced in house as experimental software and used to let the company better explore how VR might be useable by the company. Don't forget, Canon does a lot more than just sell cameras. Spending money for first hand VR exploration development work just makes sense. That is the kind of stuff that could be worth billions in medical imaging field, and showing off new tech to upper management types generally goes far better when you can show it directly relating to an existing business segment.

First of all, calm down. I meant this post as jest. Of course Canon has to be somewhat innovative to be the best selling imaging company. But you have to admit they have fallen behind in many areas, and price is not one of them.

From their 5D series to their EOS-M series to their 1" sensor point and shoots, everything they release has been done better by someone else already. The cameras they've been releasing have been 1 product cycle behind Sony (and in some cases more than 1). I hope they catch up soon, but we've also been saying that for awhile.

gjl711 wrote in post #18180990
NASA at JPL invented the CMOS sensor and licensed it.

But details may have been inaccurate, but Canon was the first to mass FAB the CMOS and put it in their DSLRs.. and remained the only one doing it for some years.

Live view and Video in DLSR,. dual pixel AF,.

Many lens manufacturers still have not come up with their own "copy" of Canon's Image Stabilization, or their own "copy" of Canon's UltraSonic motor focusing.

Sorry the claim that Canon never innovates but only copies,. is just plain overblown hyperbole.

Jarvis Creative Studios wrote in post #18181041
From their 5D series ..

Sorry, still not sounding factual to me.

The 5D was the first of it's kind. There was not for a few years anything else like it on the market. An affordable FF DSLR. Nikon wasn't even making FF yet.

5D2 was the First of it's kind, Huge MP FF, affordable, AND the first to offer Video in a DSLR.

5D series ends up being a poster child for the opposite P.O.V. to your statement.


P.S. I totally agree that the "first person camera shooter" video game is a silly idea, and a wasted effort!

Jarvis Creative Studios wrote in post #18181041
First of all, calm down.

The cameras they've been releasing have been 1 product cycle behind Sony (and in some cases more than 1)

Who is not calm? You're the one coming out with the hyperbolic claims. The responses have been calm, factual statements.

As I expressed earlier, sensor technology is at an asymptote. Being one product cycle behind another manufacturer is crucial only to gear heads and pixel peepers. Everybody else is out taking pictures with the great technology that they have. No human can tell that a photo was taken on a three year old camera instead of a hot new product.

I don't see how everyone else has done everything better than Canon yet Canon somehow remains the best selling Imaging company. That is one heck of a contradiction. The thing is, yes. On a component vs component or functionality vs functionality level one could make the case that other cameras are better that Canon's but we don't buy custom, personalized cameras. We're obliged to buy cameras as a system out of the box with all the gives and takes and somewhere come up with the best one for our use. I love cameras and trying new tech. Over the past few years I've owned several Nikon bodies as well as mirrorless systems from Sony (x2), Olympus and Fuji. All great cameras but they don't best Canon DSLR as a complete system for my use and at the end of the day that's the only thing that counts. Me. Your comment about price is misleading as well. I've gotten the better returns on the secondary market for my Canon gear than all the other systems I've sold. Entry price is one thing but you have to look a little further.

Cameras are more than reviews, graphs, charts, or what people may say about them on forums or blogs. They are a personal items and no opinion matters beyond that of the user. All of this garbage about DR, product cycles, etc is useless rhetoric. Take a look at just about anyone on the forum who has switched brands. The gear changes but at a basic level the photography remains the same. Percy W. Harris said that skill in photography is acquired by practice and not by purchase. People should be aware of that today more than ever. Never before have companies had so many tools to separate consumers from their money. If anyone thinks the next great camera is going to make them a better photographer they need their head examined. As a final note, I stayed away from this forum for a long time because of useless, inflammatory threads like this one and the wars and bad feeling they lead to. Kind of a shame we have to deal with this constantly. Hope to see less of it in the future. I'm not a mod but I think the team should consider weeding out a lot of these threads and the people that start them.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18181072
Sorry, still not sounding factual to me.

The 5D was the first of it's kind. There was not for a few years anything else like it on the market. An affordable FF DSLR. Nikon wasn't even making FF yet.

5D2 was the First of it's kind, Huge MP FF, affordable, AND the first to offer Video in a DSLR.

5D series ends up being a poster child for the opposite P.O.V. to your statement.

P.S. I totally agree that the "first person camera shooter" video game is a silly idea, and a wasted effort!

I should've clarified. The 5D, 5D2, and even 5D3 were innovative and cutting edge, especially the first 2. I was referring to the current 5D4, which by all accounts looks on paper like a 5d3 with a few more mp, a few firmware upgrades and an extra button.

However I know you own the 5D4 so if I'm wrong feel free to educate me.

Hmmm.. I thought the consensus is that the 5D4 is a solid and step function improvement over the 5D3 and has some potentially revolutionary features, and that it is probably the most complete and well rounded DSLR on the market today.