Why on earth doesn't Foveon...

[Peter G]

But many of their very successful products have no such obvious
advantage when compared to the competition. But they outsell the
competition and I attribute this to a substantially better
marketing effort from Canon, not to fundamentally better (or worse)
design.

Do you describe having an extremely deep product line that is constantly updating as marketing.

This is main thing I see helping some of Canons offereing against rivals.

Many people buy "A system" or even the illusion of "A system". To my eyes Canon has the deepest system. Definitely the widest array of digital bodies, maybe the most diverse lens lineup as well. I think that when people are choosing relatively equal bodies, the Canon system weighs heavily in Canons favor.

Also Canon is faster to update cameras with more incremental changes (in house sensor development certainly helps). Canon was the first to move to 8MP. While not a huge difference over 6MP, it would still be a competetive advantage. Canon easily bridges 6MP-8MP-10MP, while all the competition is following Sony's lead going 6MP-10MP.

It is hard for me to see the actual camera where Canon is behind. Specification wise they seem on top of their segments, ergonomics may be behind, but that may be somewhat subjective.

Canons greatest challenge seems to be the current release where everyone is now at a 10MP with very close image quality. Pentax and Sony both have in body stabilization, Nikon has a very well built body with excellent ergonomics. It will be a tough fight. But the D400 will probably come in much less expensive. From my perspective the SD14 is facing an even greater challenge from it's peers than when the SD9 debuted.

Canons greatest weakness in the line right is probably the 30D. It will be intersting to see how long until the update this one and how far they go. If they just drop in a 10MP sensor, they may be giving more sales to the D80.

 

[gheil]

How sharp are these lenses wide open (serious question - I'm curious) and do these cameras have high precision AF sensors that can provide accurate focus at those large apertures? And of course, how fast are their lens lines in general? Is there a good selection, or just a few?

Well i am a Minolta shooter, so all i can say about the Pentax glass is it is manual focus & aperture. However such glass though old is still well regarded - most anything that is f1.2 is well regarded. No company would make such a piece except to do it well! It is the Pentax 50f1.2.

For the Minolta AF i have two f1.4's the 50f1.4 and the 85f1.4. Both are extremely sought after lenses and regarded as some of the finest prime glass Minolta ever made. i also have a manual era 58f1.2 which has been converted to the AF mount but unlike the Pentax does not give focus confirmation even though so converted, but of course gives marvelous bokeh
http://www.pbase.com/pganzel/58mm_f12_rokkor__on_maxxum_7d

However there is a little space and there is a project ongoing to fool the MAF mount into thinking it has an AF lens mounted and thus to give the AF signal feedback when focus lock occurs:
http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6024&PN=2

It is a major sadness to me that Minolta never brought their manual focus lenses into full acceptance and utility or they would have been the lowlight king for much longer. Now Pentax has SR and have brought their old MF lenses into the game as fully as technically possible. So Pentax, with the K100D, is the low light champion.

To answer cyrano's question, it is still important to have stabilized lenses even in theatrical shooting. i also do low light human work, some is theatrical. The situation there is to go as slow as the human motions, but no slower. So if you are shooting with long glass and the humans are moving fairly deliberately then one might well be shooting well below the 1/f stop rule. Hence stabilization is very welcome. When i shoot with my 85f1.4 i benefit a lot from the stabilization shooting performers and dancers.

i don't know if the Foveon chip can ever be tweaked to be a good low light performer. It is however an important step in that direction having larger light collection surfaces. So i am strongly in favor of keeping the possibility alive in the market place.
--
http://public.xdi.org/=greg.heil

 

[gheil]

Canons greatest weakness in the line right is probably the 30D. It will be intersting to see how long until the update this one and how far they go. If they just drop in a 10MP sensor, they may be giving more sales to the D80.

Canon has been making noises about looking in the other direction, towards low light sensitivity eg ISO 64300. Though Chuck Westerfalls interview was rather confused on several points at least we could get the interest in high ISO out of it. If so they may go in the other direction and put a LOWER MP count chip in, with HIGHER sensitivity eg 6mp ISO 6400 chip in the 30D++...

