In the past three years, what has Canon innovated?

Kabe Luna said:

...which was with value + innovation + performance. Relative to
competitors, except at the very highest end of the market, Canon now
seems content to be 'merely' the high value choice.

Click to expand...

and that again goes in cycles.

let's face it - nikon wasn't a choice with those options for almost a decade prior to 7 months ago.

it's foolish to think that NIKON the company wouldn't rebound with something sooner than later.

but it's equally as foolish to think that within 7 months canon is going to revamp it's entire lineup to match nikon.

if it took nikon 7 or so years to match canon - and they did. we're merely giving canon 7 months to beat it?

has camera technology turned into a "what have you done for me lately" group?

Yes you are mistaken.

I'm trying to give you an analogy by comparing CANON (a company) to a cheating wife (not your wife, "a wife") who lies, cheats, yet you refuse to leave her. Your relationship with Canon does not seem to be good at all, and at the same time you have no idea how to divorce it. Thats where a psychologist comes in.

--
Ben
Design is all I do.
bibikova.com

Canon's cameras still show lower noise at the raw data level compared with most competitors and also set their black point to a non-zero value to allow the full read-noise statistics to be captured (providing the ability to reduce read noise by stacking multiple exposures ... something you can't do with, say, Nikon raw files). Most competitors are applying at least some form of software noise reduction, something Canon has thus far resisted. True, this software reduction has become quite good at preserving detail. However, it still leads to an apples-to-oranges comparison since Canon could improve its results still further if it decided to resort to the same tactics.

David

tko said:

If the D700 is real, and it's a small, D3 FF sensor, 51 AF PT body
for $3000 then I'd be really p*ssed.

Click to expand...

Given that 5D Mk II rumors have existed for some time as well, how does this rumor somehow imply that Nikon will release its camera first? What if Canon's entry is cheaper, which it may very well be considering that its making its own sensors and has the experience manufacturing the 5D already under its belt?

David

Kabe Luna said:

...with live view, auto ISO, etc. But it's not just Canon. Except for
Olympus, which innovated the self-cleaning sensor with its SSWF and
Live View (for SLRs), and Minolta with in-body image stabilization,
there have been few if any other innovators in the digital era.

Click to expand...

I'd put Canon's commercialization of CMOS sensor technology on par. They didn't invent the active-pixel CMOS sensor, but they were the first to bring the image quality up to CCD standards and made it manufacturable and usable in a high-quality DSLR body. Re-read the product announcement for the D30 back in the year 2000.

David

I did not know Joe or anybody else has married Canon. Even in California a man and a camera company still cannot be legally married.

bgbs said:

Yes you are mistaken.
I'm trying to give you an analogy by comparing CANON (a company) to a
cheating wife (not your wife, "a wife") who lies, cheats, yet you
refuse to leave her. Your relationship with Canon does not seem to
be good at all, and at the same time you have no idea how to divorce
it. Thats where a psychologist comes in.

--
Ben
Design is all I do.
bibikova.com

Click to expand...

DRG said:

Kabe Luna said:

...with live view, auto ISO, etc. But it's not just Canon. Except for
Olympus, which innovated the self-cleaning sensor with its SSWF and
Live View (for SLRs), and Minolta with in-body image stabilization,
there have been few if any other innovators in the digital era.

Click to expand...

I'd put Canon's commercialization of CMOS sensor technology on par.
They didn't invent the active-pixel CMOS sensor, but they were the
first to bring the image quality up to CCD standards and made it
manufacturable and usable in a high-quality DSLR body. Re-read the
product announcement for the D30 back in the year 2000.

David

Click to expand...

they did actually patent their method of reducing noise variations at the pixel level. CMOS by nature is more noisy than CCD sensors. Canon does a different reset-read-fill-read steps than others which is why you see black point shifting happening on the D3 and software based noise reduction as well.

but I'd say as far as true innovative technology .. EVF on a SLR, and sensor IS on a DLSR were the last two innovations.

but even those were progressions of technology from P&S cameras.

and canon btw, has already changed it's manufacturing process of FF sensors. when the FF sensor white paper was first released it was 3 passes. I've noticed more current literature from canon (last 3 years) stating it's now 2 passes, and rumors that the next gen of sensors can go beyond 35mm size with one pass.

in a way, i guess unlike joe - I'm actually more excited about nikon and what they are doing as giving the preverbial push to canon.

there's always a tendancy with any product line to get "set in your ways" and to stop thinking outside of the box. with clever technologies being migrated into DSLR's from Sony and Nikon - it enheriently helps the flow of innovation and progression from Canon.

