In the past three years, what has Canon innovated?

Michael_J said:

Complaining and moaning fills up these forums, but does little else.

Click to expand...

BS. If Canon is not reading this and other forums like it they are missing a marketers dream. They spend millions trying to figure out what people want.

Anyway, when I complain here, it is under the assumption that it Will eventually find its way to Canon advanced product planning. A second reason is that it re-enforces my fellow Canon shooters, and helps build a consensus of what we would like in future products.

True, people like us may be a small part of the market, and perhaps they would prefer to design whats easy and jam it down our throats, but one can hope they might listen to people who take the time to post to a gear forum.

One other thought, invention and innovation comes mostly as incremental changes that are intended to make the product more desirable. And any product can be improved up to the day when the entire category is obsolete.

To Joes original point, Canon had a head start, and were first to reach a point where additional improvements will be more difficult and smaller. The other players can make bigger changes because they were further behind.

Michael_J said:

My suggestion is to send copies of your wish list to Santa and Canon,
then wait to see who delivers first.

My bet will be on Canon, because Complaining and moaning will put you
on Santa's "bad" boys & girls list.

joe mama said:

Meanwhile, the competition appears to be quite busy.

Click to expand...

Appearances can be deceiving.

--
People who claim to be open minded never see it my way.

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/roserus/root

Ben

chinch said:

You also fail to account for the fact the 3 YEAR OLD 5D has better PQ
than a brand new (simiilar price) D300 and some would say matches the
D3.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I guess the fact that the D300 has a completely different feature set doesn't really play a role.

chinch said:

but keep whining....

Click to expand...

Oh, for sure! You, too, keep comparing the 5D "PQ" (whatever that is) to crop cameras and don't worry about the operational differences. Should be good times for all!

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

chinch said:

joe mama said:

From where I sit, not even what was posted was worth it.

Click to expand...

You also fail to account for the fact the 3 YEAR OLD 5D has better PQ
than a brand new (simiilar price) D300 and some would say matches the
D3.

but keep whining....

Click to expand...

Yes, and let us not forget that the "inferior" 40D has IQ matching the much more expensive D300, and a bit of extra detail too at high iso.

but let us the other keep whining...

Roberto

ugh...

how is the PQ of the D300 vs the $800-900 cheaper 40D?

earth to joe.

then reread the posts above (not yours) to reconsider your preposterous thought.

sure canon's upper end dSLR marketing dept seems to be somewhat unresponsive to it's small marketplace but you've confused that with innovation.

joe mama said:

joe mama said:

You also fail to account for the fact the 3 YEAR OLD 5D has better PQ
than a brand new (simiilar price) D300 and some would say matches the
D3.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I guess the fact that the D300 has a completely different
feature set doesn't really play a role.

joe mama said:

but keep whining....

Click to expand...

Oh, for sure! You, too, keep comparing the 5D "PQ" (whatever that
is) to crop cameras and don't worry about the operational
differences. Should be good times for all!

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

Click to expand...

gml said:

In terms of technical innovation, Canon have been doing quite well
actually. They were the first with a 14-bit sensor and color engine,

Click to expand...

Yeah -- I missed that. However, I've yet to see the advantages of that demonstrated. Not that they haven't, mind you, but the few threads I've seen on it seem to show basically no difference.

gml said:

they introduced a new advanced AF system on the 1D/s series (not
counting the issues, of course),

Click to expand...

How about we count the issues, eh? : )

gml said:

all their new cameras have anti-dust shaker and live view,

Click to expand...

This was not an innovation, but following suit long after the fact, and they still haven't included "real" auto-ISO.

gml said:

and they still have the highest resolution FF camera

Click to expand...

But don't have UWA glass that can take advantage of it. Curious combination! : )

gml said:

The big question, though, is who is running their advanced DSLR
marketing department? Because these guys are obviously clueless: the
5d should have been replaced by now, the 1D should have been FF and
without AF issues, and the 1Ds should have been discounted long time
ago to $5-6K.

Click to expand...

No! : )

gml said:

Nikon is the smart camera company now - introducing the right
products at the right time at the right price.

Click to expand...