As it is the 30D was my initial bit of hope that Japan Inc got the importance of sensitivity, and was willing to hold the line on Megapixelmania - it did not take the upgrade in features from the 20D to 30D as another opportunity to cram more MP down our throat. So i find the 30D as a hopeful development, not as a "weakness in the line".

i think it quite unlikely for the near term ... but if Canon ever decides to go with in body stabilization they would have a formidable platform for low light performance. With the shortest registration distance and widest maw amongst SLRs they are the universal lens acceptor system and at least in theory could easily become the best system for low light shooting.
--
http://public.xdi.org/=greg.heil

 

[Peter G]

Canons greatest weakness in the line right is probably the 30D. It will be intersting to see how long until the update this one and how far they go. If they just drop in a 10MP sensor, they may be giving more sales to the D80.

Canon has been making noises about looking in the other direction,
towards low light sensitivity eg ISO 64300. Though Chuck
Westerfalls interview was rather confused on several points at
least we could get the interest in high ISO out of it. If so they
may go in the other direction and put a LOWER MP count chip in,
with HIGHER sensitivity eg 6mp ISO 6400 chip in the 30D++...

I doubt it. In APS sensor, Canon will join the high MP battle. But they may hold the line on increases for the next update on the 5D and offer 12MP full frame and ISO 6400. That is perfectly feasible. It will let canon show the advantage of big sensors.

I highly doubt Canon will ever release a new DSLR with less than 10MP again.

 

[MBL81]

Because ….Real photographers or artists don’t need them.

And "real photographers or artists" are unlikely to choose Sigma
lenses.

I just read lenghty depate in one finnish forum where Canon and Nikon shooters debated about sharpness and image quality. Canon guy had better lenses but his images wasn't anything special. Nikon guy with more humble setup had on the other hand taken some stunning photos. Most people in these forums seems to be after equipment and measurbation nirvana than photography.

Miikael Leskinen

 

[richard stone]

In this case, is ignorance an excuse?

 

[gheil]

How sharp are these lenses wide open (serious question - I'm curious) and do these cameras have high precision AF sensors that can provide accurate focus at those large apertures? And of course, how fast are their lens lines in general? Is there a good selection, or just a few?

i guess your question is a little deeper into how well is the Minolta line regarded? i would expect you know that the Minolta line is indeed a very well regarded line. Before the switchover to AF, Minolta was working with Leica to jointly produce cameras and thus clearly had their advocacy. This included importantly the design of several zoom lenses. Just after the AF switchover Minolta briefly held the number one position as lens and camera supplier to the world and during this time developed the bulk of their lens line. subsequently they put out many low quality consumer oriented lenses, but also continued to maintain their high end lines and improve a number of lenses in their "G" line of quality. Sony clearly intends to capitalize on this line by involving their partner, Zeiss, in furthering these developments. So in general i think one can say that the good lenses are at the level of the best lenses from Canon or Nikon and that the selection is quite complete, though in spots does rely on the used market and a somewhat dry availability for the very best in a few categories. Eg the 70-200f2.8 SSM is very high priced due to low availability. Sony is expected to market their lenses based on the prices of the used market rather than intrinsic manufacture costs. So i guess you can expect cost to be a fairly stable guide to quality at least for the short term. Minolta lens price values are quite high.

i expect the 9 point AF system in Minolta is quite good, though it does lack the multi aperture feature present in some Nikon focus systems. It also lacks a bit in the continuos focus department - as in approaching subjects. But these are quibbles around the edges. It is certainly a comparably good AF system.

i am happy enough with the AF performance in my fast glass, though specialized sensors WOULD help. It is possible to get focus screens to aide manual focus and this can benefit, but the AF is adequate to the task.

