Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: shadowblade on August 24, 2017, 08:41:38 pm
-
With the D850 announced, it becomes pertinent to ask what Canon has prepared in response.
In the D850, Nikon has a camera with the AF to track fast action with the best of them, the frame rate to not miss the moment, lots of pixels for cropping and enough resolution to do a good job with landscapes (although it may be eclipsed in the latter role sooner rather than later).
Canon has no obvious answer on the horizon. The 5D4, while being the most similar body, is way behind in capability while being around the same price, and would likely be matched by an updated D750 at a far lower price point. The 5D5 isn't due for two more years and would require a huge leap in capability just to match it. The 5Ds is in a different category altogether - it's a slow studio camera that's not great at high ISO (and has limited DR at low ISO) - and any replacement, even if they were to make it a balanced body like the D850, would still have the price issue. Too expensive and the D850 will undercut it, likely by USD1000 or more. Price it competitively and the 5D4 would be pointless, unless they also dropped its price by USD1000.
Will Canon launch a new line (3D)? Elevate the 5D to a higher standard, to match the Nikon? Or will they continue to ignore the competition and live off the momentum and brand loyalty they created 10 years ago and have done little to maintain since? They lost many non-action shooters with the D800 and A7r. The D850 may well do the same for action shooters, if Canon doesn't answer.
-
Be interesting to watch what Canon does. Will it try to match Nikon's all in one camera or will it still deliver multiple cameras focussed on different needs. On the one hand, delivering an all in one camera might just limit their revenue as people migrate to a one camera system...away from multiple cameras for each niche.
I'm not sure Canon is at the same financial stage that Nikon is at. Nikon needed to deliver a home run...or it would have been in big financial trouble...Canon not so much. So I think Canon will continue it's progress like it always has as it has worked nicely these last few years gaining market share over Nikon. I see them focusing on a high speed 1DX line and a high res 5d line as their main pro quality cameras as it's been working for them. Nikon had no choice but to mix things up...their status quo was not working for them.
-
The thing is that Nikon has had a signigicantly superior offering for many years in the high end segment. The 3 years old D810 was still competitive against the 5DIV on photographic skills. The D850 now creates a very large gap but the 5DIV is a good body in absolute terms and most Canon users will stay happy with it.
The relative financial troubles of Nikon (they have been profitable all along) have mostly come from poor marketing towards the lower end.
So rather than direct impact, the key value of the D850 may IMHO be in its ability to spread the word that the best DSLRs, by far, are in Nikon line up. That may have important trickle down effects.
Canon will probably not be able to beat the D850, their best play is probably to sweeten the deals in the mass market segment.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Be interesting to watch what Canon does. Will it try to match Nikon's all in one camera or will it still deliver multiple cameras focussed on different needs. On the one hand, delivering an all in one camera might just limit their revenue as people migrate to a one camera system...away from multiple cameras for each niche.
I'm not sure Canon is at the same financial stage that Nikon is at. Nikon needed to deliver a home run...or it would have been in big financial trouble...Canon not so much. So I think Canon will continue it's progress like it always has as it has worked nicely these last few years gaining market share over Nikon. I see them focusing on a high speed 1DX line and a high res 5d line as their main pro quality cameras as it's been working for them. Nikon had no choice but to mix things up...their status quo was not working for them.
The D850 isn't just a do-it-all camera - it also fulfils a key niche that, up until now, has been poorly-filled.
For the first time, it offers a camera with enough resolution for cropping, having as high a pixel density as crop cameras of the day (e.g. the 20MP D500) while having a high enough frame rate and top-tier AF system to track and capture fast action. This makes it uniquely suited for long telephoto use when shooting wildlife and field sports, as well as for other action where cropping is expected for compositional reasons.
The 1Dx2 doesn't do it - it lacks resolution for cropping. The 5Ds doesn't do it - it's too slow in several different ways. The 5D4 does it poorly, not really having enough resolution (13MP when cropped to 1.5x), a slower frame rate and AF that doesn't quite keeo up with the top tier. Just having a 1Dx2 and 5Ds doesn't fill the role, since resolution and speed/AF are required in the same camera.
-
With Sony's enormous cell phone sensor business and the R&D and production facilities it supports - it's Canon's big problem, not Nikon. Nikon's advantage on Canon now is Sony's one year old sensor technology - Canon lags Sony sensor technology by 2 years +. So far, Sony has enough usability issues to prevent mass defection from Canon and Nikon, but these issues decrease with every generation of Sony camera (and Sony's generations last about half Canon's).
Canon needs to make some big leaps to catch up or decide that they can ultimately afford to lose the camera business.
disclosure - i'm a Canon user and will be for at least a while longer.
-
Perhaps Canon's best bet is to concentrate on their mirrorless lineup, updating lenses and other components to work with the new system. Both Canon and Nikon will have to do it eventually, as mirrorless technology overtakes SLR. Better to do it while your top-end gear doesn't match up with the competition anyway. Then start moving people on to the new system while Nikon is still spruiking old technology (even if top-end) with a limited future - a bit like Kodak concentrating on top-end film while the world was moving to digital.
-
Canon won't answer as they can't. That's my guess. It has been the same with the d800 at the time. A while back Canon was over confident and slept instead of pushing for the future.
The only answer to the 850 will come from Sony with 60MP camera.
Besides that I could be wrong, but expect it to be very difficult to up MP count significantly with keeping or increasing DR.
In the end let's see what happens.
Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk
-
Canon won't answer as they can't. That's my guess. It has been the same with the d800 at the time. A while back Canon was over confident and slept instead of pushing for the future.
The only answer to the 850 will come from Sony with 60MP camera.
Besides that I could be wrong, but expect it to be very difficult to up MP count significantly with keeping or increasing DR.
In the end let's see what happens.
Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk
I'd say they can.
The 1Dx2 can shoot 20MP at 16fps. That's enough bandwidth for 40MP at 8fps, and that was 18 months ago. So they can probably get enough bandwidth to shoot 50MP at 8-10fps.
The 5Ds manages 50MP, and that was with Canon's old fab plants. So Canon can clearly put a 50MP sensor into mass production.
The 1Dx2 and 5D4, using their newer fab plants, manage competitive, if not record-beating, DR values.
The 1Dx2 AF system is also competitive.
So Canon had all the elements available to make something competitive - they just need to put them all into one camera and sell it at a competitive price.
Whether they will or not is another matter entirely. Canon is a company with a conservative business culture which listens mostly to the local Japanese market, with market segmentation based on the peculiarities and needs of different groups of photographers there rather than the needs of those in the wider world.
-
Canon has had the elements to release great DSLRs for years.
Nikon has had the elements to release great mirrorless cameras for years.
This discussion isn't at all about technology, it is about strategy and product planning.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Canon has had the elements to release great DSLRs for years.
Nikon has had the elements to release great mirrorless cameras for years.
This discussion isn't at all about technology, it is about strategy and product planning.
Cheers,
Bernard
Not entirely.
Canon was flat-out unable to make a high-DR sensor until they brought their new fab plant online around 2 years ago, starting with the 80D. Their older plants are unable to do column-parallel ADC. This is why the 5Ds - a non-action camera designed to work at base ISO - has such limited DR there.
Nikon has yet to demonstrate a decent mirrorless camera. The AF system is key, and, unlike Canon, Sony and even Olympus and Fujifilm, they've yet to demonstrate one that works well. M43, APS-C, let alone FF, have much shallower depth of field and aren't nearly as forgiving as the J1 with its 2.7x crop factor, which leaves almost everything in focus anyway. Certainly, they haven't demonstrated good AF in either live view or a video camera, which is essentially what mirrorless AF is.
But product planning is certainly a big factor, particularly in Canon's case, since Canon tends to not do a lot of things it is technically capable of and which would certainly be a market success (although possibly at the expense of other product lines).
-
One might say that Canon expects the wildlife shooter to get either the 7D2, if amateur (a fine match with my modest 400mm f/5.6L), or the 1DX/XII if pro and shooting the really large Big Whites that need mega-batteries to move large lens elements fast.
I would like Canon to come up with better DR. The cost and effort of switching platforms is substantial, though I admit that I would like to visit the other universe for a bit (beyond my playing with old AIS lenses adapted to Canon mount).
-
I admit that I would like to visit the other universe for a bit (beyond my playing with old AIS lenses adapted to Canon mount).
Come to the bright side Nancy, come,... ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The D850 isn't just a do-it-all camera - it also fulfils a key niche that, up until now, has been poorly-filled.
For the first time, it offers a camera with enough resolution for cropping, having as high a pixel density as crop cameras of the day (e.g. the 20MP D500) while having a high enough frame rate and top-tier AF system to track and capture fast action. This makes it uniquely suited for long telephoto use when shooting wildlife and field sports, as well as for other action where cropping is expected for compositional reasons.
The 1Dx2 doesn't do it - it lacks resolution for cropping. The 5Ds doesn't do it - it's too slow in several different ways. The 5D4 does it poorly, not really having enough resolution (13MP when cropped to 1.5x), a slower frame rate and AF that doesn't quite keeo up with the top tier. Just having a 1Dx2 and 5Ds doesn't fill the role, since resolution and speed/AF are required in the same camera.
Sure...how large is this niche compared to say weddings or portraits or events? That's what I'm saying...Canon is doing very well serving the BIG markets and not really caring for the small niche markets.
-
Sure...how large is this niche compared to say weddings or portraits or events? That's what I'm saying...Canon is doing very well serving the BIG markets and not really caring for the small niche markets.
Sports and wildlife is a decent-sized market, and, more importantly, is the primary buyer of expensive long telephotos.
A full-frame body with the pixel density of a crop sensor and the frame rate and AF system necessary to shoot fast action is a game-changer. Many action shooters carry a crop body as backup just for shots where they may be focal length limited. This is not ideal in terms of compositional flexibility or if the crop camera doesn't stack up AF-wise (e.g. 7D2). So action shooters are often left cropping 20MP frames to 6MP - fine for web and smaller prints, but not great if you're going to print a poster. 46MP, cropping to 20-35MP, is much more versatile.
Basically, many sports and wildlife photographers are using 20MP/16fps because 40-50MP/8-10fps isn't available. Sure, some people really need the extra frame rate. But others don't need ridiculous frame rates, but need more resolution for cropping, and still need the autofocus of an action camera. That's what the D850 offers. And almost any action photographer can do with one of each - one body for the ultimate frame rate, the other with a more moderate frame rate but more resolution, both able to track action and cover for each other if need be.
-
One might say that Canon expects the wildlife shooter to get either the 7D2, if amateur (a fine match with my modest 400mm f/5.6L), or the 1DX/XII if pro and shooting the really large Big Whites that need mega-batteries to move large lens elements fast.
Neither is a great option - even at 500mm or 600mm, you will often be cropping, while you often need to frame loosely and crop for compositional due to subject movement. Same with field sports - they will often shoot everything with a 400/2.8 and crop for composition. Much better to have 20MP left after cropping than 6...
-
Sports and wildlife is a decent-sized market, and, more importantly, is the primary buyer of expensive long telephotos.
A full-frame body with the pixel density of a crop sensor and the frame rate and AF system necessary to shoot fast action is a game-changer. Many action shooters carry a crop body as backup just for shots where they may be focal length limited. This is not ideal in terms of compositional flexibility or if the crop camera doesn't stack up AF-wise (e.g. 7D2). So action shooters are often left cropping 20MP frames to 6MP - fine for web and smaller prints, but not great if you're going to print a poster. 46MP, cropping to 20-35MP, is much more versatile.
Basically, many sports and wildlife photographers are using 20MP/16fps because 40-50MP/8-10fps isn't available. Sure, some people really need the extra frame rate. But others don't need ridiculous frame rates, but need more resolution for cropping, and still need the autofocus of an action camera. That's what the D850 offers. And almost any action photographer can do with one of each - one body for the ultimate frame rate, the other with a more moderate frame rate but more resolution, both able to track action and cover for each other if need be.
