When will Canon focus on IQ instead of MP!?

I'm finally ready to move up to full-frame from my 5-year-old 20D, but am still waiting because I'd like to have better AF than the 5D II (seeing the enhancements on the 7D), and feel the IQ could be improved (judging from the 1D IV and Nikon offerings). I can wait a bit more, and I don't plan to upgrade frequently, so feel that the next non-1-series full-frame could be the sweet spot for me.

But the Dx0 tests are bothering me. If those tests are meaningful (I'm not interested in the subjective "sensor rating," but more in the individual ones like high ISO, and DR), then Nikon's products still best Canon's by a lot. Why is Canon taking so long to address this? Do you think this technology leap-frogging lag is going to be as long as that time when Canon was king of DSLR sensors around the time of the 20D (that's why I went with Canon originally, for my first SLR)?

I don't want to jump ship to Nikon yet because I like what I have of Canon's lenses so far (EF-S 17-55mm (which I will sell), 85mm f/1.2L II and 70-200 f/4L IS, and eyeing the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II). But if Canon doesn't focus on IQ instead of megapixels in the next "low-cost" full-frame, I may seriously consider doing so.

Maybe Canon's marketing materials say otherwise, but I'd guess that most people would rather have better high ISO and DR capabilities than be able to blow photos up to poster size with inconveniently large file sizes, which is what's puzzling me about Canon's product strategy...

The ID IV looks promising (not that I can afford it), so am hoping Canon's going in the right direction (although it implies a 27 MP full-frame...).

Kaz

Over in Nikonland the boys are wondering when Nikon will catch up with Canon as far as MP.
--

-----
-paul

I bet their MP wants are more a "nice to have, if at the same IQ," whereas a lot of Canon people would rather have the IQ than the MP (not "IQ nice to have, if at same MP").

If we could have the MP with the better IQ, I'd still probably use binning (if they have it as a feature) for most of my photos, and just use the highest resolution for landscapes and special portraits. Am I really in the minority of Canon users?

zerozeronine said:

I'm finally ready to move up to full-frame from my 5-year-old 20D, but am still waiting because I'd like to have better AF than the 5D II (seeing the enhancements on the 7D), and feel the IQ could be improved (judging from the 1D IV and Nikon offerings). I can wait a bit more, and I don't plan to upgrade frequently, so feel that the next non-1-series full-frame could be the sweet spot for me.

Click to expand...

I feel the same way. I have the old 5D, and can't see a reason to upgrade to any current camera.

zerozeronine said:

But the Dx0 tests are bothering me. If those tests are meaningful (I'm not interested in the subjective "sensor rating," but more in the individual ones like high ISO, and DR), then Nikon's products still best Canon's by a lot. Why is Canon taking so long to address this? Do you think this technology leap-frogging lag is going to be as long as that time when Canon was king of DSLR sensors around the time of the 20D (that's why I went with Canon originally, for my first SLR)?

Click to expand...

Because the management at Canon sees Sony as more of a threat, at this point, than Nikon. And Sony is relentlessly pushing pixel counts.

zerozeronine said:

I don't want to jump ship to Nikon yet because I like what I have of Canon's lenses so far (EF-S 17-55mm (which I will sell), 85mm f/1.2L II and 70-200 f/4L IS, and eyeing the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II). But if Canon doesn't focus on IQ instead of megapixels in the next "low-cost" full-frame, I may seriously consider doing so.

Click to expand...

I'm wondering if 20+ pixels isn't as far as the issue can be pushed. At least I hope so, 'cause I don't want that many pixels, not to mention MORE!

zerozeronine said:

Maybe Canon's marketing materials say otherwise, but I'd guess that most people would rather have better high ISO and DR capabilities than be able to blow photos up to poster size with inconveniently large file sizes, which is what's puzzling me about Canon's product strategy...

Click to expand...

No, the problem is it's knowledgeable photographers who have those desires, not the general public. So, they have to keep pushing pixel counts up to match to competition to keep selling those cameras to the less educated photograhers to whom resolution is the yardstick by which they measure cameras for purchase. Canon's problem is that they can't have low leve cameras like the 50D and its successors "out-pixel" the upper level cameras. Other wise, they have to try to educate people on why mass numbers of pixels aren't the reason to buy a camera. Then, having produced cameras with just those mass numbers of pixels, they'd have to tell the same customers why mass numbers of pixels are just what they need! See the problem?

zerozeronine said:

The ID IV looks promising (not that I can afford it), so am hoping Canon's going in the right direction (although it implies a 27 MP full-frame...).