let's put it this way .. if a new technology breakthrough is going to cost canon .. say . ... 100 million to take from prototype to full production - if canon has a dominate marketshare as they have in the past - what incentive did they have to invest the 100 million and roll it out as quickly as possible?

who would in that scenario? no one. because if you aren't getting money back from the investment, or increasing your sales by a large margin, there isn't the financial return on investment. from a technology and financial prioritization there isn't the requirement.

but the reverse is more true. if the investment will shore up marketshare, or increase marketshare, then there is a much more viable return on the investment to the shareholders.

it's always one of the more profound issues when you have a dominant marketshare - is to keep it, and keep the competitors from nipping at your ankles.

and 100 million is a drop in the bucket - canon's R&D is what...over a billion USD?

what I read--so the old do little dude left and it's taking a yr or 2 to rev up the staff over there -- I think the Xsi (pretty good for it's price) is the first little sign of better things to come in the next 18 mo. They're just shifting into 2nd gear.. I hope. But don't have any greenbacks left now anyway--with the gas and my new wheels just today.
--
Have a great and wonderful Day !! Cheers !!

See Death Valley; China; and Cuba
http://www.jonrp.smugmug.com

rrcphoto said:

in a way, i guess unlike joe - I'm actually more excited about nikon
and what they are doing as giving the preverbial push to canon.

Click to expand...

I am ecstatic about what Nikon is doing, and very much looking forward to what Sony will do, for exactly the reasons you mention.

However, I am disappointed that Canon will react to the competition, rather than have set the bar themselves. My favorite example is the 20D --> 30D "upgrade". What was that? Surely they could have jumped right to the 40D, no? Canon appears to be holding back, which is annoying.

As for arguments that Canon is all about IQ and not features, I have to ask how so? AF was a feature Canon innovated. In-lens IS was a feature Canon innovated. CMOS was a feature Canon innovated. ECF was a feature Canon innovated. And, for their crowning glory, the Direct Print Button was a feature that Canon "innovated".

So, it's frustrating to see important and useful features, not just to me, such as ECF and auto-ISO, not being implemented on their cameras. I mean, sure, some poeple may not need them. But I don't need custom ring tones on my cell phone, yet there they are all the same, and it is a selling point, and it doesn't bother me that they're there.

There seems to be a large number of "snobs" who like to disparage those of us who desire various features as "tekkies", but one such person in particular in this thread, not to say there are not others, has no galleries linked, whereas mine are there for the world to see.

Regardless, while I know it's possible to get great pics without all the features, that is neither here nor there. For me, and others, there are many features that Canon refuses to implement that make getting keepers more convenient and gives a higher keeper rate.

--
--joe

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

joe mama said:

joe mama said:

in a way, i guess unlike joe - I'm actually more excited about nikon
and what they are doing as giving the preverbial push to canon.

Click to expand...

I am ecstatic about what Nikon is doing, and very much looking
forward to what Sony will do, for exactly the reasons you mention.

However, I am disappointed that Canon will react to the competition,
rather than have set the bar themselves. My favorite example is the
20D --> 30D "upgrade". What was that? Surely they could have jumped
right to the 40D, no? Canon appears to be holding back, which is
annoying.

Click to expand...

canon actually stated that they didn't put 10mp in the 30D because of IQ and ISO noise. think back to the D200 and D2x which high ISO was a fantasy.

"appears to be holding back" is perception. we don't know the technical challenges at the time of prototype nor do we know the engineering compromises - or the legal issues surrounding taking technology such as auto-ISO from nikon bodies.

heck, last year, canon came out with a camera that has more Mp's than another other DSLR in history, and better ISO handling than the prior model. that's simply not something you want to have. however, canon DSLR's are the only ones that have ever been in the "DSLR versus medium format back" discussions. no other brand. not even today.

trend setting is fine. but there's a definate time in which others will catch up to you. again - something I puzzle at why you don't understand that. I expected nikon to catch up - they had to. period. For them, pouring the millions that it took to do the D3 made financial sense, whereas if you are a market leader, your ability to net more of a market pentration is diminishing returns and they have to explain those diminishing returns to the shareholders.

now with nikon coming back strong, the financial viability of new technology actually becomes easier to cost justify.

I actually find alot of things innovative..even at the 40D level.

now you are hand wringing over the 40D not being out two years ago.

1) DryOS wasn't implemented in DSLR's at the time. Canon was using another firmware OS until last year. Canon now controls the entire camera from hardware to firmware. they didn't in the past. Not sure if C1,2 and 3 could be implemented in the older firmware, or liveview, etc.

2) CMOS sensors weren't up to spec for noise at the pixel densities of 10Mp at 1.6 crop.