How large do you think the sports photo market is? It's size has dropped considerably since it's days. Now the wildlife market is truly a drop in the bucket...basically a hobby market...very few professional wildlife photographers out there.
Compare this to the wedding, portrait and event markets...big difference.
-
How large do you think the sports photo market is? It's size has dropped considerably since it's days. Now the wildlife market is truly a drop in the bucket...basically a hobby market...very few professional wildlife photographers out there.
Compare this to the wedding, portrait and event markets...big difference.
How do you explain the existence of the 1Dx2 and D5, then? (I'll regard the A9 as a technology demonstrator at the moment, since, without an adequate lens collection, it's not really usable for wildlife or sports anyway)
The market for them is even smaller than the potential market for something with more balance between frame rate and resolution. Make it 40-50MP and 8-10fps (which is still as fast as a D3 or 1D3), with a good sRAW mode, and you'd have a lot more potential buyers.
-
One thing to consider Shadow is I spose that rumours around the D850 were VERY thin on the ground before the lead up to the release. We had assumptions that it would use the D5 AF system but the combination of very high resolution AND high FPS is not something I recall ever being mentioned, at most some people were expecting it to stay at 36 MP and maybe up FPS to 6-7. That could mean that Canon themselves did not know what Nikon was going to come out with which could delay any response.
I'v seen a lot of talk saying the D850 isn't really a revolutionary camera because its combining a lot of existing tech with a decent(but not massive) resolution bump. Whilst you could counter that specifically with the speed/resolution combination to me whats perhaps even more significantly is that it seems to represent a shift in mentality for bodies at this level. Previously there was I'd say always somewhat of the feeling you were dealing with releases that were intentionally limited to either avoid cannibalising sales of flagship bodies or were holding back leaving room for a future update. This camera on the other hand seems like more of a case of Nikon throwing everything it has into the body besides perhaps build(relative to the D5) so again perhaps something likely to catch rivals on the hop?
The language coming out of Nikon after the DL debacle did seem to point at significant changes in there corporate mentality. The 1 series mirrorless bodies for example were for many THE classic case of a product sabotaged by trying to avoid cannibalisation of its existing business.
-
How do you explain the existence of the 1Dx2 and D5, then? (I'll regard the A9 as a technology demonstrator at the moment, since, without an adequate lens collection, it's not really usable for wildlife or sports anyway)
The market for them is even smaller than the potential market for something with more balance between frame rate and resolution. Make it 40-50MP and 8-10fps (which is still as fast as a D3 or 1D3), with a good sRAW mode, and you'd have a lot more potential buyers.
Flagship cameras to show off their muscle so all the wannabe photographers can see the big cameras and lenses and want to be like the pros. You highly doubt Canon or Nikon sell very many high end cameras...the money is at the consumer / advanced amature end.
-
Flagship cameras to show off their muscle so all the wannabe photographers can see the big cameras and lenses and want to be like the pros. You highly doubt Canon or Nikon sell very many high end cameras...the money is at the consumer / advanced amature end.
Not really, consumer camera are selling less and less... the market is the advance amateur and pro market. Look at all manufacturer, releasing more and more camera close to 2000$ or higher than that... in all the interviews of different manufacturers are saying that they sell less cameras but more in the pro sector so they can still get more money that when they were selling lots of consumer cameras. The decline in selling cameras (interchangeable lens ones) since 2012 it is mainly in consumer cameras.
http://dgpfotografia.com
-
Not really, consumer camera are selling less and less... the market is the advance amateur and pro market. Look at all manufacturer, releasing more and more camera close to 2000$ or higher than that... in all the interviews of different manufacturers are saying that they sell less cameras but more in the pro sector so they can still get more money that when they were selling lots of consumer cameras. The decline in selling cameras (interchangeable lens ones) since 2012 it is mainly in consumer cameras.
http://dgpfotografia.com
Sure I agree...but my view of consumer camera is the 6d line along with the 5d line. The 1dx line is fully professional. In today's depressed camera market...I'd bet the rebels still outsell all other cameras by 10x.
-
One thing to consider Shadow is I spose that rumours around the D850 were VERY thin on the ground before the lead up to the release. We had assumptions that it would use the D5 AF system but the combination of very high resolution AND high FPS is not something I recall ever being mentioned, at most some people were expecting it to stay at 36 MP and maybe up FPS to 6-7. That could mean that Canon themselves did not know what Nikon was going to come out with which could delay any response.
I'v seen a lot of talk saying the D850 isn't really a revolutionary camera because its combining a lot of existing tech with a decent(but not massive) resolution bump. Whilst you could counter that specifically with the speed/resolution combination to me whats perhaps even more significantly is that it seems to represent a shift in mentality for bodies at this level. Previously there was I'd say always somewhat of the feeling you were dealing with releases that were intentionally limited to either avoid cannibalising sales of flagship bodies or were holding back leaving room for a future update. This camera on the other hand seems like more of a case of Nikon throwing everything it has into the body besides perhaps build(relative to the D5) so again perhaps something likely to catch rivals on the hop?
The language coming out of Nikon after the DL debacle did seem to point at significant changes in there corporate mentality. The 1 series mirrorless bodies for example were for many THE classic case of a product sabotaged by trying to avoid cannibalisation of its existing business.
It's a revolutionary design. The individual parts are not (AF system from the D5, sensor which likely isn't too different from other sensors Sony has put out recently, etc.), but when combined, bring capabilities that have never previously existed in a commercially-available camera. No other camera combines the AF of a top-tier camera with a full-frame sensor that has as high a pixel density as a contemporary crop sensor (i.e. leaving no reach advantage to the crop body, while giving the new camera much more cropping flexibility), while being capable of shooting in the 8-10fps range required of a sports or wildlife camera. Prior to this, the closest we had was the 5D4, but that doesn't have quite the frame rate of an action camera, nor the resolution needed to completely negate the reach advantage of a crop sensor.
I think what may be emerging is a realisation that the pro market isn't a monolithic block of sports photographers who just want speed, speed and more speed. There are also those who need resolution, resolution and more resolution (and some DR) - commercial/studio/advertising photographers (some of whom previously shot digital MF), real estate photographers, those shooting backdrops and textures for TV, cinema, VR and other SFX, etc. Then there are those who need a balance - field sports, wildlife documentary and others (typically operating at longer focal lengths) who need sufficient resolution as wel as sufficient speed, as well as photojournalists and other general/all-subject photographers who need a do-everything body (or a pair of them) rather than something that specialises too much at one end, at the expense of the other. And, increasingly, they may be realising that, just because these groups don't require the frame rates of the speed-focused photographers doesn't mean that they don't need the same AF, build and other features of the top bodies. Just as importantly, the technology, especially in terms of data handling speed, now allows it - if you can make a 24MP/20fps body, as well as a 24MP crop sensor, you can also make a 48MP/10fps full-frame body. And all these capabilities are necessary to reach the next milestone of an 8k video camera (39MP at a minimum 25fps, if keeping the 3:2 aspect ratio), so they do not represent wasted effort catering to photographers alone.
There have always been three basic groups of requirements among those wanting top-tier bodies - speed-focused, balanced speed and resolution, and resolution-focused. Even in the film days, this would have been represented by 35mm cameras with motor drive systems (speed), the same 35mm camera without the motor drive (balanced) and medium-format film. There is also often overlap between the groups - a sports photographer will also often want a balanced second body for longer-distance shots or sports played on larger fields, while a resolution-focused photographer will often also want a balanced second body for occasional action use. So far, the speed-focused group has been very well served, but the other groups have been somewhat neglected since the demise of the D3x and 1Ds3 (both resolution-only) and D700 (balanced) bodies, having to rely on bodies with second-tier AF capabilities in order to meet the resolution and frame rate requirements. This is obviously more of a problem for the balanced group than the resolution-focused group, since the latter are likely to be shooting static subjects anyway. The D850 elevates the balanced group to the top tier again. I would guess that the 5Ds2 would do the same for the resolution-focused group, since it will almost certainly have a higher resolution than the 5Ds (and, by definition, the D850); seeing the D850, Canon still has time to put a 1Dx2-level AF system into it to remain competitive, even if they had been intending to use a 5D4-level system. Getting blindsided by the D850 is one thing (I believe Canon were blindsided by the initial D800, or, at the very least, knew about it but were in no position to compete against it). Getting blindsided and then being stubborn enough to ignore it is a whole new level of stupidity. I would say that Sony's next few releases will also do the same, at least for the A7r2 replacement (using the A9 AF system) in the 'resolution-focused' group, and possibly a 'balanced' body as well - unlike Canon, there's little chance that Sony didn't know what Nikon was up to, since they made their sensor!
-
Flagship cameras to show off their muscle so all the wannabe photographers can see the big cameras and lenses and want to be like the pros. You highly doubt Canon or Nikon sell very many high end cameras...the money is at the consumer / advanced amature end.
Consumer cameras are dying. Pro-level cameras (5D/D750 and up, being the weapon of choice for wedding/event pros) may not sell as many units in absolute numbers, but the profit margin in these bodies is greater than that of lesser bodies, both in absolute and percentage terms. Also, pro camera sales come with pro lens sales. A consumer body sells them a few kit lenses and the odd mid-grade lens. A pro body sells them a whole set of top-end lenses - 11-24/4, 14-24/2.8 or 16-35/2.8, 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8 and usually at least one longer telephoto (zoom or prime) and often some primes too.
One 5D4 or D810 sale probably nets Canon or Nikon as much profit as 20-30 sales of entry-level crop bodies, all things considered.
-
Consumer cameras are dying. Pro-level cameras (5D/D750 and up, being the weapon of choice for wedding/event pros) may not sell as many units in absolute numbers, but the profit margin in these bodies is greater than that of lesser bodies, both in absolute and percentage terms. Also, pro camera sales come with pro lens sales. A consumer body sells them a few kit lenses and the odd mid-grade lens. A pro body sells them a whole set of top-end lenses - 11-24/4, 14-24/2.8 or 16-35/2.8, 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8 and usually at least one longer telephoto (zoom or prime) and often some primes too.
One 5D4 or D810 sale probably nets Canon or Nikon as much profit as 20-30 sales of entry-level crop bodies, all things considered.
If the pro market is where its at for the camera manufactures...why are they hurting lately and scrambling so much as the phones eat into their consumer market?
Consumer market is magnitudes larger than any pro market. Since they basically lost the consumer market to phones, they have no choice but to concentrate on the higher end market and we'll all pay for this with high cost gear. The consumer market used to pay for all the nice R&D for the high end gear...now it has to stand on it's own. Both you and I will be paying much more in the future for our equipment. Cameras being basically digital devices will not see the huge price drops as other digital devices because the consumer segment has been eroded.
-
If the pro market is where its at for the camera manufactures...why are they hurting lately and scrambling so much as the phones eat into their consumer market?
Consumer market is magnitudes larger than any pro market. Since they basically lost the consumer market to phones, they have no choice but to concentrate on the higher end market and we'll all pay for this with high cost gear. The consumer market used to pay for all the nice R&D for the high end gear...now it has to stand on it's own. Both you and I will be paying much more in the future for our equipment. Cameras being basically digital devices will not see the huge price drops as other digital devices because the consumer segment has been eroded.
Because losing a significant chunk of your income still hurts. The consumer market isn't 90% of the interchangeable-lens camera market by profit, but nor is it 10%.
The point-and-shoot market is essentially dead, and this was the high-profitable segment they are scrambling to replace, as point-and-shoots are cheap to manufacture and could be sold in large volumes (one or two orders of magnitude bigger than the entire interchangeable-lens market by units sold) and at a steep markup. Camera manufacturers are having to shift from selling whole cameras to this market to providing camera units to go in phones, drones, driverless cars and other consumer goods for non-photographers. Canon and Sony are well-placed to do this, since they actually design and manufacture sensors themselves. And you can see it in their product development and the technologies they have been pioneering. Where do you think curved-sensor cameras are first going to show up? Odds on it will be a phone - a curved sensor can give improved image quality on the small sensor, while the simplified lens can be both thinner and sharper. On-sensor AF (since all compact/phone cameras are mirrorless), BSI (small pixel pitch), stacked sensors (ditto), five-axis stabilisation (phones are held at arm's length, drones and cars vibrate) and other technologies are similarly applicable - the big cameras are merely the showcase for them, not the primary reason for developing them. Those who don't design and make sensors are going to find it much harder to compete in the new environment, deprived of the point-and-shoot market and with no way of replacing it.