Click to expand...

Actually, I'm not so sure. 16mp on a 1.3x sensor is better than 18 on a 1.6x sensor, that's true, and the fact that it doesn't try to exceed the pixel counts on all the other bodies bodes well, but the fact that they went past 12 tell me that pixel count is still the driving force...

--
Skip M
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
http://www.pbase.com/skipm
http://skipm.smugmug.com/
'Living in the heart of a dream, in the Promised Land!'
John Stewart

I don't agree with your premise that the IQ of, say, a Canon 5D2 is worse than, say, the D700. There may be a measurable difference by some arbitrary test such as DxO, but that isn't something where a pro will or will not get a job based on whether he's sporting a D700 or a 5D2.

In fact, I think it was DxO which commented that the Sony a900 was a 'best buy' sort of camera based on how close it was to the Nikon D3x. While the Nikon beat the Sony by a gnat's hair in some measures, the differences are too slight to notice (in IQ, not features!) to buy the Nikon over the Sony.

If there is some tiny measurable difference giving the D700 an edge over the 5D2 in some DxO test, it isn't worth making a buy / no buy decision upon.

I promise that neither you or anybody can tell which camera, between the 5D2 and the D700 too which picture.
--

-----
-paul

While not a camera tech, I"m sure that the 20-24 MP on a FF sensor isn't the limit simply by noting that the Canon 7D has 18 MP on an APS-C.

I'm guessing that that density projected on a FF would equate to 35 or so MP. I certainly expect the next 1Ds to be that MP.
--

-----
-paul

Two questions to OP:
1. How do you define IQ and how the IQ is different on Canon's side vs Nikon?
2. How do you rate the IQ of 5D MKII and why do you not rate it high enough?

When you will answer those questions....we can continue the discussion. Until that time, I am done

1. Slightly better high ISO, better dynamic/color range (as I've seen from samples and Dx0 tests). I figure that Canon's technology has been improving (as seen in 1D IV) and that having fewer pixels (or at least staying put) would allow them to concentrate more on those above qualities.

2. I think the 5D II is great with IQ (blows my 20D away!). It's just that I'm not a frequent upgrader, so I'd like to at least have better AF features before diving in. We've already seen what the 7D can do, so I just feel like I can wait a bit longer for a sweet spot in my upgrade cycle.

People who don't appreciate low IQ coming with relatively low MP won't buy an expensive model.

So, why doesn't Canon give the masses high MP xxD and rebels, while keeping the single-digit series MP reasonably low (even if it means going lower than some of the less expensive models) and concentrating on IQ. That'd make the serious people happy, and the masses will think they got a great deal.

I'm sure marketing can sell it as "You're getting a great deal because we put in lots of MP so you can blow up picture to poster size if you want to! As for the more expensive models, those serious types just want to pay more for slightly better image quality. You know, diminishing returns..." I doubt the more knowledgeable people will feel slighted. And if some want really high MP, there's always the 1Ds that can have that feature.

I hope that you are aware that 5D MKII has the same identical sensor as 1Ds MKIII?
Are you aware of a better camera in the same price tag available?

zerozeronine said:

1. Slightly better high ISO, better dynamic/color range (as I've seen from samples and Dx0 tests). I figure that Canon's technology has been improving (as seen in 1D IV) and that having fewer pixels (or at least staying put) would allow them to concentrate more on those above qualities.

2. I think the 5D II is great with IQ (blows my 20D away!). It's just that I'm not a frequent upgrader, so I'd like to at least have better AF features before diving in. We've already seen what the 7D can do, so I just feel like I can wait a bit longer for a sweet spot in my upgrade cycle.

Click to expand...

The longer you hold off on going full frame the more you will regret it later, 5D2 auto focus is fine for most things, yes its a little lacking but I think MP wise we are at the sweat spot.
Ross
--
Image's In Light North West
http://rossmurphy.zenfolio.com/
http://imagesinlightnw.blogspot.com/

pcassel said:

While not a camera tech, I"m sure that the 20-24 MP on a FF sensor isn't the limit simply by noting that the Canon 7D has 18 MP on an APS-C.

Click to expand...