3) AF sensor technology - the 40D as AF sensor technology that has never been out on any canon DLSR in the past.

4) DIGIC III wasn't out yet.

so how could the 40D have been released when the 30D was? Mp's isn't the most compelling upgrade from a 30D. it's the package.

If the next generation 5D comes out and it meets half of people expectations all is forgiven : )

I don't need the best. I'm not in a race. You can take great photos w/any system. I can wait. But not forever : )

There is no positive proof that a 5D will ever be replaced. Really, it's all speculation and based on hope. It makes sense for a 5D II to come out, but given Canon's state of mind it may not ever come out. People have been waiting for a 5D II for how long now? Time waits for no company. Wait long enough and Sony, Nikon, and others will have affordable, modern, FF cameras.

As the Lakers found out, it does you no good to be ahead if you don't follow up : (

Right now a FF sensor is part of my upgrade path. Most of my lenses are FF. I'd like a nice crop, the 40d is fine, and a nice FF. The 5D isn't quite there for me at least because I do a lot of sports, and the 5D isn't really a sports camera. I need high ISO and high speed and I can't see spending $5000 for a hobby.

rrcphoto said:

canon actually stated that they didn't put 10mp in the 30D because of
IQ and ISO noise. think back to the D200 and D2x which high ISO was
a fantasy.

Click to expand...

Not the MP so much as the AF. I mean, 8.2 MP vs 10.1 MP -- can you even tell?

rrcphoto said:

"appears to be holding back" is perception. we don't know the
technical challenges at the time of prototype nor do we know the
engineering compromises - or the legal issues surrounding taking
technology such as auto-ISO from nikon bodies.

Click to expand...

It is, of course, "perception" as you say. But with so many manufacturers using in-camera IS and live-view, I don't think legal issues are a barrier.

rrcphoto said:

trend setting is fine. but there's a definate time in which others
will catch up to you. again - something I puzzle at why you don't
understand that. I expected nikon to catch up - they had to.
period. For them, pouring the millions that it took to do the D3
made financial sense, whereas if you are a market leader, your
ability to net more of a market pentration is diminishing returns and
they have to explain those diminishing returns to the shareholders.

Click to expand...

Nikon not only "caught-up", in many ways they took the lead. Just visit FM B&S Forum to see how many are dumping their Canon gear. So, yeah, that is something that I really don't get -- how Nikon could make such a huge jump while Canon's path was more to be the "value leader" than the "camera leader".

rrcphoto said:

now you are hand wringing over the 40D not being out two years ago.

Click to expand...

That pretty much sums it up, really.

rrcphoto said:

1) DryOS wasn't implemented in DSLR's at the time. Canon was using
another firmware OS until last year. Canon now controls the entire
camera from hardware to firmware. they didn't in the past. Not sure
if C1,2 and 3 could be implemented in the older firmware, or
liveview, etc.

2) CMOS sensors weren't up to spec for noise at the pixel densities
of 10Mp at 1.6 crop.

3) AF sensor technology - the 40D as AF sensor technology that has
never been out on any canon DLSR in the past.

4) DIGIC III wasn't out yet.

so how could the 40D have been released when the 30D was? Mp's isn't
the most compelling upgrade from a 30D. it's the package.

Click to expand...

That's just the point -- "so how could the 40D have been released when the 30D was?" I guess what you're saying is that I have unrealistic expectations. That may be exactly the case. But nor will I hide my disappointment that such expectations were unrealistic.

But when you see how modest an improvement the 16-35 / 2.8L II was compared to the first version of the lens, and how radical an improvement the 14-24 / 2.8 was in UWA, as well as the release of the 1DIII with defective AF, which is the defining characteristic of the camera, this points less towards unrealistic expectations and more towards holding back and sloppiness.

--
--joe

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

1) Honeywell innovated AF, Minolta perfected it with the Maxxum 7000. Minolta even was the first with multi-point AF. Canon simply popularized capitalized on Minolta's inability to popularize both because of being sued and financially crippled by Honeywell for infringing on its AF patents.

2) Nikon innovated in-lens image stabilization in one of its film P&S cameras, but failed to see the benefit for use in interchangeable SLR lenses. Canon seized upon Nikon's shortsightedness and implemented optical image stabilization in its SLR lenses.

Canon's innovations from the film era were the fully electronic lens mount, USM in-lens AF motors, IR film transport and Whisper Drive, and ECF. The rest were simply smart and timely implementations of existing technologies that had been innovated by others.

joe mama said:

joe mama said:

in a way, i guess unlike joe - I'm actually more excited about nikon
and what they are doing as giving the preverbial push to canon.