You noticed that, too, eh?

gml said:

At the entry level Canon are now copying what Nikon did two years ago

• and they have a very competitive lineup (XS, XSi, 40D).

Click to expand...

For sure.

gml said:

The hope is that Canon will mindlessly copy what Nikon is doing now
with D3, D300, and the rumored FF D700. If they do this, Canon will
have a pretty good lineup in two-three years. In the mean time, let's
hope that the current marketing idiots will not do something stupid
to make things only worse.

Click to expand...

Canon already has a "pretty good lineup". But any way you look at it, were it not for the 5D, how many would hold Canon in high regard compared to the competition? I mean, everytime people compare another camera manufacturer to Canon, the ace-in-the-hole is the 5D. When that ace is answered, quite honestly, Canon is just another player, unless they start innovating.

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

joe mama said:

joe mama said:

Complaining and moaning fills up these forums, but does little else.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

joe mama said:

As opposed to the "What camera should I get?", "Happy with my xD",
"Which 70-200 lens should I get?" posts?

Click to expand...

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

--

gml said:

The big question, though, is who is running their advanced DSLR
marketing department? Because these guys are obviously clueless: the
5d should have been replaced by now, the 1D should have been FF and
without AF issues,

Click to expand...

Somehow, I don't think the AF issues in the 1D Mark III were the result of a decision of the marketing department. Then again, you never know; that might be the elusive root cause.

"It seemed like a good idea at the time."

--

If you claim that Canon hasn't brought any innovations to the table in the last 3 years then what has any other manufacturer done??

What would you consider an innovation? What do you call the Digic3 processor, live view, higher ISO performance, higher fps, more resolution etc.?

No manufacturer has done anything different to the above really.

Rob
--
Hanging around here too long

Joe, I think some of the negativity to the question is stems from the impression given that the gear in hand is limiting. That doesn't sit well with those that find themselves the limitation, and work to overcome it. After all, the gear today - I think you'd agree - is more enabling than it ever was.

I tend to believe that you, however, are a quick study and get bored quickly. But I'm not sure if that's 'it', so I ask, why do you ask that question?

I feel Canon paved the way, mass market wise. The won't always lead, and innovation comes in spurts. I dont understand the impatience.

--
...Bob, NYC

Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/btullis

They SAW the importance of FF and low noise (and low noise is a direct result of using large FF sensor). So they made the amazing 1DsII and 5D while other sensor makers are worried about risk and reward.

If other manufacturers started to cut extremely low yield 24x36 chips as soon as Canon did, you wouldn't see this 'low noise' and 'FF' advantage that Canon has been enjoying for years. It's not about better technology, small Canon pixel will still be noisier than Sony's large pixels, it's just physics. It's their vision and boldness won their untouchable market leader position for the past few years.

OTOH their vision also told them the larger sensor and lower noise outweigh any other body features. that's why those FF cameras have amazing IQ yet quite 'standard' features as cameras.

All parties end some day. As soon as others see the demand, and as technology improves yield, Canon could lose the advantage to other giants overnight. It happened with the Nikon D3 announcement.

We still have the same good IQ, yet no longer industry leading, and 'standard' camera bodies that don't have much to brag about.

When and how Canon will be a leader not follower again solely depend on their next vision. 30fps HD in a DSLR? True-color pixel sensor? Will the next flagship be NDs with integrated Nintendo DS?... )
Max

joe mama said:

Three years ago, Canon came out with the amazing 5D. What have
they done since that has not been done nearly as well as, if not
better, than the competition?

The 1DIII seems on par with the Nikon D3 -- plusses and minuses for
both in a head-to-head, with no clear winner. The 1DsIII, while
apparently a great cam, is not innovative and will likely soon have a
direct competitor as well.

Canon did release the amazing 70-200 / 4L IS, which no one else has
an answer for -- props for that, for sure. But while Canon has
copied the competitors in some things, like live-view and, they've
still yet to implement features such as in-camera IS, auto-ISO,
anti-dust sensor shake, weather sealing (on non-pro cameras) -- and
all those features would not be innovations, but merely playing
"catch-up".

