Here's Why Canon Does Not Need to Innovate

Here's Why Canon Does Not Need to Innovate

Ever since the Canon 5D Mark II, it seems as though Canon has been dragging their feet when it comes to innovating. Their new announcements and releases tend to be met with quite a strong negative response, and although this may not be an overall consensus, it's prominent enough.

Their latest DSLRs, the 5D Mark IV and the 6D Mark II, already feel a little long in the tooth and dated, especially when considering what else is now available.

Nikon's latest addition, the Nikon D850, and Sony's a7R III both seem like they're a whole generation cycle ahead of Canon. New innovations like BSI sensors, in-built stabilization, and significantly better 4K features make them far more appealing. Not to mention they have minor but very useful features such as having a tilting screen and being compatible with newer storage solutions.

Is this an inability to keep up on Canon's part, or is it the fact that Canon simply believes that they don't need to or that they're in fact doing enough?  

Aside from Canon's flagship 1D X Mark II, which in my view is still the best DSLR currently available, Canon seem to be slipping when it comes to releasing new and exciting products. For the most part, the sentiment seems to be against Canon with what seems to be a large number of photographers leaving them for their competitors. Sony seems to be doing really well with their continued releases and frequent updates; for the most part their new cameras are generally met with a huge amount of optimism and support. The a7R III might be one of the best full-frame cameras available right now due to the fact that addresses many of its predecessor's shortcomings. This in itself demonstrates a willingness from Sony to not only listen to its customers but implement the feature their customers want. Nikon also released an incredible DSLR, and although their focusing system for video is lacking, it's a minor issue considering the overall performance and requirements it fulfills. 

Canon, on the other hand, seems to remain relatively tone deaf to the market and even after the disappointment of the 5D Mark IV they went on to release the 6D Mark II which received far worse reviews. Somehow, however, Canon seems to remain unaffected by the sentiment and still holds a very large portion of the market. In fact looking at their latest financial results from 2017, they're doing better than ever relative to the market.

Looking at the results above you can see how there is a noticeable downtrend in the market since the peak in 2012. The interesting thing, however, is the fact that Canon remains relatively level for the last three years even with the market in decline. This is actually very impressive and shows their strength when it comes to sales and potentially demonstrates their real market sentiment. Since 2012 the number of sales has effectively been halved yet Canon's sales remain strong in comparison. There has been a noticeable drop in their sales, but nothing near 50 percent. 

As you can see above, Canon has had a great year in both sales and profits. Their sales are up by nearly 20 percent and their operating profits are up by a very significant 44.8 percent. This paints an extremely different picture of Canon's position compared to how many in the industry describe them. You may have heard comparisons with Kodak and that Canon is doomed to fail, Sony and Nikon will eventually take over. The market and the sales figures definitely do not share that sentiment. Is Canon immune to the need to innovate?

What Canon Does Right

Dual Pixel Autofocus

I think we can all agree when I say that Canon's Dual Pixel autofocus is still the best on the market. This system is incredibly useful, easy to use and very effective. Sony has been trying to implement their own autofocus system into their cameras for some time and although they have improved, they're still not there yet. Nikon, on the other hand, doesn't seem like they're even trying in this area. Dual Pixel autofocus is so good that it individually makes a mediocre release like the 6D Mark II, an incredible option for so many people. When it comes to innovation for autofocus, Canon has already done it. 

The EF Mount

Canon has been making incredible lenses for a very long time and their dedication and continued innovations in this area has kept them ahead of the competition. From ultra-wide-angle lenses all the way to super-telephoto lenses, Canon has every kind of photographer pretty much covered. Almost every budget and every kind of photography can be catered for with the EF mount. From exceptional niche tilt-shift lenses to extremely niche lenses like the Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8. To add to that, the EF mount is also incredibly popular for video shooters with many high-end cinema cameras offering EF mount options.  

Color Science

There's a good chance you've heard about Canon's color science and how great it is. Although Nikon cameras do produce very good colors, Canon is more famous for theirs and for good reason. Their color science is extremely good and in stark contrast, it's one of the biggest complaints about Sony's cameras. In fact, Canon's color science is so good that in several of my own comparisons I've found it to be much better and more accurate than even some medium format cameras like the Fujifilm GFX 50s and even the Pentax 645Z. Their color science makes for a much easier and more streamlined workflow and this is especially useful for video too. Footage and images look more natural and skin tones tend to look much better than their competitors. Colors are far more important than having an extra stop of dynamic range or a slightly sharper image. Colors are a fundamental of photography and Canon just gets it right. 