-
To be fair I think a lot of this comes down to semantics, I'm guessing that when Shadow says "pro" he's taking more about a level of product rather than whether those buying are actually professionals, the majority of people buying the D850 will likely be amateurs.
I do think he touches on an important point that a lot of analysis of the camera market seems to highly questionable because it seeks to compare it with consumer electronics like phones were price and profit margins are far more standardised, looking purely at shipment numbers of example. Really though photography has always tended to be a business with strong potential for very high value sales, whats happening now is I think more of a reversion after the blip of early digital.
A big thing to consider as well of course is R&D, whilst doubtless the D850 wasn't cheap to produce it most likely did not have to excessive a cost due to reusing and building on existing tech. I would imagine that Sony for example tends to have a lower profit margin on its FE bodies due to higher R&D costs. What will be interesting to see as well is whether this means Nikon is able to introduce potential new mirrorless products in the near future or whether perhaps its prioritised the D850 more heavily.
-
I believe Canon were blindsided by the initial D800, or, at the very least, knew about it but were in no position to compete against it. Getting blindsided and then being stubborn enough to ignore it is a whole new level of stupidity.
I expect Canon to do exactly this - ignore the competition and do their own thing as long as they hit their sales targets. They seem to have a knack for manufacturing cameras that the general public likes well enough to buy them in large(r) quantities (see e.g. Amazon's top 20 best selling DSLRs list). They promote their products too - here I can go to a free promo event at least 4 times a year and play will all the Canon gear I want. Other brands? Nothing.
-
To be fair I think a lot of this comes down to semantics, I'm guessing that when Shadow says "pro" he's taking more about a level of product rather than whether those buying are actually professionals, the majority of people buying the D850 will likely be amateurs.
Given that amateurs likely outnumber pros by 100-1, no doubt the majority of D850, and even D5, users will be amateurs. It's the capability that counts.
In fact, the only type of camera that would sell more to pros than amateurs is not the best, fastest, highest-resolution camera, but a technical, highly specialised, possibly scientific camera which is designed for a specific task and has almost no use in actual photography - say, something designed for art reproduction, or a scientific camera shooting 1MP at 3000 frames per second. Anything useful in any way for general photography will sell to more amateurs than pros, just by sheer weight of numbers.
A big thing to consider as well of course is R&D, whilst doubtless the D850 wasn't cheap to produce it most likely did not have to excessive a cost due to reusing and building on existing tech. I would imagine that Sony for example tends to have a lower profit margin on its FE bodies due to higher R&D costs. What will be interesting to see as well is whether this means Nikon is able to introduce potential new mirrorless products in the near future or whether perhaps its prioritised the D850 more heavily.
On the other hand, as a major sensor supplier, Sony's development costs can be amortised among a much larger range of products than just high-end camera bodies.
BSI, for example, is even more useful to a densely-packed phone camera than it is to a full-frame camera. Developments in on-sensor and AI-based AF are equally applicable to phone/drone/car cameras as they are to standalone units. Same with movable sensor technology (e.g. stabilisation).
Canon's developments can be similarly amortised, since they also make video equipment as well as still cameras, and are starting to become a sensor supplier for non-still-camera applications.
Meanwhile, most of Nikon's development costs can only be recovered from sales of their own cameras.
-
Getting blindsided and then being stubborn enough to ignore it is a whole new level of stupidity.
Nikon marketshare goes down vs Canon's... that shows who is stupid and who is not ;D ...
-
On the other hand, as a major sensor supplier, Sony's development costs can be amortised among a much larger range of products than just high-end camera bodies.
BSI, for example, is even more useful to a densely-packed phone camera than it is to a full-frame camera. Developments in on-sensor and AI-based AF are equally applicable to phone/drone/car cameras as they are to standalone units. Same with movable sensor technology (e.g. stabilisation).
Canon's developments can be similarly amortised, since they also make video equipment as well as still cameras, and are starting to become a sensor supplier for non-still-camera applications.
Meanwhile, most of Nikon's development costs can only be recovered from sales of their own cameras.
You say "Sony" but really your essentially dealing with two separate companies there in terms of the sensor division and the camera division, I was referring to the latter.
You might well be right that Nikon lacking a videocamera business is naturally less inclined towards mirrorless development although in some respects the one series was pretty forward looking being well ahead of the comp in AF performance at the time.
-
You say "Sony" but really your essentially dealing with two separate companies there in terms of the sensor division and the camera division, I was referring to the latter.
You might well be right that Nikon lacking a videocamera business is naturally less inclined towards mirrorless development although in some respects the one series was pretty forward looking being well ahead of the comp in AF performance at the time.
They're one and the same - the leadership is the same at the top level, and the overall strategy is thr same. Splitting into separate companies under one shell was an organisational tool for a large company getting too big and diverse to manage, not a case of jist splitting up and going the same way. Each company works towards the common goal, as directed by overall management - no different to a nation having a navy, air force and army working as separate organisations under a unified command, towards a common goal.
The 1-series is years old and its AF requirements are far less onerous than that of a full-frame camera - being a 2.7x crop, almost everything is in focus anyway. I'm not even sure who designed the sensor - being a mirrorless camera, the AF system is integral to the sensor itself, and Nikon doesn't make sensors.
-
Nikon marketshare goes down vs Canon's... that shows who is stupid and who is not ;D ...
One point doesn't make a trend. The overall trend for both Canon and Nikon are down (since the camera market is turning from a two-horse race to a three-horse race), with Canon starting from a higher base.
Looking at the longer trend, each time one company releases a disruptive new product, with no answer from the other side, the other loses a chunk of market share. It happened with the 1D2 (CMOS), 5D (cheaper full-frame) and 5D2 (high-resolution and video), accounting for a string of Canon wins early in the digital era and a large part of their current market share. More recently, it happened with the D800 and was reinforced with the D810; the D750 had a smaller effect, likely because it didn't so much bring new capability as it brought a better 5D3 at a lower price point. And it will happen again with the D850. The bottom end is dropping out of the camera business, so the fight for high-end market share is much more important now. Canon and its big, white sports lenses still has an advantage here (a legacy from when Canon held a major technological advantage) but this has been steadily dropping with each generation, likely as old telephotos reach the end of their service lives and users lool to replace them with the current best and newest.
-
The 32mm 1.2 is a very sharp lens with shallow enough DoF and it was focused very fast and consistently by 1 series cameras. I know, I owned and used that lens.
The AF of these was years ahead of competitin and there is little doubt that the sensor, manufactured by Aptina, were using Nikon's design.
When Nikon decides to go mirrorless they are likely to maintain their lead in AF technology. The real AP is in the AI based algos that predict subject movement and the D5 demonstrates clearly enough their superiority.
Make no mistake, everything they did not delver on the D850 in terms of lve view AF is already part of a strategy aimed at creating psitve differentiatin for their mirrorless body.
The real concern of Nikon isn't to be able to beat Sony, it is to be able to beat their class leading DSLRs.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The 32mm 1.2 is a very sharp lens with shallow enough DoF and it was focused very fast and consistently by 1 series cameras. I know, I owned and used that lens.
The AF of these was years ahead of competitin and there is little doubt that the sensor, manufactured by Aptina, were using Nikon's design.
When Nikon decides to go mirrorless they are likely to maintain their lead in AF technology. The real AP is in the AI based algos that predict subject movement and the D5 demonstrates clearly enough their superiority.
Make no mistake, everything they did not delver on the D850 in terms of lve view AF is already part of a strategy aimed at creating psitve differentiatin for their mirrorless body.
The real concern of Nikon isn't to be able to beat Sony, it is to be able to beat their class leading DSLRs.
Cheers,
Bernard
Focusing an f/1.2 lens on full frame is completely different to focusing it on a 2.7x crop. The DOF is so thin there's no margin for error. It's the difference between focusing f/1.4 and f/4 on full-frame.
'Lead'? They haven't released a body or shown any evidence of their mirrorless capabilities in years. None of their current bodies AF particularly well in live view mode. They'll be up against the A9, not an A7 or A7r which was little more than a rapidly-replaced prototype. A system that makes very heavy use of AI-based algorithms for predictive tracking and subject identification, and does it very well. They'll also be up against Canon and its dual-pixel technology, which is proven and works well in multiple existing bodies. Meanwhile, very little of Nikon's developments in SLR AF can be translated to mirrorless cameras, nor can most of their lens lineup (since they lack stepping motors).
-
DoF is impacted by focal length, aperture, subject distance and little document lens technological factors that aren't easy to model with simple formulas.
Here is an image shot with a 28mm f1.4 lens at f1.4.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4388/35976616633_ca2c52fc54_o.jpg)
I am sure you would agree that a 32mm f1.2 at f1.2 will have less DoF all other things equal right? Even compensating for the fact that subject distance would typically be longer with a 32mm lens, it seems to me that the amount of DoF isn't large enough to make an accurate AF not needed. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
DoF is impacted by focal length, aperture, subject distance and little document lens technological factors that aren't easy to model with simple formulas.
Here is an image shot with a 28mm f1.4 lens at f1.4.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4388/35976616633_ca2c52fc54_o.jpg)
I am sure you would agree that a 32mm f1.2 at f1.2 will have less DoF all other things equal right? Even compensating for the fact that subject distance would typically be longer with a 32mm lens, it seems to me that the amount of DoF isn't large enough to make an accurate AF not needed. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
No, DOF is impacted only by sensor size, aperture, focal length and subject distance. It's based on simple optical formulae, which are easy to calculate. The relationship is such that, for any given framing at the plane of focus, the depth of field will be the same at the same aperture and sensor size, regardless of the distance and focal length - a composition that subtends a 40x60cm rectangle at the focal plane on a full-frame sensor will have the same DOF at f/2.8, whether you're shooting at 24mm or 400mm. The only difference is the distance. You can calculate it. Resolution has an indirect effect - the full resolution of a high-resolution sensor is realised over a narrower band than a low-resolution sensor - but the depth of field doesn't change.
A f/1.2 lens on 2.7x crop will have the same DOF as f/3.2 on full frame. It will also have much less glass to move than a full-frame lens, so, other factors being equal, should move faster.
-
One point doesn't make a trend.
it is not one point
with Canon starting from a higher base.
which it got by kicking N's a$$ back then and still does now even with ILCamera going racing to the bottom... the "best" cameras as defined by "various forums" don't make the company successful
-
One point doesn't make a trend. The overall trend for both Canon and Nikon are down (since the camera market is turning from a two-horse race to a three-horse race), with Canon starting from a higher base.
Looking at the longer trend, each time one company releases a disruptive new product, with no answer from the other side, the other loses a chunk of market share. It happened with the 1D2 (CMOS), 5D (cheaper full-frame) and 5D2 (high-resolution and video), accounting for a string of Canon wins early in the digital era and a large part of their current market share. More recently, it happened with the D800 and was reinforced with the D810; the D750 had a smaller effect, likely because it didn't so much bring new capability as it brought a better 5D3 at a lower price point. And it will happen again with the D850. The bottom end is dropping out of the camera business, so the fight for high-end market share is much more important now. Canon and its big, white sports lenses still has an advantage here (a legacy from when Canon held a major technological advantage) but this has been steadily dropping with each generation, likely as old telephotos reach the end of their service lives and users lool to replace them with the current best and newest.
As I recall not too long ago Canon and Nikon were almost neck and neck as far as market share. Today...Nikon's market share has been slipping every year and now sits at less than 25% as published by Nikon themselves...that's a substantial drop. So the camera pie is shrinking big time and Nikon's piece of that pie is also shrinking big time. Not sure one higher end camera will change much.