So, have I missed something? Or are there no innovations needed? No
one finds a need for ECF, for example? No one thinks that on-demand
grid-lines might not be useful? No one thinks that exposure
bracketing with a single press of the shutter button might be cool?

I mean, is it unrealistic to think that innovations might not be
expected from the leader in DSLRs? Or is it more a case of a "job
well done getting to the top let's kick it for a bit"?

Oh, am I bitching? Yeah. Especially since I don't know what the
5DII will bring to the table. But I'm pretty sure that the biggest
"innovation" that Canon will come up with is splitting the 5D into
something like an inexpensive 7D for $1800 that's basically the same
as the current 5D that's a FF 40D and a 3D or 4D with maybe 16 MP, 1D
level AF with fewer AF points. Welcome additions, to be sure, but
not innovative.

Meanwhile, the competition appears to be quite busy.

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

Click to expand...

Seams to me it's Nikons turn. D3 is an incredibly powerfull camera really brings more than the tipycal megapixel gimick Canon brings to the table. High iso really brings something new to the table especially the 25600. At first I thought it was someone's idea of a joke but now that it's out there 25600 ISO is possible.

This considering Nikon does not count with the economic resources Canon does.

Bobo Hodls said:

After all, the gear today - I think you'd agree - is
more enabling than it ever was.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree.

Bobo Hodls said:

I tend to believe that you, however, are a quick study and get bored
quickly. But I'm not sure if that's 'it', so I ask, why do you ask
that question?

Click to expand...

Because I see features in other systems that I want, that have been out for some time, that Canon has been slow to incorporate, even when they did incorporate them at all. So, my question was, if Canon is not going to incorporate features that already exist in other systems, then what have they been bringing to the table in the past three years that makes it easy to "forgive" these omissions?

Bobo Hodls said:

I feel Canon paved the way, mass market wise. The won't always
lead, and innovation comes in spurts. I dont understand the
impatience.

Click to expand...

Canon led the way, but now they're coasting with incremental improvements that could have been implemented long ago. The greatest example of this is the 20D to 30D "upgrade". Why did they not go straight to the 40D? If they are going to choose against in-camera IS, then why are there two 70-200 IS lenses, two 70-300 IS lenses, three of which are recent additions, and no 24-70 / 2.8 IS? Why is there an 85 / 1.2L II, and no 85 / 1.4 IS? Why is there a 200 / 2L IS and no 200 / 2.8L IS? Why was Nikon able to make such a killer UWA with their 14-24 / 2.8 in contrast to Canon's modest improvement with the 16-35 / 2.8L II, and do so at the same price-point?

Where are the weather sealed 1.6x DSLRs? Do no 1.6x users shoot in inclimate weather? Is that unique to Canon customers? Why is there a Direct Print Button but no "real" Auto-ISO. The auto-ISO on the 40D is almost a slap-in-the-face. How could the 1DIII be released with a defective AF system, which is the defining characteristic of that line?

The 10D was innovative. The 300D was innovative. The 5D was innovative. If Canon is not going to innovate because there is less to do, then why hold back features that other systems have had for such a long time?

ECF was in film cameras. Where is it in digital? What is Canon waiting for?

It's frustrating when you see a pattern that demonstrates purposeful holding back. It is not good business. How many customers did Canon lose to Nikon when Nikon came out with the D3? How many customers might Canon lose when Nikon comes out with a 5D competitor? Am I simply naive? Is there a successful business plan at work that calls for Canon to lose ground on the competition?

And, most importantly, I like to *****. It just feels good. You know, someone cuts you off then speeds away and then they get popped by a cop. Doesn't matter to you whether they get caught or not -- they're gone -- but it sure feels good to see it happen. : )

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

..great idea. Better yet they can use crop sensor and EF-S lenses and shift them together to get a larger FOV. This is actually the technique used by modern photolithography to get the ever higher resolution on larger wafers.

genotypewriter said:

They can easily shift an APS-C sensor around the image circle of a FF
lens, take multiple shots... automatically stitching them is another
deal but I'd be happy if they can just do the shifts and exposures.