Canon remains consistent in their ability to make pro grade cameras that just work. From usability, build quality, and aftercare, Canon seems to nail it every single time. Even in a recent weather sealing test, the Canon 5D Mark IV performed the best compared to the Nikon D850 and the Sony a7R III. Sony cameras, on the other hand, seem to be rife with issues like overheating, slow lagging software, and weather sealing. Sony's strategy seems to be that they release cameras quickly or too soon and then rely on firmware updates for fixes and band-aids. Even Nikon over the last few years has suffered some pretty significant issues with their batteries and some prominent pro-level cameras like the D600 and D750. Canon just seems to get it right when it comes to really important features. Their cameras are so good when it comes to sheer usability and reliability that I've completely switched from the Sony to the 5D Mark IV for all of my YouTube videos. The crop factor for 4K and bloated file sizes really don't impact workflow as much as having a fast and effective camera with amazing autofocus. 

Final Thoughts

Canon makes cameras that have the most important and fundamental features right. Bells and whistles are fine and are things to get excited about, but if the core features of how a camera is supposed to operate are compromised then it's no longer practical. These are some of the reasons why Canon continues to dominate. The thing to consider here is that Canon has already innovated because they're still ahead when it comes to how their cameras perform for the majority of professionals. Their competitors just don't have the lenses, the autofocus features, or the color science they offer. Has Canon stopped innovating? Not at all if anything they have already provided the most important innovations and it's other companies that are playing catch-up. The 1D X Mark II is still quite possibly the best hybrid video and stills camera on the market. No other camera under $10,000 offers 4K at 60p with a 1.3x crop factor and with something as good as Dual Pixel autofocus. I do have my personal gripes against Canon, but ultimately I'm still using Canon and relying on their cameras for most of my professional needs. There just isn't another viable, effective alternative, especially considering the kind of work I do.

There is, however, a danger that Canon face and that is market sentiment. Canon really needs to improve how it's perceived by releasing cameras that maybe have a few more bells and whistles. Many photographers currently feel let down by Canon, supposedly because they are unwilling to compete. If Canon continues in the way they have over the last couple of years, maybe financial results like these are going to be less frequent for them in the future.

Log in or register to post comments


Previous comments
Usman Dawood's picture

In live Canons DPAF is incredible and Sony isn't as good I'm literally comparing them as we speak with my A7R III. Having said that, through the viewfinder I completely agree with you eye detect is amazing, I absolutely love it. My article covers a whole bunch of things though you've focused in on one thing only.

Jonathan Brady's picture

I can't speak to your testing methodology but from my tests, Sony's AF outperforms Canon's Live View for still images. I've used the 70D, 5D Mark IV, and M5.
As for honing in on one thing, that's the part I disagree with. I like Sony's colors better than Canon's but 1) you didn't mention Sony so I didn't bring it up and 2) I touched on that in the comments section of another article here. Didn't want to beat a dead horse, ya know? :-)

Luc-Richard Elie's picture

Just out of curiosity...Why would a person want to shoot stills in Live VIew? Just Curious....Seems like a Instagram Photographer trait.

Macro work, street photography, over-crowd shooting. If tiltable screens are a request for consumers there must be a use for this screen other than reviewing photos

Simon Patterson's picture

Also very handy when manually focussing for long exposures at night, with a flashlight to illuminate the focus point.

If color accuracy is "EXTREMELY important", then you're certainly using custom profiles, as Canon's color is anything but accurate. Just like Nikon and Fuji, they aim to be pleasing, and throw accuracy out the window in the process. Sony's colors are closest to accurate, which is why they're the least liked.

Usman Dawood's picture

Absolutely using custom colour profiles and several of my articles discuss that. Colour profiles don't give exact results between cameras though and with the Canon 5DSR I was able to get accuracy comparable to the Phase Trichromatic.

I can't do that as well with my Sony.

Mr Hogwallop's picture

I usually shoot automotive work, talk about picky designer describes the silver tone on a concept car as "a gallon of silver paint with a drop of gold".
I have used Nikon and Canon and Phase1, no complaints about color rendition. I now use Sony with mostly Zeiss lenses and C1. No complaints about color, but the shadows are clean and not having an AA filter adds some "snap".
Maybe in the lab Canon color science is "the best" but in the world I think all cameras deliver very good color.