-
As I recall not too long ago Canon and Nikon were almost neck and neck as far as market share. Today...Nikon's market share has been slipping every year and now sits at less than 25% as published by Nikon themselves...that's a substantial drop. So the camera pie is shrinking big time and Nikon's piece of that pie is also shrinking big time. Not sure one higher end camera will change much.
The bottom is dropping out of the low-end interchangeable lens camera market. Unless you make sensors for phones/drones/non-cameras, the high end is all that's left to compete for. It's also the region where Canon has been historically strongest (sports cameras and the 5D2) but is now technologically weakest.
Canon has a large market share of a dying sector within the camera market. The high end is the future, and is up for grabs.
But I think Nikon's left it too late to win much market share, even with a great camera with no real weaknesses - the SLR's days are numbered and some people would be loathe to switch to a system whose lenses may not be fully compatible with a future mirrorless system. More likely, they'd stick with whatever system they already have (Canon in most cases) and switch to a mirrorless system when the time comes, when mirrorless is more mature (the A9 likely represents a watershed moment in capability) and their gear is up for replacement anyway.
-
They're one and the same - the leadership is the same at the top level, and the overall strategy is thr same. Splitting into separate companies under one shell was an organisational tool for a large company getting too big and diverse to manage, not a case of jist splitting up and going the same way. Each company works towards the common goal, as directed by overall management - no different to a nation having a navy, air force and army working as separate organisations under a unified command, towards a common goal.
The 1-series is years old and its AF requirements are far less onerous than that of a full-frame camera - being a 2.7x crop, almost everything is in focus anyway. I'm not even sure who designed the sensor - being a mirrorless camera, the AF system is integral to the sensor itself, and Nikon doesn't make sensors.
Sony might own both companies but the sensor business was spun off awhile ago so operates independently from the camera division. Indeed the main reason companies do that is that they want a division to maximise its own profits by not having to deal with company politics, so its run for its own benefit not to potentially benefit over sub divisions. Whilst doubtless the camera division has input into the sensors(and some exclusivity to sensor built with that input) it uses sometimes just as Nikon do the cost of sensor fabrication R&D is not directly connected to it.
-
Sony might own both companies but the sensor business was spun off awhile ago so operates independently from the camera division. Indeed the main reason companies do that is that they want a division to maximise its own profits by not having to deal with company politics, so its run for its own benefit not to potentially benefit over sub divisions. Whilst doubtless the camera division has input into the sensors(and some exclusivity to sensor built with that input) it uses sometimes just as Nikon do the cost of sensor fabrication R&D is not directly connected to it.
For most things, yes. But Sony as a whole still has an overarching strategy, just like any conglomerate comprising several related companies. None of the subsidiary companies are going to do anything which goes against this strategy or which adversely affects the group as a whole, even id it benefits that particular subsidiary. Sony's CEO or chairman (can't remember which) recently emphasised that approach in an interview.
-
Sony might own both companies but the sensor business was spun off awhile ago so operates independently from the camera division. Indeed the main reason companies do that is that they want a division to maximise its own profits by not having to deal with company politics, so its run for its own benefit not to potentially benefit over sub divisions. Whilst doubtless the camera division has input into the sensors(and some exclusivity to sensor built with that input) it uses sometimes just as Nikon do the cost of sensor fabrication R&D is not directly connected to it.
Unless you are inside Sony's boardroom...all you are doing is speculating. I was part of a company that had a unit split off and be independent...guess who sat in on the specifications and design of new technology?
-
Unless you are inside Sony's boardroom...all you are doing is speculating. I was part of a company that had a unit split off and be independent...guess who sat in on the specifications and design of new technology?
I can believe that but we were talking about R&D cost of the D850 relative to the FE system for the Sony imaging divison and shadow said those costs would be spread to other buyers of Sony sensors when in that case your talking R&D spending of the Sony sensor division. Even without taking the costs of advancements in sensor fabrication into the equation I would image the R&D costs of something like the A9 is higher than the D850 because its dealing with newer still developing tech.
-
I can believe that but we were talking about R&D cost of the D850 relative to the FE system for the Sony imaging divison and shadow said those costs would be spread to other buyers of Sony sensors when in that case your talking R&D spending of the Sony sensor division. Even without taking the costs of advancements in sensor fabrication into the equation I would image the R&D costs of something like the A9 is higher than the D850 because its dealing with newer still developing tech.
Mirrorless cameras integrate a lot more functions onto the main sensor than SLRs. AF, metering, exposure, etc. are all handled by whovever is making the sensor (although either end may be responsible for the algorithms).
Also, Sony as a whole is not going to care which of its subsidiaries pays the cost of development, since the cost (and profit) ultimately comes back to them anyway. Any expenses in sensor development are equally applicable to other sensors - it's not like new technologies or manufacturing capabilities are applied only to one sensor. Development of the rest of the body also won't be too expensive - a mirrorless camera is mechanically much simpler than an SLR body, while processors, stabilisation systems and data handling electronics are equally applicable to video cameras, phone camera units and other cameras that do not go into standalone stills cameras.
The same thing applies to Canon - many of their development costs can be spread among video cameras, sensors for non-cameras, etc., although to a lesser extent than Sony.
Meanwhile, if all you make is cameras, all your costs must be recovered through the sale of cameras alone - and, the way the market is moving, that means fewer and fewer units, concentrated at the high end.
-
Regarding Sony, there is a certain level in the business that doesn't care where the costs fall of course. Those individual companies/divisions care greatly however sense their performance is evaluated on cost performance etc. It is easy to say "oh but for this we aren't going to consider that" but all too often the person making the statement isn't the person doing the evaluation :) In the grand scheme of things I agree, Sony spreads the R&D cost over every place the technology is utilized. That doesn't mean there are not some internal difficulties and bickering that are part of the process however. I see this in companies large and small all the time.
Regarding Canon. It seems to me that as I read these forums that every time Canon, Nikon, and now Sony come out with a promising body (as opposed to the me too bodies that pop up) we start seeing the doom and gloom speculation on the other competitors.
The D850, by the released specifications, is going to be a great camera. Notice I didn't say best? Best is a personal preference in many ways. We can all compare DR/ISO charts and scream SEE! but in reality there is so little difference in today's technology that it doesn't make that much difference in real terms. I know there are many that disagree with that but it really doesn't. No one is completely missing a shot due to .70 or so stops of DR. They may wish for better image quality, but missing it? I doubt it. Auto-focus? Today's AF at the high end is a different world from what could be had on film bodies. I have one of the Canon EOS 3 bodies with eye-control focus. Really neat technology, in the real world though? Not all that great. FPS? I agree with Shadow here. There is a point at which more fps is just a number. What did photographer's do back when the max was 10 fps or so? Not be able to work? Sure I get it, more is nice I suppose but that is not the same thing as what is available not being sufficient for the vast majority of photographers.
I see the D850 a little differently I think. To me, with the resolution it has, the great DR it has... it is a direct competitor to Canon's 5Ds (current version). In fact, it steps all over it. The resolution loss of 4mp is not that big a deal when you consider the DR difference between the two at low ISO. In addition you get fps and af that can easily be used for those action opportunities that sometimes arise for landscape/studio/macro shooters. Comparing this body to the 5DIV (which I have) is possible but I don't think realistic. The resolution is too far different, so is the speed and af for that matter (although for my purposes the 5DIV has far more than I need).
Does anyone think Canon, or Sony...don't have more technology coming around the corner? We already know Canon were playing around with 120mp foveon sensors years ago, do we think they just dropped it? Sony has pushed sensor technology like no other company currently, do we think they aren't going to make sure they stay in front from a sensor standpoint?
Of course they are, and when either company comes out with the next BANG, everyone will sit around talking doom and gloom about the others. None of the these companies (even Nikon with their shrinkage) is going away any time soon. All of them are making camera bodies that compete quite well with each other in actual use. Each respective "fan camp" screams best according to their chosen brand, but in real world use take a body from any of them and you can get the job done quite well.... certainly better than ever before in history.
For me personally, I'm a landscape shooter. I love the specs of the D850. I won't be buying one due to changing glass. Not enough difference to be worth that aggravation and expense. Especially when as soon as I accomplish it, there will probably be a 5Ds2 coming out that will either meet or exceed the specs anyway. At the very least, it will be in the same playground which a lot of them are now anyway. For the same reason I won't be switching to Sony either, although Sony in particular has done a fantastic job of breaking into this market and got at least an inital huge movement from some users. I think gains will be a little harder to come by now, all of these camera bodies are great.
-
Regarding Canon. It seems to me that as I read these forums that every time Canon, Nikon, and now Sony come out with a promising body (as opposed to the me too bodies that pop up) we start seeing the doom and gloom speculation on the other competitors.
The thing is, it's usually true.
When Canon came out with a full-frame body, and Nikon said they'd 'never' go full-frame, Canon gained a lot of high-end market share.
When Canon came out with CMOS while Nikon was stuck with CCD, Canon gained market share. Again with the 5D, which made full-frame affordable - Nikon had no reply. Again with the 5D2, with high resolution and video. We're still seeing the market share effects of this early dominance - changing systems is much more onerous than just buying a new camera.
When the D800 came out and Canon couldn't reply, Canon lost a good chunk of their non-action 5D2 users. When the A7r came out, could use Canon lenses and Canon still couldn't reply, they lost even more of their non-action users. It will be the same with the D850 - if Canon can't reply with something with both resolution and speed (rather than one or the other) that's better than the 5D4, they'll be hard-pressed among wildlife photographers (especially) as well as some sports photographers.
The D850, by the released specifications, is going to be a great camera. Notice I didn't say best? Best is a personal preference in many ways. We can all compare DR/ISO charts and scream SEE! but in reality there is so little difference in today's technology that it doesn't make that much difference in real terms. I know there are many that disagree with that but it really doesn't. No one is completely missing a shot due to .70 or so stops of DR. They may wish for better image quality, but missing it? I doubt it.
At the bottom end, the almost 2 stops of DR difference between the D810 and 5Ds certainly make a difference for anyone shooting in difficult lighting (backlit, high-contrast, etc.). There's a reason few photographers outside of the studio (where lighting is controllable) were particularly interested in the 5Ds, despite the resolution advantage over the D810 and A7r2.
If it were only 0.7 stops, it would be far less noticeable.
I see the D850 a little differently I think. To me, with the resolution it has, the great DR it has... it is a direct competitor to Canon's 5Ds (current version). In fact, it steps all over it. The resolution loss of 4mp is not that big a deal when you consider the DR difference between the two at low ISO. In addition you get fps and af that can easily be used for those action opportunities that sometimes arise for landscape/studio/macro shooters. Comparing this body to the 5DIV (which I have) is possible but I don't think realistic. The resolution is too far different, so is the speed and af for that matter (although for my purposes the 5DIV has far more than I need).
Nikon never needed to do any more to compete with the 5Ds. For any non-action photographer outside of a studio with controlled lighting, the D810's 36MP and DR are much better than the 5Ds's 50MP already. Furthermore, it's a 2-year-old body that's due for replacement soon.
Given the similar price point, the D850 absolutely stomps all over the 5D4. For roughly the same price, you can get a 30MP body with 7fps and Canon's second-tier AF system, or a 46MP body capable of 9fps with Nikon's best AF. Both are general-use bodies, with frame rate to shoot some action and more resolution than the speed-focused bodies, and both are around the same price, so it's a valid comparison - anyone who could consider the 5D4 for their work could equally consider the D850, without sacrificing any aspect of performance or paying a significantly higher price. But the D850 does every part so much better - resolution, likely DR, FPS (where it's as fast as some pure action bodies) and AF - that it doesn't even look to be a contest.
