Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
sanveer

Canon Becoming Complacent

Recommended Posts

It appears, that its high time, that Canon move to Sony sensors, as well. They don't appear to be making much progress in the lower end DSLR sensors (actually, even in some of the high end ones).

Though I don't completely agree, that sensors alone will dictate end photo quality. Also, I found pics from the Olympus EM5 on some Flickr accounts, to seem better than the RX1. hmmmm ...

[url="http://www.petapixel.com/2012/10/10/did-canons-sensor-quality-regress-in-its-entry-level-dslrs/"]http://www.petapixel.com/2012/10/10/did-canons-sensor-quality-regress-in-its-entry-level-dslrs/[/url]



[url="http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/CANON-EOS-650D-Strictly-Status-Quo/Conclusion"]http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/CANON-EOS-650D-Strictly-Status-Quo/Conclusion[/url]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
The fact that the 650D scores lower than the 600D and the likes could be because of the hybrid focus. There are AF pixels on the image sensor so maybe that affects the image somehow m

Anyway, I think Canon jumping on the Sony wagon wouldn't be good for the competition in the market. That would practically make every camera have a Sony sensor.

Canon does need new sensor technology. They have been recycling their offerings for ages. I'm especially disappointed by the 5D Mark 3, a completely new sensor, but no mayor improvements and Sony clearly has the lead if you're looking at the numbers.

Canon will come with new sensors though. Probably the 650D is the last camera with the 18mp sensor. In 2013 were going to see something new. It better be good.. I'm sure it will have more megapixels, but Canon needs to make big steps in other departments as well.

It's a changing market though. It's possible that Canons new generation sensor rocks and will beat the current Sony offerings. Although the 5D3 (and even the 1DX) aren't a good sign. It would be surprising if the new apsc-sensor has much better dynamic range than their top models. I hope it does and I hope that will speed up Sony's development as well...

OM-D better than the RX1 in raw picture quality is very unlikely though. The RX1 will beat the OM-D hands down in DXOMark, see the Nikon D600 results, same sensor pretty much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Julian' timestamp='1350514195' post='19874']I'm especially disappointed by the 5D Mark 3, a completely new sensor, but no mayor improvements [/quote]???? An extra couple of stops of usable exposure counts as no improvement? The only full frame sensor that doesn't exhibit moire or aliasing counts as no improvement? The 5D3 is a roaring success particularly among its target market of professional & serious amateur photographers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One thing that is kinda bogus is DXOMark ratings. The Canon 7d gets considerably lower scores, even in lowlight than the Sony nex5n which is just not true. I had both and did some tests. The ISO100 on the nex5n is slightly cleaner in the extreme shadows but ISO6400 is slightly better on the 7d.

My examples: [url="http://hmcindie.pp.fi/5n_7d_test/"]http://hmcindie.pp.fi/5n_7d_test/[/url]

Not very scientific but it confirms my findings. The Sony Nex-5n is not better in lowlight AT ALL than the much older 7d sensor. They are quite equal. This contradicts a bunch of reviews (Except dpreview seems to get it correct). Same lens on both cams (5n causes odd horizontal distortion in the highlights - 7d has sensor noise at ISO 100). Shot raw, only exposure adjustment in lightroom. No testing of the jpeg engine as I never shoot jpegs.

There is no way that the 5n should get that much better score than the 7d on DXOMark. I mean the D800 looks considerably different than the 5dmkIII and there the score kinda matches. On these two cams, they don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='nigelbb' timestamp='1350550412' post='19888']
???? An extra couple of stops of usable exposure counts as no improvement? The only full frame sensor that doesn't exhibit moire or aliasing counts as no improvement? The 5D3 is a roaring success particularly among its target market of professional & serious amateur photographers.
[/quote]
I'm talking about raw sensor performance, not video. The video of most dslr's isn't very representative of what the sensor is capable of.

The 5D Mark III is a fine camera. But in raw sensor performace it is'nt a leap ahead of the 5D Mark II. The D800 (sony sensor) has considerably better dynamic range in the lower iso values. To me that's a major improvement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='nigelbb' timestamp='1350550412' post='19888']
???? An extra couple of stops of usable exposure counts as no improvement? The only full frame sensor that doesn't exhibit moire or aliasing counts as no improvement? The 5D3 is a roaring success particularly among its target market of professional & serious amateur photographers.
[/quote]

I am not sure whether the Mark III is noticeably better than the Mark II in low light. Though, yes, the Moire and Aliasing has been handled quite well. And, the picture profile is also much flatter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Mark III was quite a bit better in low light in comparison to the Mark II. Not a full stop better, but still noticeable.

For me, if the Mark III had cost the same as the Mark II, I would have called a decent upgrade. But it didn't. It cost $1,000 [i]more[/i] than the Mark II at launch. That is unacceptable.

Also, for future sensors, the few tests of the 1DX that are out show a sensor with excellent performance -- true, next-generation performance. Unfortunately, in grand, arrogant-as-hell Canon fashion, they only put their good sensor in their most wildly expensive camera. Can't afford it? They don't care. They're the telephone company.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='aaronmc' timestamp='1350581050' post='19930']
The Mark III was quite a bit better in low light in comparison to the Mark II. Not a full stop better, but still noticeable.

For me, if the Mark III had cost the same as the Mark II, I would have called a decent upgrade. But it didn't. It cost $1,000 [i]more[/i] than the Mark II at launch. That is unacceptable.

Also, for future sensors, the few tests of the 1DX that are out show a sensor with excellent performance -- true, next-generation performance. Unfortunately, in grand, arrogant-as-hell Canon fashion, they only put their good sensor in their most wildly expensive camera. Can't afford it? They don't care. They're the telephone company.
[/quote]

Seriously. Canon is gonna finally shoot itself, in the foot (IF it hasn't, Already :P )

A lot of companies are coming out with good back-illuminated sensors. If buyers can get their wiring in order, we could easily add a few points of dynamic range, as well as brightness. Without having to spend a fortune getting a camera with those kindda specs,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...