I haven't shot interiors, because that industry is extremely difficult to break into here in Southern California, however I DO work with Hollywood set warehouses to document their inventory, and the owner of the company stands next to me and approves the color accuracy right then and there. It's a pretty intense standard, but a very fun job!

I could use literally ANY half-decent digital camera that I had laying around; the real key to the equation is shooting tethered to a calibrated monitor, and knowing how to get colors perfect on the computer, not the back of the camera.

I've shot jobs with all types of cameras, (Canon, Sony, Nikon, but not Fuji yet) ...and each camera still required almost exactly the same amount of time spent on the usual things, "no that's not mauve enough, it's too pink. Can you make it a little more purple instead of pink?"

Francisco Eduardo de Camargo's picture

Usman Dawood: Sorry, but when you report in your text the focus of Canon is better not made clear that this is video. In focus for photos does not have the same performance with Nikon and Sony playing a much higher role.

Usman Dawood's picture

For stills, Canon still offers the highest resolution and sharpest image possible. This is due to their lenses and the 5DSR. Tony Northrup has demonstrated this several times in his videos too.

Unfortunately, sharpness is only part of the equation. I've had the displeasure of working with 5DSR files at one of my jobs, and they certainly live up to how Canon described them (APS-C quality). And that's rough, because Canon's APS-C is just terrible compared to the rest of the industry. Any other camera would eat it for lunch, and the D850 and A7R III are decades ahead of it in image quality, despite having a few hundred pixels less on the edges. It's probably fine for product and fashion photography in controlled lighting, but it's unreasonable for anything outside the studio, considering the price and sensor size.

Usman Dawood's picture

The only areas where the 5DSR suffers is with dynamic range and ISO. These aspects can be mostly resolved simply by adding a little noise reduction and you would still be left with a clean and more detailed image due to the sheer amount of detail.

You're massively over exaggerating the image quality from the A7R II and III. I have them both and I know what they're capable of in real-world use.

The 5DsR still had a decent resolution edge when the competition could only offer 36-42 megapixels, but IMO the D850 and a sharp lens like the Sigma 85 Art...? I'd take the Nikon any day, for its notably superior overall image quality, in trade for those ~5 megapixels. I think "a little noise reduction" is an oversimplification of the real issue, for any folks who really do need to shoot at higher ISO's, or dig into their shadows at ANY ISO.

As we've discussed before, the 5DsR can be a champ in ideal conditions, but much of the shooting conditions that MANY photographers find themselves are far less than ideal.

Usman Dawood's picture

Don’t get me wrong the D850 is incredible and one of the best cameras made so far. Although the 5DSR is a little long in the tooth now so unfair to compare in some sense.

The point I was trying to make was to discuss how this idea that the 5DSR is a terrible camera in none sense. Even now it can compete through sheer brute force but I agree the D850 is a better camera.

Francisco Eduardo de Camargo's picture

Canon Profit: Selling backward technologies without investing in new research and products, you can, of course, make a higher profit. The problem is the ignorance of most of the market that does not really know that Canon has not been presenting the best products.

Deleted Account's picture

In all fairness, most of the market wouldn't understand or miss the difference.

Bill Peppas's picture

What did I just read ?
If I'm not mistaken, Canon themselves published a PR a few months ago saying something in the likes of "Sorry, we know we haven't been innovating lately and our sensors seem to be dragging behind Sony's and Nikon's"... yet, people still do their best to "worship" them :D

Color Science.
This must be a new term ( and people seem to be oblivious to the fact that you can color match whatever camera output you desire if you have the appropriate knowledge & skills in post processing ) [ for what it's worth, none of the two have accurate colors especially when it comes to skin tones... not even in ideal studio conditions ] { If I hear anything like "auto white balance", I swear I'm going to eat a 400mm prime lens }.

As for the best camera... the D5 is equal or besting the 1D X Mark II in sensor related performance indexes.
And the D850 is hands down the best overall DSLR you can get at this very moment.
The best sensor, a capable performer in every single photography category, autofocus system to die for and an unbeatable price for what it has to offer.