To put it another way, the 5D4 didn't have to worry about the D810 - even though the D810 had higher resolution and better base-ISO image quality, it lacked the speed for action photography and was at a half-stop disadvantage at high ISO. The 5D4 remained better for all-round use when action and high-ISO was part of the repertoire. Same with 5D3 vs D800. Not so with the D850 - it does everything the 5D4 does, but better, so is a viable alternative to it.
It's the 5Ds2 it need to worry about. Canon's not going to step back on the resolution - expect 60-70MP - and they've fixed the DR issue in their latest sensors. It's unlikely to be an action camera - I'd expect 5fps or so - but, for the non-action photography role, it's going to look attractive, unless Nikon also releases something with similar resolution.
Does anyone think Canon, or Sony...don't have more technology coming around the corner? We already know Canon were playing around with 120mp foveon sensors years ago, do we think they just dropped it? Sony has pushed sensor technology like no other company currently, do we think they aren't going to make sure they stay in front from a sensor standpoint?
Of course they are, and when either company comes out with the next BANG, everyone will sit around talking doom and gloom about the others. None of the these companies (even Nikon with their shrinkage) is going away any time soon. All of them are making camera bodies that compete quite well with each other in actual use. Each respective "fan camp" screams best according to their chosen brand, but in real world use take a body from any of them and you can get the job done quite well.... certainly better than ever before in history.
It's all about matching capabilities and being able to compete among each segment of users.
Whether you're talking about landscape, studio, commercial, wedding, sports, wildlife, real-estate or almost any other type of photographer or application, you can pretty much categorise their stills camera requirements into three groups - pure speed (where fps and AF are king and ISO 400-12800 the critical area), balanced (where you need as much resolution as possible while maintaining an action-capable frame rate of at least 7fps, preferably 8-10fps, AF is still king, as well as performance from base ISO all the way to 12800 or so) and non-action (where resolution and base ISO performance matter above all else).
A camera from one group can't adequately substitute for a camera in one of the other groups. You can shoot a landscape with a D5, but a D810 will outperform it each time. Vice-versa with sports.
Each manufacturer needs at least one camera in each group in order to compete meaningfully for photographers with requirements that fall within that group. For instance, in the action group, Canon has the 1Dx2, Nikon the D5 and Sony the A9. In the non-action group. Canon has the 5Ds, Nikon the D810 and Sony the A7r2.
But there can be times when, for whatever reason, a manufacturer has fallen so far behind the others in capability that it can no longer meaningfully compete in one of those groups. We've seen that happen with Canon in the non-action category - they were leaders with the 5D2, but, by the time the D800 came around four years later, they were well behind. The release of the D810 and A7r/A7r2 only cemented this, and many non-action photographers abandoned Canon. Similarly, Sony is only starting to become competitive in the speed category (with the launch of the A9), and only in areas where they have adequate lens coverage (it's a whole-system thing, not just a camera body thing).
Obviously, changing systems is a hassle, and a manufacturer may survive one generation of bodies significantly underperforming in one of the categories, but, any longer than that, and people are going to start switching. Just look at the flood of non-action photographers who abandoned Canon, first for the D800, then for the A7r and D810, once it became clear Canon was no longer able to compete in that category.
I'd be interested to see if Canon has an answer in the balanced group (against the D850 and whatever Sony release) or Nikon in the non-action group (against the 5Ds2 and A7r3/A9r/whatever Sony call their high-resolution body). Yes, the D850 is high-resolution by current standards. But it is likely to be coming up against 60-70MP bodies in the next generation. And, for non-action applications, it will be judged by its 46MP, not by the fact that it can also shoot at 9fps and track a cheetah sprinting through long grass.
-
Despite all that of the 40 awards given at the 2016 World Press awards 28 were taken with Canon cameras and 12 with Nikon. Now not for a moment do I believe that means Canon cameras take better photos nor do I believe that it implies that Canon even make better cameras but I do think it means that a Canon camera is capable of taking award winning photos. It also seems to mean that a significant amount of people shooting for press ding Canon perfectly acceptable. Only one photo was taken by Sony by the way.
Commercial or professional if you prefer is a bit different. As a person who makes all his money, for 35 years now, from photography my longest lens is a 200mm and even that is used rarely. These days 90% of what I shoot commercially never gets printed bigger than A5 and at least half never gets printed at all. Anything I buy has to pay its way and not annoy me on a shoot.
Sports photography in my neck of the woods pays so badly it would take all the fees from 50 days of shooting to pay for one ultra tele lens. Rates to do a PR shoot for a company sponsoring a golf event are 4 times higher than what I would get shooting the actual sport event. For the PR I need no long lenses, no blazing high frame rate, no high pixel count. High ISO is a big help though.
The days of depending on equipment to take good photos and make a living are over, now you have to have actual talent. A Canon will do it as well as anything else I reckon. Not that I own one
-
The thing is, it's usually true.
When Canon came out with a full-frame body, and Nikon said they'd 'never' go full-frame, Canon gained a lot of high-end market share.
When Canon came out with CMOS while Nikon was stuck with CCD, Canon gained market share. Again with the 5D, which made full-frame affordable - Nikon had no reply. Again with the 5D2, with high resolution and video. We're still seeing the market share effects of this early dominance - changing systems is much more onerous than just buying a new camera.
When the D800 came out and Canon couldn't reply, Canon lost a good chunk of their non-action 5D2 users. When the A7r came out, could use Canon lenses and Canon still couldn't reply, they lost even more of their non-action users. It will be the same with the D850 - if Canon can't reply with something with both resolution and speed (rather than one or the other) that's better than the 5D4, they'll be hard-pressed among wildlife photographers (especially) as well as some sports photographers.
That is sort of my point. Even with that early dominance Nikon certainly didn't go away, and even after Nikon's D800 there was still room for Sony to make inroads. Point being that although any of the companies may be slow to respond at one time or another, they in fact do respond. Nikon did, Canon did originally, and Sony came from left field to become a player in the market. Could Canon have stopped it by evolving their technology faster? Maybe but the fact is that Canon is still doing well despite being "outdone" twice now.
At the bottom end, the almost 2 stops of DR difference between the D810 and 5Ds certainly make a difference for anyone shooting in difficult lighting (backlit, high-contrast, etc.). There's a reason few photographers outside of the studio (where lighting is controllable) were particularly interested in the 5Ds, despite the resolution advantage over the D810 and A7r2.
If it were only 0.7 stops, it would be far less noticeable.
Agreed, I should have been more clear, I was referencing the 5d4 here not the 5ds. The 5ds is due for an update and I would find it hard to believe that Canon will not use the new technology (perhaps even better) and increase the resolution yet again as you suggested. If so, the tables turn again. Sony will most likely be there too. I doubt it will get nearly the 9fps although that is only possible with a grip but I suspect it will be quite a bit better than the current model. Thing is, you said it before, these high resolution bodies are not really meant to target action photographers. I've been shooting the 5d series since its inception and while I certainly saw the fps limitations on the few occasions I attempted to shoot action I was never bothered by it for the kind of shooting I do the vast majority of the time.
Nikon never needed to do any more to compete with the 5Ds. For any non-action photographer outside of a studio with controlled lighting, the D810's 36MP and DR are much better than the 5Ds's 50MP already. Furthermore, it's a 2-year-old body that's due for replacement soon.
Somewhat agree, there are those that feel or felt like that 15mp difference counted for a lot I believe.
Given the similar price point, the D850 absolutely stomps all over the 5D4. For roughly the same price, you can get a 30MP body with 7fps and Canon's second-tier AF system, or a 46MP body capable of 9fps with Nikon's best AF. Both are general-use bodies, with frame rate to shoot some action and more resolution than the speed-focused bodies, and both are around the same price, so it's a valid comparison - anyone who could consider the 5D4 for their work could equally consider the D850, without sacrificing any aspect of performance or paying a significantly higher price. But the D850 does every part so much better - resolution, likely DR, FPS (where it's as fast as some pure action bodies) and AF - that it doesn't even look to be a contest.
To put it another way, the 5D4 didn't have to worry about the D810 - even though the D810 had higher resolution and better base-ISO image quality, it lacked the speed for action photography and was at a half-stop disadvantage at high ISO. The 5D4 remained better for all-round use when action and high-ISO was part of the repertoire. Same with 5D3 vs D800. Not so with the D850 - it does everything the 5D4 does, but better, so is a viable alternative to it.
Agree again. The D850, at least on paper, overtakes the 5d4 substantially. I don't suddenly hate my 5d4 images though and wouldn't swap unless I knew Canon were never going to go further with their technology which I don't believe is true.
It's the 5Ds2 it need to worry about. Canon's not going to step back on the resolution - expect 60-70MP - and they've fixed the DR issue in their latest sensors. It's unlikely to be an action camera - I'd expect 5fps or so - but, for the non-action photography role, it's going to look attractive, unless Nikon also releases something with similar resolution.
This is my point again, it isn't all doom and gloom for Canon. They obviously weathered the storm with the D800/810, just like Nikon (although apparently more narrowly) weathered the storm with the original 5D series introduction from Canon. These companies change places with regards to who has the upper hand on available technology, we have seen it more than once. We will see it again I'm sure.
It's all about matching capabilities and being able to compete among each segment of users.
Whether you're talking about landscape, studio, commercial, wedding, sports, wildlife, real-estate or almost any other type of photographer or application, you can pretty much categorise their stills camera requirements into three groups - pure speed (where fps and AF are king and ISO 400-12800 the critical area), balanced (where you need as much resolution as possible while maintaining an action-capable frame rate of at least 7fps, preferably 8-10fps, AF is still king, as well as performance from base ISO all the way to 12800 or so) and non-action (where resolution and base ISO performance matter above all else).
Agree for the most part, and right now the paper specs for the D850 would certainly win the middle ground, and do really darn well with the first group as well. Sony and Canon will I'm sure have something to say about the latter area but that remains to be seen as a fact.
A camera from one group can't adequately substitute for a camera in one of the other groups. You can shoot a landscape with a D5, but a D810 will outperform it each time. Vice-versa with sports.
Each manufacturer needs at least one camera in each group in order to compete meaningfully for photographers with requirements that fall within that group. For instance, in the action group, Canon has the 1Dx2, Nikon the D5 and Sony the A9. In the non-action group. Canon has the 5Ds, Nikon the D810 and Sony the A7r2.
We may be seeing the rules start to change. The resolution/fps is a matter of throughput as you know, and there is always a way to get faster processing. I wouldn't be surprised personally if...over the next 3-5 years we see 50-60mp bodies shooting at 10fps. We haven't seen it yet, but I think we will. At that point, assuming the DR can be maintained you are now at a point in which one body can reasonably satisfy all three groups of users very well.
But there can be times when, for whatever reason, a manufacturer has fallen so far behind the others in capability that it can no longer meaningfully compete in one of those groups. We've seen that happen with Canon in the non-action category - they were leaders with the 5D2, but, by the time the D800 came around four years later, they were well behind. The release of the D810 and A7r/A7r2 only cemented this, and many non-action photographers abandoned Canon. Similarly, Sony is only starting to become competitive in the speed category (with the launch of the A9), and only in areas where they have adequate lens coverage (it's a whole-system thing, not just a camera body thing).
Obviously, changing systems is a hassle, and a manufacturer may survive one generation of bodies significantly underperforming in one of the categories, but, any longer than that, and people are going to start switching. Just look at the flood of non-action photographers who abandoned Canon, first for the D800, then for the A7r and D810, once it became clear Canon was no longer able to compete in that category.
I'd be interested to see if Canon has an answer in the balanced group (against the D850 and whatever Sony release) or Nikon in the non-action group (against the 5Ds2 and A7r3/A9r/whatever Sony call their high-resolution body). Yes, the D850 is high-resolution by current standards. But it is likely to be coming up against 60-70MP bodies in the next generation. And, for non-action applications, it will be judged by its 46MP, not by the fact that it can also shoot at 9fps and track a cheetah sprinting through long grass.