If i were research director, i would not put a lot into the AF system. Maybe a few sensors tuned to wide aperture lenses in some high end cameras. i would instead concentrate on the AF system for the coming EVIL lines. This is a totally different kind of focus system, being based on software as it is. EVIL is the future. dSLRs are just a temporary, though weirdly profitable, selling station.
--
http://public.xdi.org/=greg.heil

 

[Jay Turberville]

Do you describe having an extremely deep product line that is
constantly updating as marketing.

Only partially.

Many people buy "A system" or even the illusion of "A system".

Yes. For most purchasers, the notion that they could go deep in the system matters - even though the reality is that most buy maybe one extra general purpose zoom lens and that's it.

I
think that when people are choosing relatively equal bodies, the
Canon system weighs heavily in Canons favor.

The system weighs heavily to pros in a real way. The illusion of benefitting from those professional options is more what is at work with the typical non-pro. So this gets back to my answer to your first question. Developing the deep system is partly marketing and it is partly a better "mousetrap."

Also Canon is faster to update cameras with more incremental
changes (in house sensor development certainly helps). Canon was
the first to move to 8MP. While not a huge difference over 6MP, it
would still be a competetive advantage.

I consider the 8Mp cameras to be brilliant marketing moves. I give Olympus some credit for a similar move with their E-300 timed very closely with Canon's release. Olympus gets bonus points for apparently learning after offering a professional camera with 5Mp when consumer cameras have 6Mp. The real differences in picture quality in prints between these various cameras isn't very great. You pretty much have to do a side-by-side to see it. These pixel count increments are mostly marketing.

Canon easily bridges
6MP-8MP-10MP, while all the competition is following Sony's lead
going 6MP-10MP.

Doubling or nearly doubling photosite count is engineering think. Taking the small and marginally significant steps is marketing think.

It is hard for me to see the actual camera where Canon is behind.
Specification wise they seem on top of their segments, ergonomics
may be behind, but that may be somewhat subjective.

Except for the 30D. But then the difference between 8Mp and 10Mp is mostly perception anyway.

But back to your point about Canon not being behind. I agree. You can argue different specs and features, but frankly, I think the various consumer and prosumer cameras from Nikon and Canon are pretty close to being at parity. And some of the offerings from Pentax, Sony and Olympus have some specific advantages over either of the other two. So why is Canon a clear leader in sales? Better marketing. Or maybe it is more accurate to say that they have a better marketing strategy. Of course, with Pentax using an asterisk to create unpronouncable camera names and with Olympus coining the term "Evolt" - you perhaps don't have to be marketing geniuses to do the better job.

Canons greatest weakness in the line right is probably the 30D.

Yes. I think this was a miscue. But better to compromise here, where people are more likely to objectively understand that the difference between 8Mp and 10Mp is fairly minor, than with the budget DSLRs where the number will typically be more influential.
--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com

 

[gheil]

I doubt it. In APS sensor, Canon will join the high MP battle. But they may hold the line on increases for the next update on the 5D and offer 12MP full frame and ISO 6400. That is perfectly feasible. It will let canon show the advantage of big sensors. I highly doubt Canon will ever release a new DSLR with less than 10MP again.

i dunno. The FF sensors have significant problems with vignetting and cost - the 5D is no exception. If Canon will say that is their contribution of high sensitivity then it is a pretty hollow contribution. Most reasonable shooters would not invest the kind of bucks required for a specialized expensive machine like the FF 5D, especially w/o a solution to the vignette issue, such as offset microlenses. But i am not counting heavily on Canon, just noting that they are making noises in the right direction. ISO sensitivity is an issue of paramount importance to me, and presumably at least a few other shooters.
--
http://public.xdi.org/=greg.heil

 

[Chunsum J Choi]

--
Chunsum.

'See with your eyes and shoot with your heart.'
~ Georges Noblet, UK 2005.

http://www.chunsum.com
http://www.pbase.com/chunsum
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr/chunsum_choi

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

armaco wrote:
They did. The new Hasselblad has features comparable to other
medium format digital cameras.

The Sigma does not have features comparable to other APS sized DSLRs.