Regarding the sales... the iPhone is the best selling smartphone... is it the best smartphone in terms of performance and feature set ? I doubt it.

In photography Canon has achieved what Apple achieved in the smartphone sector, a big and never stopping fanboy army.
Even when Canon failed hard, 99% of their users didn't break a sweat. Never complained.
That's quite an accomplishment, enough to justify their failures in sensor capabilities progression :D

Fritz Asuro's picture

Check your "facts" again. LOL... "leads in new tech.."

Fritz Asuro's picture

Doesn't make a difference."Barely" would suit them more.

Apple led in technology. They are not leading anymore.

Bill Peppas's picture

Leading is definitely not a word I'd associate with Apple since they have been copying others for like... most of their recent years ( let's say since 2000 ).
Even Steve Jobs talked about that... in his own style however, well, he kinda admitted that they copy other's ideas, and to his own words, they simply make them better, so that way they justified what they are doing :D ( yet their marketing continuously spews bullshit like "Airpods, the best headphons ever", etc etc )

Usman Dawood's picture

"Even when Canon failed hard, 99% of their users didn't break a sweat."


Come on I complain about Canon all the time haha, so do so many Canon users.

About the 1DX and D5 I have to disagree with you but of course, we can have our preferences. the 1DX II is the best on the market in my view.

Sales are in fact a measure to determine the best. It's not the only measure but it's pretty big one.

"In photography Canon has achieved what Apple achieved in the smartphone sector, a big and never stopping fanboy army."

You need to speak to Pentax and Sony Fanboys lol.

Colour science,

"if you have the appropriate knowledge & skills in post processing" How easy do you think it is to colour grade and colour match. These are extremely valuable skills you mention so casually.

Auto White balance :P.

Tony Northrup's picture

I'll just agree that Canon has the weakest fanboy army. We rag on every manufacturer equally so I have some idea 😁.

PS hi Bill!

Bill Peppas's picture

Sales in these days are mostly generated by viral marketing, and Apple leads the pack like a good shepherd.

If we pay attention to the sale numbers for various camera makers and models, we'd be buying the very wrong cameras. If one can say that.

Nikon's best seller lately is the D750. Which is a great overall camera, but has its issues, and is definitely not their best.

Regarding sales and marketing.
You as a non-hardcore Canon fanboy Usman, we shall expect that you don't like the 7D Mark II as much as you'd like the D500 ( for wildlife & sports ).
The D500 is hands down a better machine for the task ( the only thing missing from the Nikon camp there is a f/4 400mm prime ).
Which camera has more sales however ? Last time I checked the 7D Mark II was in the lead.

Anyway, it's just a tool.
No camera will make anyone a better photographer.
Sadly, lots of people get stuck in the "details" ( as in equipment ) and forget all about photography and what makes a great photograph.

Usman Dawood's picture

How long has the 7D Mark II been on sale vs the D500?

Also, how many of those are upgrading from the Mark 1 for Canon?

What options did Nikon have in that particular market prior to the D500 to build that customer base?

You're really, properly oversimplifying this.

Lastly, Canon hardly goes viral, if anything it's more of a disappointment when Canon release and it's Sony that goes super viral.

Canon have a long standing in the industry and have huge customer base that will continue using them for many reasons.

Bill Peppas's picture

They had an equally good D7200...

What is currently saving Canon is the ecosystem. Most people have a healthy collection of lenses and are hesitant to put them for sale take the loss and switch over.

Usman Dawood's picture

I wouldn't say equally as good because the 7D2 was and is a much better camera compared to the D7200 for the specific market it's aimed at. Nikon had to create a new line of camera for that market. Even the update the D7500 is the cheaper "less pro" variant.

Also, the 7D Mark II had 6 months on the D7200.

Wasim Ahmad's picture

So part of this will back up both your points, since I can offer some perspective as an owner of both the D7200 and at one point, the 7D Mark II.

The 7D Mark II was one of the best handling cameras I've ever used. Blazing fast and all the controls in the right places. But the files from the sensor were lousy. Very hard to work with compared to anything Nikon from the same era, D7200 included.

Nikon needed something like the D500 to win back D300s users like me. That camera handles just as well as a 7D Mark II (though I miss the big wheel out back) but with the easier-to-live-with Nikon raw files.

If someone was coming into a system for the first time, the 7D Mark II's getting a little long in the tooth ...

More comments