[thxbb12]

Not very surprising, but still quite disappointing, especially compared to the D800 where it loses on every single category :



[url="http://nikonrumors.com/2012/04/19/dxomark-verdict-nikon-d800-95-canon-5d-mark-iii-81.aspx/"]http://nikonrumors.com/2012/04/19/dxomark-verdict-nikon-d800-95-canon-5d-mark-iii-81.aspx/[/url]

[Klaus]

[quote name='thxbb12' timestamp='1334841274' post='17600']

Not very surprising, but still quite disappointing, especially compared to the D800 where it loses on every single category :



[url="http://nikonrumors.com/2012/04/19/dxomark-verdict-nikon-d800-95-canon-5d-mark-iii-81.aspx/"]http://nikonrumors.c...rk-iii-81.aspx/[/url]

[/quote]



It's a bit surprising that Canon failed to impress during the recent years. They are surely delivering solid products but not exciting ones.





I'm sort of wondering whether they are preparing for a big bang (thus a mirrorless system) which consumes all their development and innovation resources.

[thxbb12]

[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1334842033' post='17602']

It's a bit surprising that Canon failed to impress during the recent years. They are surely delivering solid products but not exciting ones.





I'm sort of wondering whether they are preparing for a big bang (thus a mirrorless system) which consumes all their development and innovation resources.

[/quote]



Perhaps. On the other hand that means they managed to keep it extremely secretive as there hasn't been any rumors or leaks so far which I find unlikely.



The only area where Canon is clearly beaten by Nikon is in the sensor department. However, for a while now, the best sensors are Sony designs. As we have seen for the past 2-3 years Sony is clearly ahead of everyone else and they are huge in terms of resources (probably bigger than other camera manufacturers combined - except for Samsung). They have to resource and experience to beat many competing companies.

It looks like Canon doesn't have the resources to compete in both areas: Cameras and sensors. They are really competing against both Nikon (cameras) and Sony (sensors + cameras).

[Guest]

[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1334842033' post='17602']

It's a bit surprising that Canon failed to impress during the recent years. They are surely delivering solid products but not exciting ones.





I'm sort of wondering whether they are preparing for a big bang (thus a mirrorless system) which consumes all their development and innovation resources.

[/quote]



If I understand this correctly, Canon makes their own sensors, while Nikon gets Sony sensors. Is that correct?



I think camera development and sensor/semiconductor development are two different branches. You develop sensors irrespective into which bodies they go. If Canon does develop it's own sensors, they may start to hit limitations now. Sony probably has a much bigger semiconductor development section.

Also, until know, it probably was easier to improve sensors - it sort of was like the early days of CPU development.

If we compare with the CPU race, fewer and fewer companies are in it, with ever bigger resources, and presently, there is a bottle neck with the speed of a single CPU (core, around 3GHz). So now all Intel and co. do is add more cores (CPUs) on the same chip, or develop chips for specific purposes, e.g. GPU) to increase apparent speed for the user.

So, I suspect we are getting closer to the point - unless some new technological breaks come - where improvements in a sensor are smaller and smaller and require more and more effort. It is also possible that there are patents on some key tweaks on the technology that may limited what Canon can easily implement - unless they license it. Like IBM and Apple, who eventually had to drop their PowerPC architecture and switch to intel, perhaps one day Canon has to to with Sony chips.

[Brightcolours]

The sensors are pretty solid still. Just Sony has developed a technique to keep read noise very low, and unless Sony licenses that to other parties, one can not just implement exactly the same.

In high ISO noise the 5D mk III does very well, as do the 18mp APS-C Canons compared to the 16mp/24mp Sony/Nikons.



Canon have been very active in developing serious video solutions, improvements in their professional high-FPS product and very sharp (and expensive) new lenses. It is not as if they lack research funds.



To get as low a read noise with a different implementation takes time, and meanwhile it is not as if very high dynamic range is so important... it actually is not. But of course, it is nice for spec list jockeys or people who are fond of getting rid of shadows.



Both Nikon and Canon have very nice products in their lineup at the moment, in my opinion.

[Steinar1]

I agree with you BC, but I think we have to count with Fuji and Samsung as well in the longer run, maybe not for the pro user, even if Fuji seems to have eyes on that market, but for all the rest of the market Samsung and Fuji are clearly here to stay. They both have the resources and the will to participate.

[Guest]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1334845047' post='17605']and meanwhile it is not as if very high dynamic range is so important... it actually is not. [/quote]



That´s just a minority position. Most think differently...

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='Sammy' timestamp='1334850016' post='17611']

That´s just a minority position. Most think differently...

[/quote]

Most have no clue about it either. Does not make most right either, though.



If high DR would be such an important thing, no one in their right mind would consider shooting in ISO 400 or ISO 3200. We do, however, if the sensor's high ISO performance is good.



10 stops of DR in a photo makes for a flat photo. 14 stops of DR in a photo makes for a flat photo. When you make a photo with a D800 you do not get 14 stops into one photo.

Only if HDR is your thing, it gives a slight advantage (having to shoot a lesser EV spread). Or if one would muck an exposure up severely.

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1334848032' post='17607']

I agree with you BC, but I think we have to count with Fuji and Samsung as well in the longer run, maybe not for the pro user, even if Fuji seems to have eyes on that market, but for all the rest of the market Samsung and Fuji are clearly here to stay. They both have the resources and the will to participate.

[/quote]

Samsung may be a force to reckon with in future, yes. Their aim is not so much to make money, but to compete. They have a HUGE industrial conglomerate behind them. Their sensors may be leading in a while (they did it with computer screens, with cell phones among other products).



Fuji seems to lack direction, though... Constantly they come up with innovative ideas regarding sensor design, yet all the time they seem to switch direction.

Nikon and Canon have a big lead in AF computation power with their PD-AF systems, and Olympus/Panasonic in the way they implemented CD-AF.



I like Fuji's range finder type camera, but in important areas it kind of lacks implementation wise. They have nothing in the pro DSLR corner anymore, since they stopped the S5 pro. So from them Nikon and Canon have not too much to worry about. Fuji seems content to remain a niche player.

[thxbb12]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1334851656' post='17612']

Most have no clue about it either. Does not make most right either, though.



If high DR would be such an important thing, no one in their right mind would consider shooting in ISO 400 or ISO 3200. We do, however, if the sensor's high ISO performance is good.



10 stops of DR in a photo makes for a flat photo. 14 stops of DR in a photo makes for a flat photo. When you make a photo with a D800 you do not get 14 stops into one photo.

Only if HDR is your thing, it gives a slight advantage (having to shoot a lesser EV spread). Or if one would muck an exposure up severely.

[/quote]



If you can't use ND grad filters (lenses with a bulb element) or if you simply don't want to, a camera with extremely low black read out noise is great because you can underexpose a lot to preserve sky and highlight and push the shadow in PP while still getting descent IQ. If you have a lot of shadow noise this simply cannot be done.

Similar scenarii can happen in low light environments where you cannot use flash.

Personnally, it's something I find extremely useful. My Pentax K10D was limited by banding when pushing the shadows. In landscape photography I find a high DR (ie. the ability to push shadow when needed) of uttermost importance.

And finally: if you have the choice between a sensor that has a DR of 20 stop and one with a DR of 10 stops - both equally priced, which one would you choose? The answer is a no-brainer.