Click to expand...

I am ecstatic about what Nikon is doing, and very much looking
forward to what Sony will do, for exactly the reasons you mention.

However, I am disappointed that Canon will react to the competition,
rather than have set the bar themselves. My favorite example is the
20D --> 30D "upgrade". What was that? Surely they could have jumped
right to the 40D, no? Canon appears to be holding back, which is
annoying.

As for arguments that Canon is all about IQ and not features, I have
to ask how so? AF was a feature Canon innovated. In-lens IS was a
feature Canon innovated. CMOS was a feature Canon innovated. ECF
was a feature Canon innovated. And, for their crowning glory, the
Direct Print Button was a feature that Canon "innovated".

So, it's frustrating to see important and useful features, not just
to me, such as ECF and auto-ISO, not being implemented on their
cameras. I mean, sure, some poeple may not need them. But I don't
need custom ring tones on my cell phone, yet there they are all the
same, and it is a selling point, and it doesn't bother me that
they're there.

There seems to be a large number of "snobs" who like to disparage
those of us who desire various features as "tekkies", but one such
person in particular in this thread, not to say there are not others,
has no galleries linked, whereas mine are there for the world to see.

Regardless, while I know it's possible to get great pics without
all the features, that is neither here nor there. For me, and
others, there are many features that Canon refuses to implement that
make getting keepers more convenient and gives a higher keeper rate.

--
--joe

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

Click to expand...

--
- -
Kabe Luna

http://www.garlandcary.com

joe mama said:

That's just the point -- "so how could the 40D have been released
when the 30D was?" I guess what you're saying is that I have
unrealistic expectations. That may be exactly the case. But nor
will I hide my disappointment that such expectations were unrealistic.

But when you see how modest an improvement the 16-35 / 2.8L II was
compared to the first version of the lens, and how radical an
improvement the 14-24 / 2.8 was in UWA, as well as the release of the
1DIII with defective AF, which is the defining characteristic of
the camera, this points less towards unrealistic expectations and
more towards holding back and sloppiness.

Click to expand...

if you're so unhappy then sell off all your gear and switch.

If your dissappointed and apparently you find "gear" a limitation to your technique - even though, god knows how the above mentioned technology that you are griping about would change much, then get some other gear.

however, in 2 to 3 years' time, you'd be doing the same thing with another brand, if not sooner. that's simply the nature of it.

but to expect ANY manufacturer to dominate a market continually is rather unrealistic especially when they've been head to head competitors for decades.

and as the 14-24 is nice, the 85D isn't as nice, and nor is the 70-200 going to be that suitable for anything above 12Mp sensors. heck, even the new PC lenses can only really be used on one camera body without limitations.

you can find things to complain about about any manufacturer is you so choose - if you don't like it, then find another manufacturer that you do - instead of complaining about it.

and if at the end of the day, you don't find a compelling enough reason to switch - then don't complain.

rrcphoto said:

if you're so unhappy then sell off all your gear and switch.

Click to expand...

Why do you make such a dramatic statement? Where have I said or implied that I was unhappy? I love the 5D and my lenses! But I'm disappointed that I can't have even more than what I have. It would have been nice if the 5DII that I want so badly came out last year instead of this year, and I feel the reason this has not come to pass is not for lack of ability to do so, but do to a choice that Canon has made to not do so until the competition has given them reason. Is this an unreasonable feeling?

rrcphoto said:

If your dissappointed and apparently you find "gear" a limitation to
your technique - even though, god knows how the above mentioned
technology that you are griping about would change much, then get
some other gear.

Click to expand...

The primary limitation of the 5D for my photography is the AF with outer AF points in extremely low light at shallow DOFs. The second limitation is the shutter lag. The lack of avaialble IS on any of my lenses is also regrettable. While the D3 addresses the AF/shutter lag issues, it does so at a price I cannot afford and a size I do not fancy, not to mention no other system has the lenses I use.

But simply because Canon best suits my needs does not mean that I am unjustified in lamenting them from holding back, does it?

rrcphoto said:

but to expect ANY manufacturer to dominate a market continually is
rather unrealistic especially when they've been head to head
competitors for decades.

Click to expand...

True, but it's also disheartening to see such a strong lead diminish so quickly.

rrcphoto said:

you can find things to complain about about any manufacturer is you
so choose - if you don't like it, then find another manufacturer that
you do - instead of complaining about it.

and if at the end of the day, you don't find a compelling enough
reason to switch - then don't complain.

Click to expand...