I might get proven wrong, but I think Canon's next offering for the 5Ds may be ground-breaking. I deliberated a lot whether to get the 5dsr or the 5d4. I eventually went with the 5d4 based upon improved DR mainly, although the fps and better autofocus where factors as well (but far behind in importance). I would have loved to have the resolution of the 5ds, but I felt my $ were better spent on the newer technology. The next body I'm looking for is the replacement for the 5ds, hopefully I won't be dissappointed.
Having said that, should Canon apparently abandon pushing forward, that might be the time I start considering a path to a change. With current options out there that would probably lean toward Sony more so than Nikon. Granted I'm reading into the future a little since I anticipate Sony upping the game before too long as well.
-
Despite all that of the 40 awards given at the 2016 World Press awards 28 were taken with Canon cameras and 12 with Nikon. Now not for a moment do I believe that means Canon cameras take better photos nor do I believe that it implies that Canon even make better cameras but I do think it means that a Canon camera is capable of taking award winning photos. It also seems to mean that a significant amount of people shooting for press ding Canon perfectly acceptable. Only one photo was taken by Sony by the way.
Commercial or professional if you prefer is a bit different. As a person who makes all his money, for 35 years now, from photography my longest lens is a 200mm and even that is used rarely. These days 90% of what I shoot commercially never gets printed bigger than A5 and at least half never gets printed at all. Anything I buy has to pay its way and not annoy me on a shoot.
Sports photography in my neck of the woods pays so badly it would take all the fees from 50 days of shooting to pay for one ultra tele lens. Rates to do a PR shoot for a company sponsoring a golf event are 4 times higher than what I would get shooting the actual sport event. For the PR I need no long lenses, no blazing high frame rate, no high pixel count. High ISO is a big help though.
The days of depending on equipment to take good photos and make a living are over, now you have to have actual talent. A Canon will do it as well as anything else I reckon. Not that I own one
Press doesn't require large print sizes. Everything is downsized anyway - almost any camera that can track the subject, keep it in focus and catch the perfect moment will do it. Hence the D5/1Dx2 - good tracking, lots of speed to catch the moment and resolution doesn't matter for the job anyway.
Magazines with multi-page spreads, and especially advertising, are a completely different world. So is shooting for technical purposes, e.g. textures and backdrops for cinema or 3D graphics work. They require almost the complete opposite to press cameras. Often, they are looking to replace MF cameras.
But Canon/Nikon/Sony probably sell 50 high-end bodies to non-pros or part-time pros for each one they sell to a full-time pro. This is the biggest market of all. Common photographic subjects here are often much more demanding than commercial jobs - fast-moving pets and animals at close range, dark venues without flash (think bars and clubs, or live music), poorly-lit indoor sports, landscapes with huge dynamic range, backlit subjects). Often, they are situations with creative lighting. Even weddings are usually much more technically demanding than most press events. Gear matters here, and specs and capability sells equipment.
-
That is sort of my point. Even with that early dominance Nikon certainly didn't go away, and even after Nikon's D800 there was still room for Sony to make inroads. Point being that although any of the companies may be slow to respond at one time or another, they in fact do respond. Nikon did, Canon did originally, and Sony came from left field to become a player in the market. Could Canon have stopped it by evolving their technology faster? Maybe but the fact is that Canon is still doing well despite being "outdone" twice now.
Agreed, I should have been more clear, I was referencing the 5d4 here not the 5ds. The 5ds is due for an update and I would find it hard to believe that Canon will not use the new technology (perhaps even better) and increase the resolution yet again as you suggested. If so, the tables turn again. Sony will most likely be there too. I doubt it will get nearly the 9fps although that is only possible with a grip but I suspect it will be quite a bit better than the current model. Thing is, you said it before, these high resolution bodies are not really meant to target action photographers. I've been shooting the 5d series since its inception and while I certainly saw the fps limitations on the few occasions I attempted to shoot action I was never bothered by it for the kind of shooting I do the vast majority of the time.
Somewhat agree, there are those that feel or felt like that 15mp difference counted for a lot I believe.
Agree again. The D850, at least on paper, overtakes the 5d4 substantially. I don't suddenly hate my 5d4 images though and wouldn't swap unless I knew Canon were never going to go further with their technology which I don't believe is true.
This is my point again, it isn't all doom and gloom for Canon. They obviously weathered the storm with the D800/810, just like Nikon (although apparently more narrowly) weathered the storm with the original 5D series introduction from Canon. These companies change places with regards to who has the upper hand on available technology, we have seen it more than once. We will see it again I'm sure.
I think the key difference here is the definition of 'doom and gloom'. I am talking about significant market share loss in the affected segment (e.g. non-action photographers for the D810), not complete collapse.
Agree for the most part, and right now the paper specs for the D850 would certainly win the middle ground, and do really darn well with the first group as well. Sony and Canon will I'm sure have something to say about the latter area but that remains to be seen as a fact.
We may be seeing the rules start to change. The resolution/fps is a matter of throughput as you know, and there is always a way to get faster processing. I wouldn't be surprised personally if...over the next 3-5 years we see 50-60mp bodies shooting at 10fps. We haven't seen it yet, but I think we will. At that point, assuming the DR can be maintained you are now at a point in which one body can reasonably satisfy all three groups of users very well.
The thing is, no matter how fast your data handling is, the relationship is still there. Either you get more detail or you get more speed. You can get 100MP at 10fps or 200MP at 5fps.
There may not be much benefit in increasing resolution above 150MP or so, due to lens limitations (diffractive optics and light field cameras may change this, though - one by increasing potential resolution, the other by providing a use for extra pixels) but, even then, there are other productive ways to use data other than just speed. 16, 18 or even 24-bit output (although the sensor would need to support very low ISOs to see benefit above the shot noise). Multilayer sensors to give true RGB values (or even spectral data) for each pixel, giving greater colour resolution. All of these would compete with fps for data use.
I might get proven wrong, but I think Canon's next offering for the 5Ds may be ground-breaking. I deliberated a lot whether to get the 5dsr or the 5d4. I eventually went with the 5d4 based upon improved DR mainly, although the fps and better autofocus where factors as well (but far behind in importance). I would have loved to have the resolution of the 5ds, but I felt my $ were better spent on the newer technology. The next body I'm looking for is the replacement for the 5ds, hopefully I won't be dissappointed.
Having said that, should Canon apparently abandon pushing forward, that might be the time I start considering a path to a change. With current options out there that would probably lean toward Sony more so than Nikon. Granted I'm reading into the future a little since I anticipate Sony upping the game before too long as well.
I would also expect the 5Ds2 to be a game-changer, but in terma of setting a new standard for high-resolution, low-speed bodies. I wouldn't expect it to compete with the D850 action-wise. It would still have to compete against Sony's offering, though. Sony has dominated the high-resolution field since the Exmor was first developed and doesn't appear to be giving up that crown soon.
Hopefully Canon will also develop a 3D, though, to go directly against the D850 in the 'balanced' category.
-
With the D850 announced, it becomes pertinent to ask what Canon has prepared in response.
In the D850, Nikon has a camera with the AF to track fast action with the best of them, the frame rate to not miss the moment, lots of pixels for cropping and enough resolution to do a good job with landscapes (although it may be eclipsed in the latter role sooner rather than later).
Canon has no obvious answer on the horizon. The 5D4, while being the most similar body, is way behind in capability while being around the same price, and would likely be matched by an updated D750 at a far lower price point. The 5D5 isn't due for two more years and would require a huge leap in capability just to match it. The 5Ds is in a different category altogether - it's a slow studio camera that's not great at high ISO (and has limited DR at low ISO) - and any replacement, even if they were to make it a balanced body like the D850, would still have the price issue. Too expensive and the D850 will undercut it, likely by USD1000 or more. Price it competitively and the 5D4 would be pointless, unless they also dropped its price by USD1000.
Will Canon launch a new line (3D)? Elevate the 5D to a higher standard, to match the Nikon? Or will they continue to ignore the competition and live off the momentum and brand loyalty they created 10 years ago and have done little to maintain since? They lost many non-action shooters with the D800 and A7r. The D850 may well do the same for action shooters, if Canon doesn't answer.
I'm mainly a landscape shooter and I have a dual system setup to know the features of both systems for my workshop guests who mainly come with these cameras (ok, a few Sony but not many). I have been shooting with the Canon 5DSR since it came out along side the D810. Despite the lesser DR on the Canon I shoot with the Canon for every focal length except the great Nikon 70-200 f/4VR lens. So when I'm in a high DR situation I simply shoot bracketed and when needed I will merge the shots in Lightroom with the HDR merge option (btw. I always shoot landscapes bracket on both systems anyway to avoid highlight clipping). This really works flawlessly in my opinion and for me (at least) completely takes away the DR argument. I almost never need to merge shots from the D810 and that IS and advantage. I love the detail of the images from the 5DSR and the ease by which I can shoot in live view with EFCS. So basically every image that comes out of the camera is pin sharp (with a good lens, of course).
So for me, what can Canon add? I assume that the 5DSR will be succeeded with an even higher resolution version which will have dual pixel focus (which the D850 does not have) and also better DR with similar tech as the 5D IV. They may also bring a hybrid OVF and EVF which I'm sure some people would love. For some of my shooting and not landscapes I would like to have that. With the dual pixel and EVF they could make a really nice fast focussing system that would be much better than what even an EVF enabled D850 could offer. After reading about the features of the D850 I'm sure it is great and I have preordered one. Maybe Canon would even add a ETTR option? No, I don't believe that as nobody has done that, despite so many asking for it!!
So this is just seen from my landscape shooting perspective. I'm not expecting Canon to do anything radical and they will most likely come with an incremental improvement to what exists already. And I don't expect the hybrid EVF/OVF. The Nikon D850 (although very good as far as I can tell) is also just an incremental upgrade.
-
So this is just seen from my landscape shooting perspective. I'm not expecting Canon to do anything radical and they will most likely come with an incremental improvement to what exists already. And I don't expect the hybrid EVF/OVF. The Nikon D850 (although very good as far as I can tell) is also just an incremental upgrade.
Only from the point of view of pure landscape/non-action use. If that's what you're using it for, it's basically just 36MP to 46MP and a few minor refinements.
If you're also (or primarily) using it to shoot action, it's a completely different body. It has Nikon's top-tier AF system. It can shoot at 9fps - the same as the D3, and plenty fast enough for almost anything. It can keep up with the best at typical action ISOs.
For an action shooter, the D810 is an interesting curiosity that can take the occasional long-distance shot, where the target isn't moving much and you want as many pixels on target as possible. A lot like the 5Ds, as well as the 5D2 in its time. The D850 can take the role of a front-line action body, with more than twice the pixel count of the D5 - a worthwhile tradeoff if you find yourself needing more resolution (or versatility) than the utmost speed.
-
For an action shooter, the D810 is an interesting curiosity that can take the occasional long-distance shot, where the target isn't moving much and you want as many pixels on target as possible.
Have you ever shot action with a D810?
I have, mostly with a 400mm f2.8 and it is much better than are making it out to be.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Have you ever shot action with a D810?
I have, mostly with a 400mm f2.8 and it is much better than are making it out to be.
Cheers,
Bernard
Yes.
It wasn't bad, but it couldn't take the place of a D4s/1Dx, or even a 5D4 or 7D2. 5fps is just too limiting. Great for sniping away when you have an animal slowly doing it's own thing in the distance, but not so great when you have a cheetah sprinting for a kill or a whale leaping out of the water.
With 9fps, the D850 should be able to - it shoots just as fast as previous action-focused bodies. With 46MP, crop sensors no longer have a reach advantage. It's a front-line action camera. The D810 is second-line/backup at best.
-
Only from the point of view of pure landscape/non-action use. If that's what you're using it for, it's basically just 36MP to 46MP and a few minor refinements.
If you're also (or primarily) using it to shoot action, it's a completely different body. It has Nikon's top-tier AF system. It can shoot at 9fps - the same as the D3, and plenty fast enough for almost anything. It can keep up with the best at typical action ISOs.