Oh, I'm sure that 20+ isn't the limit to what will fit, but, given the apparent noise issues of the 7D, higher pixel densities may have pitfalls.

pcassel said:

I'm guessing that that density projected on a FF would equate to 35 or so MP. I certainly expect the next 1Ds to be that MP.

Click to expand...

That's the point of both the OP and my posts, yeah, I, too, fully expect them to have more pixels, but is that a good thing? If it results in increased s/n ratios, or softening of images due to more agressive noise reduction software, is that what we really want? Especially if they push into ever higher ISOs.

--
Skip M
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
http://www.pbase.com/skipm
http://skipm.smugmug.com/
'Living in the heart of a dream, in the Promised Land!'
John Stewart

zerozeronine said:

People who don't appreciate low IQ coming with relatively low MP won't buy an expensive model.

Click to expand...

I know, but does Canon's marketing people. You and I know it, but do they? ;-)

zerozeronine said:

So, why doesn't Canon give the masses high MP xxD and rebels, while keeping the single-digit series MP reasonably low (even if it means going lower than some of the less expensive models) and concentrating on IQ. That'd make the serious people happy, and the masses will think they got a great deal.

Click to expand...

Again, marketing. No reason for someone who has a 50D to aspire to a 5D mkxx, since it can't possibly be better. Fewer pixels, right? So, then Canon has to educate that 50D owner, and tell him that they were just fooling him, more pixels won't necessarily make a better camera. Not a position I'd like to be in.

zerozeronine said:

I'm sure marketing can sell it as "You're getting a great deal because we put in lots of MP so you can blow up picture to poster size if you want to! As for the more expensive models, those serious types just want to pay more for slightly better image quality. You know, diminishing returns..." I doubt the more knowledgeable people will feel slighted. And if some want really high MP, there's always the 1Ds that can have that feature.

Click to expand...

But then how do you get that guy to buy one of the more expensive cameras? By telling him it was all a big joke? You can't wait for him to educate himself, or find out from his peers that the case.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Canon. Nikon has been producing decent sales by selling a lineup with overwhelmingly lower pixel count cameras, so there is, apparently, an alternative. It's Canon's marketing mavens that don't seem to think so...

--
Skip M
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
http://www.pbase.com/skipm
http://skipm.smugmug.com/
'Living in the heart of a dream, in the Promised Land!'
John Stewart

Ross Murphy said:

The longer you hold off on going full frame the more you will regret it later, 5D2 auto focus is fine for most things, yes its a little lacking but I think MP wise we are at the sweat spot.
Ross

Click to expand...

Yeah, but everybody said that about 16mp being the, ahem, swEEt spot for full frame. And I'm not convnced that's wrong. Look at the results from Nikons 12 mp full frame sensors compared to Canon's at high ISO. And there's very little difference at low ISO, either. Put modern technology on the old 5D's sensor and I wonder how it would compare to both companies current crop.
--
Skip M
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
http://www.pbase.com/skipm
http://skipm.smugmug.com/
'Living in the heart of a dream, in the Promised Land!'
John Stewart

Are you honestly saying that the high res Canon's have bad IQ? As in as pixels increase, IQ drops?

Don't listen to pixel peepers and measurebaters.

Print your images, and you'll suddenly see that those extra pixels are doing a fine job at giving you great IQ.

First, if you look at the XXD-7D forum, you'll see that most people there, including 50D owners, think the 5D and 5d2 have better IQ than the 50D or even the 7D if you're doing portraits or landscapes. (For sports or wildlife, most of them say the extra reach and speed of the 7D outweigh other considerations.) Second, the Nikon D3X has more pixels than any Canon DSLR, and it's getting accolades from all kinds of reviewers, including for its incredible IQ, 24.5 MP notwithstanding.

FF

happy 7D owner

1D3 is 10MP with high image quality and a pro AF (the new one).

... because A: the primary reason a photo is great is the photographer and B:, see A .

Does N have a very slight advantage in high ISO "cleanliness"? Perhaps, on full frame only. But what percentage of shots - overall - are taken at the speeds where the difference really matters? Not too many. And dynamic range is pretty much a wash (in fact, look at the results of the small-sensor N boxes vs. the new 7D ... right on this site!) And the 7D/5D video is really, really good.

But ultimately you won't be able to tell which camera took which photograph, given a stack to look at. But you might be able to tell which photographer!