Features? Hmmmmm .... yes it is nice with features. There was a
discussion elsewhere where SD14 was put down because it was only
150,000 pixels in the LCD. And of course - the competition has
230,000 because that is what is needed today to stay competitive.

"Nice with features"?

I had something a bit more serious than the pixel count of the LCD in mind, like the sophistication of the auto focus, metering, and flash systems (all of which reselble a low end Nikon or Canon from 7 years ago). They've even stripped the SD10's second command dial and gone to a single dial with an aperture/shutter "shift" button like a Nikon and Canon only put on the lowest cost entry level models (D50 and dRebel, respectively).

But ... a good camera is a good camera. Not all cameras needs all
features. The Hassy that is medium format probably don't. And
frankly - a DSLR don't either. The D200 has GPS! Most DSLR have
not. So - can we only buy D200? Nope.

Again, you're picking out "fringe" examples, I'm talking about core usability.

I am an oldie and I remember the older days when there was a
differentiation between mechanical and electronic cameras. OK -
electronic cameras had more bling bling - but the mechanical were
possible to sell nevertheless - at a lower price!

Maybe thats the problem today - all wants to sell at premium
prices. Therefore you don't compete with price. All lower end DSLR
cost around $1000.

Actually, around half that.

$460 Pentax K110D
$500 Oly E-500
$550 Nikon D50

There are no $300 DSLR with much less features -
just plain cameras that take just as good pictures

I don't get the point you're trying to make.

--
Normally, a signature this small can't open its own jumpgate.

Ciao! Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[Tom Rowland]

gheil wrote:
SNIP

If i were research director, i would not put a lot into the AF
system. Maybe a few sensors tuned to wide aperture lenses in some
high end cameras. i would instead concentrate on the AF system for
the coming EVIL lines. This is a totally different kind of focus
system, being based on software as it is. EVIL is the future. dSLRs
are just a temporary, though weirdly profitable, selling station.

A lot of products are just a temporary profit centers. No doubt in my mind gas fuled auto will go the way of the horse and buggy and we will all be riding around in solar power cars, or hydrogen powered cars, or something like that. But I will probably still get a nice price for my used Infinity when I trade it in for a new model.

The point I am trying to make is "temporary" in the sense you are using it may mean 5 years, 10 years, or more; OR LESS. When I first started capturing images I used a Kodak Retina Reflex with Ziess glass (my Dad was a medical doctor and let me use his stuff). When taking photography classes at a university I got a Pentax K1000, and when I graduated and got a job I used a Nikon F body, and later got a Canon AE1.

Because I was a computer nerd doing web work I got a Kodak DC120. It did not have the best IQ but it was OK for web work. As the technology got better I got more and better "temporary" boxes to capture images.

Currently I am using a 8MP one that fills all my needs. And aparently this 8MP box fills the needs of lots of pros since the Canon 1dm2 probably produces most of the images you see in news papers. It is the choice of most sports photographers, news photographers, and lots of other pros that sell their images for a living.

So as a research director I would look into how any new product would fit into the current work flow for most pro photographers that product is targeted at. Can it use existing lens in poor light with a good burst rate to capture wedding images like the 5d or 1ds2 can. Does it have machine gun like burst rate and 45pt AF like the 1d2 does to get BIFs or blitzing CBs. Is it built like a tank so it can be used in self defense like one photojournalist did to smack an attacker in the head and then take a pix of the unconcious assailant. Can it use many of the great super tele lens that Canon seems to have cornered the market on (400 2.8, 400 5.6, 500 4, 600 4) for sports and wildlife imaging?

Anyone who has ever seen a pro sporting event cant help but notice all those white lens on the sidelines, even a research director would know this.

Dont get me wrong. I have a SD10 as well as a 1d2. The SD10 captures much better images (IMHO) when doing well lit macro work. But I have never seen a camera do BIFs like the 1d2 can. But if anyone brings out a new camera that will beat one or both of the DSLR bodies I currently own I will buy it in a flash.

But I expect both of my temporary bodies will be around for longer than you seem to imply in your post.