For an action shooter, the D810 is an interesting curiosity that can take the occasional long-distance shot, where the target isn't moving much and you want as many pixels on target as possible. A lot like the 5Ds, as well as the 5D2 in its time. The D850 can take the role of a front-line action body, with more than twice the pixel count of the D5 - a worthwhile tradeoff if you find yourself needing more resolution (or versatility) than the utmost speed.
Despite the speed increase I would still call it an incremental upgrade. It's not my book not really a game changer, but that's of course a matter of opinion. I always felt that very fast fps was overrated. I have shot wild life with 4-5 fps quite successfully. At least in my own opinion. :)
-
Despite the speed increase I would still call it an incremental upgrade. It's not my book not really a game changer, but that's of course a matter of opinion. I always felt that very fast fps was overrated. I have shot wild life with 4-5 fps quite successfully. At least in my own opinion. :)
Still, if you were going on a dedicated wildlife shoot, you'd almost certainly take a D5 over a D810. It's not just the fps (which is probably the least important advantage for wildlife, although more of an issue for field sports). It's also the ISO capability in the critical 400-6400 range and the AF. Combine it with a D500 for when you need the reach, or even just use the D500 alone if you expect to be focal length limited the whole time.
Getting top-tier AF in a balanced body with good pixel density, rather than a speed-focused body, is the real game-changer. The last time we had that was with the 1Ds3, which only managed a marginal 5fps (the D3x had a good AF system, but was really too slow and too poor at above base ISO for any sort of action).
Ironically, it's likely that the D5 will be the biggest casualty of the D850, since it takes less effort for a Nikon shooter to switch to the D850 than a Canon shooter with a big lens collection to make the same move. Many, if not most, D5 shooters would be using it for the AF rather than the 14fps capability 2.25x the megapixels and a respectable frame rate, with the same AF system, at three-fifths the price, is likely to be very attractive. But it's better for Nikon to cannibalise itself by being first to launch a more versatile product than have Sony or Canon do it to them.
-
Let’s face it, for 99% of photographers the current leading brands with their lead products will do the job. You can find the best photographers in almost every category using any of the brands. Most of us don’t even fully utilize what is currently available. Most people don’t print large enough where the incremental pixels matter. I haven’t seen a real game changer since I’ve been doing photography. To me, it’s all been incrementalism. We are so far out on the curve of improvements (for lack of a better term) that improvements have less and less effect in the real world. If you don’t print large it’s unlikely you will see much difference unless it’s some geek with a loupe looking for minor variations. It seems to me, this is more about specs and some user conveniences that quality of prints. That being said, I have ordered my D850 because I can’t help myself :)
-
Game changers over the years IMO:
Canon 1Ds - first full frame digital which caused a major exodus from Nikon for many pro's (me included)
Canon 5D - first cheap full frame camera
Canon 5Dmk2 - for video - this changed the world for filmmakers
Nikon D800 - first hi megapixel body with excellent DR - finally medium format competition
Sony A7R2 - first mirrorless pro camera with EVF, and equal image quality to D800E for Canon users :-)
I don't see the D850 a game changer but it's certainly a great camera for any Nikon users.
For a little while Canon seemed to own the market with game changing cameras but over the past few generations I don't think they have kept up the innovation. Not that it's causing them harm by any means. All the cameras today are excellent if using the right tool for the job.
I left out M4/3 cameras which are also fantastic especially for video, (Panasonic).
-
Game changers over the years IMO:
Canon 1Ds - first full frame digital which caused a major exodus from Nikon for many pro's (me included)
Canon 5D - first cheap full frame camera
Canon 5Dmk2 - for video - this changed the world for filmmakers
Nikon D800 - first hi megapixel body with excellent DR - finally medium format competition
Sony A7R2 - first mirrorless pro camera with EVF, and equal image quality to D800E for Canon users :-)
I don't see the D850 a game changer but it's certainly a great camera for any Nikon users.
For stills, I'd say:
1Ds - first full-frame and first CMOS
5D - first cheap full-frame
5D2 - first cheap high-resolution (for its time - previously, the 5D had been 12MP, with 16MP and 21MP sensors only available in the 1Ds2 and 1Ds3)
D700 - top-tier AF now available in something other than an overbuilt, sports-focused body
D800 - Nikon steals the studio/landscape ball from Canon
A7r - first full-frame mirrorless body, offering a way out to Canon non-action shooters
A9 - mirrorless AF equal to the top tier of SLR bodies
D850 - top-tier AF, action-focused speed and high resolution and pixel density available in one body for the first time
For a little while Canon seemed to own the market with game changing cameras but over the past few generations I don't think they have kept up the innovation. Not that it's causing them harm by any means. All the cameras today are excellent if using the right tool for the job.
That's the issue, really.
At the moment, everyone has a top-tier (at the time of release) fast body (1Dx2, D5, A9) and a top-tier high-resolution body (5Ds, D810, A7r2). The 'in-betweens' - good speed, but also good resolution - have, until now, been second- or third-line AF- and other feature-wise (5D3/5D4, D750) or absent (Sony).
With the D850, Nikon now has a top-tier speed body and a top-tier in-between body (whether they will release a new resolution body in their top tier is unknown at the moment). They have a tool for the job which no-one else has - with Canon's current lineup, you can have speed and AF (1Dx2), or resolution (5Ds), but not some of both at the same time, unless you're willing to settle for second-tier AF (5D4). Between the two specialist extremes, there is a lot of room and a lot of applications for a general-purpose body - fast, but not the fastest, high-resolution, but not necessarily the highest, and with AF equal to the action cameras. This brings a set of unique capabilities which are often useful all at the same time, yet which is currently unavailable in the Canon lineup - a 'balanced' or 'general purpose' body isn't just for those who shoot a bit of everything and need a body which can shoot anything, but is, in itself, also a specialist body for those who need a combination of the two extremes.
-
I would include the Nikon D1 in any game changer list since they pretty much invented the DSLR with it.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I would include the Nikon D1 in any game changer list since they pretty much invented the DSLR with it.
Cheers,
Bernard
I thought about that as I also owned one, and then I had the D1X which was really the first DSLR to be competitive with film. But Canon really moved the DSLR into dominance over film.
-
Kodak DCS560. Bought it in 1999. Based on a Canon body. 6MP CCD. LCD screen, changeable batteries. Fire wire tethering. I think it was launched in 1998. It was a DSLR before an of the other "first" DSLR's mentioned. A bit pricey. I still have it actually. Along with a Kodak DCS460 purchased in 1996. That was the year I went totally digital. Still have that camera as well. It was based on the Nikon N90, itself a fair film body that I also used.
Really from a commercial perspective it was big yellow that launched instant capture digital cameras outside of industrial, military, NASA applications.
-
I would also include the D3x since it marked the beginning of high DR DSLRs era.
Before the D3x you had to buy a 30,000+ US$ to get good DR.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
With 46MP, crop sensors no longer have a reach advantage.
Still some advantage, I would say: the 1.5x crop to "Nikon/Sony/Pentax" format gives 20MP, and a 1.6x crop to match Canon EF-S gives 18MP. That is not too far below the current 24MP offerings in those mainstream DSLR formats, but I rather expect a move beyond 24MP in those formats soon: Sony reached 24MP more than six years ago in cameras like the NEX-7, and has smaller pixel designs giving 20MP in 1" and 4/3" formats.
And a 2x crop from the D850 gives only 11.5MP, so the 20MP sensors in 4/3" format give a lot more reach and macro detail from the same focal length and subject distance, though few of them are even vaguely competitive on AF abilities.
-
The other game changer that people forget is the Canon 10D. The first 'affordable' DSLR. Go back and read Micheal's glowing reviews of it here, it influenced a vast number of serious photographers that bought into Canon and have stuck with the system ever since.
-
Still some advantage, I would say: the 1.5x crop to "Nikon/Sony/Pentax" format gives 20MP, and a 1.6x crop to match Canon EF-S gives 18MP. That is not too far below the current 24MP offerings in those mainstream DSLR formats, but I rather expect a move beyond 24MP in those formats soon: Sony reached 24MP more than six years ago in cameras like the NEX-7, and has smaller pixel designs giving 20MP in 1" and 4/3" formats.
And a 2x crop from the D850 gives only 11.5MP, so the 20MP sensors in 4/3" format give a lot more reach and macro detail from the same focal length and subject distance, though few of them are even vaguely competitive on AF abilities.
The D500 - Nikon's best crop sensor for action photography, with the same AF system as the D5 and D850 - has 20MP. The D850 matches this in pixel density and achieves almost the same frame rate. More significantly, you can take that 1.5x crop (or 1.4x, or 1.2x, or any other size) from anywhere within the frame, not just the centre, giving far more compositional latitude when shooting a moving subject whose ideal point of focus won't be in the same position from frame to frame (think of a running, bobbing animal whose head may be anywhere from the top left to the bottom left of the frame, depending on whether it's 'up' or 'down' at the time).
Certainly, 54MP would be nice, for 24MP when cropped. But, with 46MP, 9fps and the D5 AF system, I can say that, for the first time in a full-frame action body, you're not having to sacrifice reach for speed, or resolution for AF.
-
@shadowblade, I agree that once you want good high speed operation in the mix, the D850 competes well against any current "APS-C" option. And I love surplus pixels for loose framing of erratically moving subjects.
Still, there is the familiar specs leap-frog with new models: let us see what the next DX and EF-S "action cams" offer.
-
@shadowblade, I agree that once you want good high speed operation in the mix, the D850 competes well against any current "APS-C" option. And I love surplus pixels for loose framing of erratically moving subjects.
Still, there is the familiar specs leap-frog with new models: let us see what the next DX and EF-S "action cams" offer.
The D500 is a current model, only around a year old, and likely not up for replacement any time soon - if it gets replaced at all (APS-C being an obvious place to make a first serious move into mirrorless).
Sony's next move will be interesting. A 'balanced' body with 54MP/9fps would match the current 24MP APS-C sensor density-wise and have a similar data bandwidth requirement to the A9. On the other hand, it may be a bit close to the high-resolution body if the high-resolution sensor is closer to 60MP than 80MP. A 60MP/8fps body, or even a 68MP/7fps body, could potentially do double duty as a combined high-resolution and 'balanced' action body, although 68MP/7fps would lean more towards high-resolution and general-purpose use than action.
-
True, I never had one I'm a Canon user (well, half way into Sony nowadays) but if I remember well, with this camera it was the first time I read the possibility of a FF body to challenge MF.
By that time and before, it was common to read (here) from MF users to totally desdain FF systems for other than sports and journalism. FF almost was considered "yuck" material.
I don't remember when it was that I read the last post considering FF cameras lesser toys for unimportant jobs.
Crazy!
I would also include the D3x since it marked the beginning of high DR DSLRs era.
Before the D3x you had to buy a 30,000+ US$ to get good DR.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I would also include the D3x since it marked the beginning of high DR DSLRs era.
Before the D3x you had to buy a 30,000+ US$ to get good DR.
Cheers,
Bernard
That actually started with the A900 (the first full-frame Exmor). The D3x came later and used the same sensor.
-
That actually started with the A900 (the first full-frame Exmor). The D3x came later and used the same sensor.
The same sensor base but the D3x offered significantly more DR as a quick DxOMark check will easily reveal.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The same sensor base but the D3x offered significantly more DR as a quick DxOMark check will easily reveal.
Cheers,
Bernard
That's a matter of implementation and refinement, not revolutionary technology. The A900 introduced column-parallel A/D conversion. It was a crude implementation, and not much of a camera, but a useful demonstration for cameras further down the line - a bit like how the D800 was almost a prototype for the D810, with a good sensor but poor implementation of live view and other features impacting on usability.
-
That's a matter of implementation and refinement, not revolutionary technology. The A900 introduced column-parallel A/D conversion. It was a crude implementation, and not much of a camera, but a useful demonstration for cameras further down the line - a bit like how the D800 was almost a prototype for the D810, with a good sensor but poor implementation of live view and other features impacting on usability.