GTW
--
http://www.flickr.com/genotypewriter

Click to expand...

maxz said:

They SAW the importance of FF and low noise (and low noise is a
direct result of using large FF sensor). So they made the amazing
1DsII and 5D while other sensor makers are worried about risk and
reward.

Click to expand...

Actually, you only get low noise if you can sacrifice shutter speed at base ISO to get cleaner low ISO images, or if you sacrifice DOF rather than shutter speed to maintain a lower ISO. This works out for me, as I prefer shallow DOF, but it doesn't work out for others as it comes out as a wash.

maxz said:

If other manufacturers started to cut extremely low yield 24x36 chips
as soon as Canon did, you wouldn't see this 'low noise' and 'FF'
advantage that Canon has been enjoying for years. It's not about
better technology, small Canon pixel will still be noisier than
Sony's large pixels, it's just physics. It's their vision and
boldness won their untouchable market leader position for the past
few years.

Click to expand...

The total image noise will be the same regardless of the pixel count. It's just that a larger pixel count will give more detail. Take a 24 MP image and resample it to 12 MP, and, voila, you have the same noise as the 12 MP image (all else being the same, of course).

maxz said:

OTOH their vision also told them the larger sensor and lower noise
outweigh any other body features. that's why those FF cameras have
amazing IQ yet quite 'standard' features as cameras.

Click to expand...

Just how difficult of a feature is Auto-ISO, and why would that not jive completely with the idea of low noise?

maxz said:

All parties end some day. As soon as others see the demand, and as
technology improves yield, Canon could lose the advantage to other
giants overnight. It happened with the Nikon D3 announcement.
We still have the same good IQ, yet no longer industry leading, and
'standard' camera bodies that don't have much to brag about.
When and how Canon will be a leader not follower again solely depend
on their next vision. 30fps HD in a DSLR? True-color pixel sensor?
Will the next flagship be NDs with integrated Nintendo DS?... )

Click to expand...

Sure, sure. But it's been 3 years since the last party. Just a few dinners and movies since then. And, sure, Canon could stun everyone with some innovation up their sleeve. In the meantime, however, they could start incorporating the features of other manufacturers.

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

Atlasman said:

Canon still provides exceptional value for the dollar.

Click to expand...

Would you say owning a Canon camera that has spent over a third of its time being shipped, waiting for repair, and being repaired is exceptional value for its $7,999 dollar price tag?

I will admit when the 1DMkIII was announced, I was quite excited...I liked the placement of the focus points (I know this was always the way the 1D series was though) and I really liked the placement of the super duper focus points too.

I didn't really care much for the focus adjustment thing though...I don't really feel that users should be fixing focus themselves...rather the dang machine and lens should be fine in the first place.

--
Pak K So
'Enjoy your life, guy'

It seems to me that there are three forces at play that explain Canon's lack of innovation, as you have identified it.

1. Canon's design philosophy seems to be a focus on image quality in the sense in the pixel peeping, technical sense. A few years ago when most cameras were plagued by high noise, this made Canon a clear leader with their smooth, high detail images. Similarly, Canon offers a great line-up of high quality (and high price) glass to take advantage of their excellent sensors. This is also why Canon was the first to offer full-frame sensors as they are the ultimate means of providing high-resolution, noise free images. Canon's philosophy seems geared to provide the best image in some technical sense under ideal circumstances (to really over-generalize). Perhaps Canon could be analogized to Cadillac or Mercedes. Big, sedate, and luxurious, but not sporty or fun.

On the flip side, Canon seems to be far less interested what I'm going to term "handling." Things like build quality, viewfinder ISO, viewfinder quality, and the like. I think these are the kinds of things "real" / classic photographers might appreciate far more than your average consumer. These are the kinds of features Nikon has chosen to focus on in my opinion. Nikon's philosophy seems geared more towards allowing photographers to get the best shot they can under adverse circumstances (again, really over-generalizing). Nikon is more like a BMW.

Canon also seems to be averse to implementing "gimmicks." I think this is one reason they don't introduce in-camera IS or many of the various features a company like Sony leads with. Canon seems to be above features that are either inferior to some more expensive counterpart (e.g., in-camera IS vs. in-lens IS; in-camera editing options vs. computer-based editing). Sony is more like an Infiniti hoping to grow into a Lexus.