It's about the image, which isn't always about the technical quality of same. (A MIDI interpretation of certain types of music sounds cold and devoid of soul - but it's technically perfect.)
KP

PS: Nikon's 14-24 has no equal on the Canon side; I may have to buy one, along with an adapter.
--
Use the new site features to hide my homely face and banjo!!



http://www.ahomls.com/photo.htm
http://www.phillipsphotographer.com

'The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it.', H. L. Mencken

I know, I know...and you're 100% right. My photos can improve a lot more from improvement in my artistry than with the camera.

But you know how it goes. I'm just trying to get the best bang for buck right now, and I just feel like a 5D II with better AF (plus some other features) would seal the deal for me.

Nikon definitely has some nice lenses too. It was only a rumor (from a filed patent), but Canon may be working on a 14-24mm zoom... A 24-70mm with IS would be nice too.

zerozeronine said:

I'm finally ready to move up to full-frame from my 5-year-old 20D, but am still waiting because I'd like to have better AF than the 5D II (seeing the enhancements on the 7D), and feel the IQ could be improved (judging from the 1D IV and Nikon offerings). I can wait a bit more, and I don't plan to upgrade frequently, so feel that the next non-1-series full-frame could be the sweet spot for me.

Click to expand...

'IQ' doesn't mean anything specific you can argue about, unless you care to share a definition with us. The 5DII acquits itself very well in most of the factors necessary for a high quality image, particularly in the detail it will capture. It can't quite match the D3x for low ISO DR (but it doesn't cost $8000 either), nor can it quite match the D700/D3 for high ISO DR, but it's a pretty good compromise between the two. It does have a problem, but since you're only parroting uninformed opinion, you haven't picked up on that...

zerozeronine said:

But the Dx0 tests are bothering me. If those tests are meaningful (I'm not interested in the subjective "sensor rating," but more in the individual ones like high ISO, and DR), then Nikon's products still best Canon's by a lot.

Click to expand...

By a little, in some situations (apart from the D3s, which does appear to be a breakthrough). Nikon is cleverer at optimising its sensors towards one purpose or another, while Canon goes for more of a general purpose approach. Their sensors are better at high ISO than the Nikon low ISO optimised sensors, and better at low ISO than the Nikon high ISO optimised sensors.

zerozeronine said:

Why is Canon taking so long to address this? Do you think this technology leap-frogging lag is going to be as long as that time when Canon was king of DSLR sensors around the time of the 20D (that's why I went with Canon originally, for my first SLR)?

Click to expand...

Canon hasn't addressed this because it doesn't have to, up to now, at least. With the D3s Nikon does seem to have made a major step forward, and unless the 1DIV turns out to be much better than the 7D, area for area, Nikon is now clearly king of the hill, so far as sensor tech is concerned. It is not clear that Canon could make the same breakthrough (whatever it is, I suspect something to do with microlens design) to order.

zerozeronine said:

I don't want to jump ship to Nikon yet because I like what I have of Canon's lenses so far (EF-S 17-55mm (which I will sell), 85mm f/1.2L II and 70-200 f/4L IS, and eyeing the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II).

But if Canon doesn't focus on IQ instead of megapixels in the next "low-cost" full-frame, I may seriously consider doing so.

Click to expand...

There is no conflict between 'IQ' and 'megapixels'. This is an absurd myth put about by people who don't know what they are talking about. The FF DSLR with the highest IQ, agreed by most authorities, is the one with the most megapixels, the D3x. So how do you square that with your statement?

zerozeronine said:

Maybe Canon's marketing materials say otherwise, but I'd guess that most people would rather have better high ISO and DR capabilities than be able to blow photos up to poster size with inconveniently large file sizes, which is what's puzzling me about Canon's product strategy...

Click to expand...

More megapixels gives advantages at any print size, not just very large ones, and does not impact high ISO or DR capabilities (in fact, it improves DR), so most likely it's Canon's engineers who are driving this, because they no that more megapixels is the most straightforward way for them to deliver better IQ

zerozeronine said:

The ID IV looks promising (not that I can afford it), so am hoping Canon's going in the right direction (although it implies a 27 MP full-frame...).

Click to expand...

Another silly statement made without any evidence. We don't know what the 1DIV will do until we see some images and tests of it. Best guess is that the sensor tech will be the same as the 7D, which means the lowest read noise yet attained, but not enough quantum efficiency to overcome the sensor area deficit against the D3, yet alone the D3s. Nonetheless, it will be the best 1D yet, and with a real advantage in detail capture over the D3 and D3s.