'Fraid I can't agree with that. It's the same mantra as "America -- love it or leave it." I'm a patriot (love both America and Canon), but I'm not a sycophant, either. I will give you that I ***** and moan a lot, though. : )

--
--joe

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

Kabe Luna said:

1) Honeywell innovated AF, Minolta perfected it with the Maxxum 7000.
Minolta even was the first with multi-point AF. Canon simply
popularized capitalized on Minolta's inability to popularize both
because of being sued and financially crippled by Honeywell for
infringing on its AF patents.

Click to expand...

I did not know that!

Kabe Luna said:

2) Nikon innovated in-lens image stabilization in one of its film P&S
cameras, but failed to see the benefit for use in interchangeable SLR
lenses. Canon seized upon Nikon's shortsightedness and implemented
optical image stabilization in its SLR lenses.

Click to expand...

Interesting!

Kabe Luna said:

Canon's innovations from the film era were the fully electronic lens
mount, USM in-lens AF motors, IR film transport and Whisper Drive,
and ECF. The rest were simply smart and timely implementations of
existing technologies that had been innovated by others.

Click to expand...

Can't believe I forgot to include USM in my list of innovations! Anyway, thanks for the corrections and history lesson!

--
--joe

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

rrcphoto said:

if you're so unhappy then sell off all your gear and switch.

Click to expand...

You see, many of us have their reasons to stick with Canon - for now.

By creating public criticism, the hope is that Canon will respond to the demands of their customer base. Switching to another brand is a last resort, after no such response followed.

Public criticism is healthier than hiding your head in the sand and pretending that the emperor has new clothes.

joe mama said:

joe mama said:

if you're so unhappy then sell off all your gear and switch.

Click to expand...

Why do you make such a dramatic statement? Where have I said or
implied that I was unhappy? I love the 5D and my lenses! But I'm
disappointed that I can't have even more than what I have. It would
have been nice if the 5DII that I want so badly came out last year
instead of this year, and I feel the reason this has not come to pass
is not for lack of ability to do so, but do to a choice that Canon
has made to not do so until the competition has given them reason.
Is this an unreasonable feeling?

Click to expand...

kinda.

you love a camera that you have used for three years that was breathtakingly magical and groundbreaking - and still is. granted it's showing signs of age, but IQ bang for the buck - there is nothing even close.

do you think it's easy to reinvent that magic that the 5D had / has?

I WOULD HOPE that canon spends the careful time and comes out with a body that's even better than the original. and that has been one thing that Canon HAS been doing.

they haven't bowed to the masses, they have refused to placate marketting and release a camera upgrade with worse IQ than the prior model.

They've also refused to remove ISO 100 from their cameras to placate the high ISO crowd, because some of us still shoot in studios where ISO 50 is actually quite handy, let alone ISO 100.

IMO - I suspect that canon had the 5D replacement ready to roll, and pulled it back after the D3/D300 was released.

they did something similar to the 40D where it was rumored to have been delayed from a Feb launch to an August launch.

and it's hard to be dissappointed that a camera that hasn't even been announced yet, that you don't even know what's in it, or what it is .. wasn't released a year ago

Jake Loves Good Glass said:

Canon is a wonderful company, but their policy has generally been to
simply move along with current tech and try and do it the best. They
really aren't a leader in the industry, but then none of the
companies really are.

Click to expand...

True, but I might not say that exactly. I'm sure you've seen that list of patents awarded by the US patent office to Canon over the last five or six years that places them in the top three overall for total number of patents; although, that of course includes patents awarded across all of their divisions.

But regardless, Canon's innovations have really always been in manufacturing technology which is what has allowed them to provide all these 'innovative' features in their cameras at affordable prices. They are a bang for the buck company which plays well into the hands of professionals and acquisition managers at magazines and newspapers as well as enthusiasts. And in certain criteria (ie. image quality) something like the 5D gives you a bang for the buck that still hasn't really been beaten after three years time.

I don't know why some people think that if you're not cramming your products with every little trendy device it means you're falling behind. My question is, who's really making a better product where it counts, which is in the end result, the photo.

joe mama said:

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?

Click to expand...

I doubt that you'll ever see those lenses with IS units, because it would involve a compromise in optical quality and certainly an increase in price. That is an area where it really would be nice to have in-body IS, even if it is inferior to lens-based systems, and I wouldn't doubt that Canon won't put it in a body at some point.

joe mama said:

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?

Click to expand...

Although, I'd argue that the Canon 16-35/2.8L II is better designed for its market. The Nikkor may beat it when it comes to pixel peeping (and it certainly is an impressive lens), but the Canon gets a lot of shots that the Nikkor doesn't. And in dirty and dangerous situations, the Canon's also likely to hold up better.