2. In the realm of features that Canon has traditionally led with, and I claim seems to focus on, namely image quality, innovation seems to have slowed. I won't say that it's peeked; perhaps we're just at a lull. Anyhow, the point is that other companies are catching up because Canon seems to be approaching the limits of their ability to provide cleaner and cleaner images. Just look at their noise advantage over Nikon and how the gap has closed rapidly in the past 3 or so years. Similarly, full-frame technology is no longer exclusively Canon's.

3. Canon has dominated the market, and like many market leaders (Microsoft, American car companies a few decades ago, etc) innovation is both less necessary from a business standpoint, and also less feasible from a technical standpoint.

You complain that Canon hasn't provided features available from other manufacturers. They're still selling tons of cameras, why should they? Until people stop buying their gear, there's really no pressure to provide any features they don't want to provide.

Now, I'd argue that the SLR market is warped by network externalities stemming from the high transaction costs of changing systems given large investments in lenses, flashes, and the like. This means that Canon's position is somewhat entrenched re: existing users. Conversely, it also means that capturing the low-end market is also very important, as today's new users are tomorrow's entrenched users.

Nikon has certainly captured a large chunk of the entry-market that once belonged to Canon. I think that's scared Canon a bit, as evidenced by a pretty big improvement in quality in the XSi (which I think is designed to target the D80/D90? and trump the D60 by a good margin) and the XS (which depending upon price may show a new commitment to low-end users).

At the same time though, I'm sure Canon realizes that they can't possibly hold the entire market with everyone and their brother coming out with DSLRs these days. Canon appears content to maintain their identity in the market as the "image choice" camera manufacturer. I'd argue that that makes good business sense. Nikon may be the "photographer's choice" (meaning that perhaps it focuses more on handling and extreme photographic capture), but that's a niche market. Your average user, who probably constitutes the vast bulk of Canon sales, is most interested in ease of use and quality of image on a computer screen. As Nikon catches up to Canon's image quality, Canon's advantage in that realm decreases, meaning Nikon becomes a more appealing choice. At the same time, if you're photographic skills are improving, perhaps you're becoming more and more desirous of their advantages. As unappealing as the prospect maybe, maybe it's just time for you to switch camps. Maybe Nikon (or whomever) fits your preferences more these days than Canon. If that's the case, it isn't Canon's fault. Remember, their mission is not to make you specifically happy, it's to make money. If they can make more money by making 99 other people happier at the loss of you, then that's what they'll do. The point isn't that other people don't want the features you're asking for. It's that Canon is making business decisions. Maybe they're bad, but it's entirely possible excellent, advanced photographers like you aren't representative of the bulk of their client base, and that they're making a wise (though annoying) business decision to cater to the masses instead of you.

Frankly, if it weren't for the fact that Canon has the 5D and far more great but not insanely expensive lenses, I'd probably switch camps.

At the end of the day though, the choice of systems doesn't really matter so much these days. Regardless of who you choose, you'll be spending a lot of money and any system will allow you to get great shots within ever-decreasing, reasonable limitations.

To me an "innovation" would be a more basic approach.

Use Current:
Meter mode choices
Current AF choices similar to 5D structure with performance enhancements
Color balance choices
ISO choices

Add:
Standard and programmable crop frames in viewfinder

I get the feeling that Joe that you want your "Equivalency" system incorporated into the menu structure.

Camera body menus are becoming as complex and inscrutable as 1980's era VCR's to use.
--

They just NOW have a FF camera out after well more than 3 years of Canon having it out. They just NOW have good high ISO performance.. I think you can blame Canon's lack of innovation on Nikon's lack of innovation.. They simply had absolutely NO competition in full frame or high ISO performance. This is about making a profit, you don't innovate unless the market demands it. Because of the complete lack of vision by Nikon and others to realize the importance of Full Frame and high ISO, Canon got bored.

Canon realized IQ was king and nobody challenged them. I suspect you will see more innovation coming from them - But don't blame them for selling older technology like the 5D when nobody STILL has an answer for it.

--
Wildlife galleries
http://www.pbase.com/zeiler/