Here are the facts:
- 5DII - released in Sept 2008, DR: 11.9 stops
- A900 - released in Sept 2008, DR: 12.3 stops
- D3x - released in Dec 2008, DR: 13.7 stops
The 5DII is known to be a poor DR body and the a900 only has 0.4 stops more, which is basically irrelevant.
The facts would seem to indicate that Nikon was in a class of its own DRwise at the time and that the Sony base of the D3x sensor was clearly not the main factor in achieving this.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Here are the facts:
- 5DII - released in Sept 2008, DR: 11.9 stops
- A900 - released in Sept 2008, DR: 12.3 stops
- D3x - released in Dec 2008, DR: 13.7 stops
The 5DII is known to be a poor DR body and the a900 only has 0.4 stops more, which is basically irrelevant.
The facts would seem to indicate that Nikon was in a class of its own DRwise at the time and that the Sony base of the D3x sensor was clearly not the main factor in achieving this.
Cheers,
Bernard
The point is that the technology (column-parallel ADC) was revolutionary, not the performance.
The first CMOS sensors were garbage. Now we have the D850. The first mirrorless cameras were also garbage. Now we have the A9. Exmor's gone from a technology that only works at low ISO to the A7r2. But it had its beginnings in the A900. The revolutionary products are the ones which introduced game-changing technologies or capabilities, not the mature products which perfected them.
Also, the 5D2's usable DR is far lower than its measured DR - the darkest four stops or so are filled with crosshatched pattern noise which makes them all but unusable. The real, usable DR of the 5D2 is closer to 7-8 stops. This isn't seen in the A900 (despite the similar measures DR), is much improved in the 5D3 and further improved in the 6D to the point where it's practically gone.
-
The point is that the technology (column-parallel ADC) was revolutionary, not the performance.
We are still talking a bit about photography here?
The revolution for photographers was the performance delivered by the D3x, period.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
We are still talking a bit about photography here?
The revolution for photographers was the performance delivered by the D3x, period.
Cheers,
Bernard
Not really - the DR improvement at base ISO was basically just an incremental improvement over the A900. Not like the huge step in usable DR going from non-Exmor to an Exmor-type design, mostly due to the reduced pattern noise at base ISO. This represented an improvement of several stops. There was a big thread on Photography on the Net at the time, when this was first discovered - it was a comparison between the 5D2, A900 and D700 (the D3x not existing at the time). The A900 had many more usable stops at base ISO than the others. Naturally, rather than looking at the visual evidence provided, the general reaction was to treat those who revealed the difference as heretics who didn't know how to expose properly, since 'no-one needs 11 stops of DR'...
The A900 had other major problems, not least the fact that it was an A-mount system that, even then, had little support. But the D3x had its own problems too - it was alow as a slug, extremely expensive compared to the A900 and 5D2, big and heavy, and never sold particularly well. It took the D800 to bring full-frame Exmor into the mainstream (no doubt helped by Canon's inability to compete in either resolution or DR with the 5D3 at the time, and the end of the 1Ds line).
How many photographers do you know who bought the D3x? I know of one - and he sold it within 2 months, being not fit for purpose (no good at anything above base ISO).
-
The first CMOS sensors were garbage. Now we have the D850. The first mirrorless cameras were also garbage.
The first mirrorless cameras I had were the Panasonic GF1 and G1. At the time I also had a Canon 5D and I compared the files for identical shots and there were areas in which the lowly Panasonics truly competed well with the 5D image quality, so to call the first mirrorless garbage seems a bit cruel, IMO they weren't that bad at all :D
-
The first mirrorless cameras I had were the Panasonic GF1 and G1. At the time I also had a Canon 5D and I compared the files for identical shots and there were areas in which the lowly Panasonics truly competed well with the 5D image quality, so to call the first mirrorless garbage seems a bit cruel, IMO they weren't that bad at all :D
Not the sensors. The rest of the camera - AF, EVF lag, etc.
-
Back to topic, as I suggested. There probably wont be a 5DS R II till tale in 2018. So yes, canon has no real response.
Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk
-
Back to topic, as I suggested. There probably wont be a 5DS R II till tale in 2018. So yes, canon has no real response.
The question is how long they can be successful business wise with good products but products that are significantly behind those of their 2 main competitors along most important metrics. Factually, it's been like that for years on the bodies for photography applications (not for video obviously) but, more worryingly for Canon, they have IMHO been losing on the lens front as well. They do of course still have a great line up covering the needs of pros very very well, but their choices of lens roadmap and lens design technical options follows the same philosophy as their cameras: reliable, relevant and good but boring and lacking vision, ambition and character/excitement (we'll see if the 135mm T/S indicates a shift in the right direction or is a anomaly). They seem to be shooting for a Toyota like market positioning but with a 10 years delay and without the Lexus brand equivalent, effective but average. I am not sure this is the right choice when you see the urge of photographers to differentiate themselves.
Canon and Nikon have somehow been switching position these past 5 years. Canon used to do the 85mm f1.2 and Nikon their middle of the road 85mm f1.4... these days Nikon releases their 105mm f1.4 while Canon comes up with a 85mm f1.4... ;)
The fun part comes next though... Odds are that Nikon will release a breakthrough FF mirrorless body in the next 6 months after they have convinced their DSLR use base to buy a historic amount of D850 bodies. The D850 is the digital F6, the last body DSLR users will need before Nikon moves on to next gen. And that is going when the real trouble may start for Canon if they continue acting the same.
Per my, reasonably educated, guess, Nikon's mirrorless is going to be very high end, a digital rangefinder produced in Sendai with a new range of very high performance lenses and an adapter with embedded AF module enabling to focus their current range of lenses with excellent AF performance.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The question is how long they can be successful business wise with good products but products that are significantly behind those of their 2 main competitors along most important metrics. Factually, it's been like that for years on the bodies for photography applications (not for video obviously) but, more worryingly for Canon, they have IMHO been losing on the lens front as well. They do of course still have a great line up covering the needs of pros very very well, but their choices of lens roadmap and lens design technical options follows the same philosophy as their cameras: reliable, relevant and good but boring and lacking vision, ambition and character/excitement (we'll see if the 135mm T/S indicates a shift in the right direction or is a anomaly). They seem to be shooting for a Toyota like market positioning but with a 10 years delay and without the Lexus brand equivalent, effective but average. I am not sure this is the right choice when you see the urge of photographers to differentiate themselves.
Canon and Nikon have somehow been switching position these past 5 years. Canon used to do the 85mm f1.2 and Nikon their middle of the road 85mm f1.4... these days Nikon releases their 105mm f1.4 while Canon comes up with a 85mm f1.4... ;)
Canon and Nikon lenses are pretty much equivalent - the better one is generally the newer one, in whichever category. At the moment, Nikon has newer and better telephotos (except the 200-400) while Canon has the newer and better UWAs. When Nikon releases an update to the 14-24, I'd expect it to overtake the Canons. Vice-versa when Canon updates their telephotos to be newer than the Nikons.
The fun part comes next though... Odds are that Nikon will release a breakthrough FF mirrorless body in the next 6 months after they have convinced their DSLR use base to buy a historic amount of D850 bodies. The D850 is the digital F6, the last body DSLR users will need before Nikon moves on to next gen. And that is going when the real trouble may start for Canon if they continue acting the same.
That's why I haven't preordered the D850, despite it being clearly the best camera out there at the moment for my purposes (mostly high-resolution non-action, with occasional wildlife/action). At the moment, I don't own a camera and need to replace most of my destroyed gear, so am relatively free to buy into any system. A super-high resolution body, plus a high-resolution body with good frame rate/AF (the D850) would be ideal. But I don't see F-mount, or at least current F-mount lenses, as having a future - likely the D850 is the end of the road, or at least very close to it. Mirrorless will likely use a different mount, or at least a different flange distance. Even if it doesn't, lenses will need stepping motors to support all the more advanced (not purely PDAF) focus modes. And I don't want to be stuck with a lens collection that will be less than fully functional after just one generation of bodies.
Per my, reasonably educated, guess, Nikon's mirrorless is going to be very high end, a digital rangefinder produced in Sendai with a new range of very high performance lenses and an adapter with embedded AF module enabling to focus their current range of lenses with excellent AF performance.
Cheers,
Bernard
I'd expect the first one to be a replacement for the D610.
Lenses need stepping motors to support focus modes other than on-sensor PDAF. They need to be capable of small, rapid, repeated movements, rather than just single big movements. Very few Nikon lenses have these at the moment.
It would be logical to start with an entry-level body, which isn't expected to perform AF-wise (and can work with old lenses via an adapter and a limited number of new lenses) while they update their lens collection to be fully compatible with mirrorless AF modes, rather than something which needs to compete with SLRs and the A9 right from the start.
The alternative would be a dedicated, super-high-resolution non-action body, which isn't expected to be able to AF anyway. But Nikon would have to source a sensor for that, which brings its own problems.
-
Lenses need stepping motors to support focus modes other than on-sensor PDAF. They need to be capable of small, rapid, repeated movements, rather than just single big movements. Very few Nikon lenses have these at the moment.
You are looking at this assuming that Nikon won't be competitive AFwise even with newly designed lenses.
I prefer to be more positive.
I would bet we will see 2 solutions:
- new mirrorless lenses (I believe FF lenses, but this isn't really the point) that will natively be very fast AF wise on the mirrorless body. It would make no sense for Nikon to release something not as good as Sony and they have proven time and again the quality of their engineering team,
- existing lenses won't be focused with the sensor, they will be focused with an AF mechanism located in the adapter and similar to the current DSLR approach.
You will get the best of both worlds.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
https://photorumors.com/2017/09/05/first-rumored-specifications-for-the-canon-eos-5ds-r-mark-ii-dslr-camera/
Hesitating between hilarious and pathetic.
If someone still doubted the implication of Canon marketing in various rumors spreading this should clarify it once for all. ;) Based on past occurences... the 5DsII will be an early 2019 camera annoucement shipping in summer of that year.
Now at least does it confirm the level of agitation the D850 has generated!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
https://photorumors.com/2017/09/05/first-rumored-specifications-for-the-canon-eos-5ds-r-mark-ii-dslr-camera/
Hesitating between hilarious and pathetic.
If someone still doubted the implication of Canon marketing in various rumors spreading this should clarify it once for all. ;) Based on past occurences... the 5DsII will be an early 2019 camera annoucement shipping in summer of that year.
Now at least does it confirm the level of agitation the D850 has generated!
Cheers,
Bernard
That depends largely on its frame rate and AF performance.
5fps, 5D4-level AF and the launch price of the 5Dsr? It's dead even before launch. Given the D850, amd the likely Sony bodies before then, a pure resolution-focused body will need to have 80MP to have any chance. But make it 60MP, 9fps and 1Dx2-level AF (or even better than that, given the delay), with a USD3000-3500 launch price, and it would be a well-placed general-purpose/'balanced' body, and a nice upgrade 15 months down the track from the D850.
Either way, though, it will run into the 'end of SLR' problem, even more than the D850 - that is, it will attract Canon-using upgraders looking to get one more generation of bodies out of their existing lenses, but won't attract new users to the system, since no-one wants to be stuck with a collection of obsolete lenses on an obsolete mount after just one generation of bodies. In a way, this means that it doesn't need to be as good as its rivals, since it would only be marketed at existing Canon users anyway.
What if it had the same specs, but was actually a mirrorless body? As Canon's first-generation full-frame mirrorless body, it would do a fair bit better than as Canon's last-generation SLR. People would be buying into it with the confidence that anything associated with it - lenses, accessories, etc. - would have a long life ahead. If Nikon hasn't released a full-frame mirrorless camera by then, it will give Canon a huge leg up in being first to market a product, as was the case early in the DSLR life cycle - an advantage which persists to today. And Canon's mirrorless AF technology is a lot more mature than Nikon's (dual-pixel AF has been around for a while and improves with every generation).
Ultimately, both Canon and Nikon would have a lot to gain if they could just make a firm statement regarding the future use of EF or F mount in mirrorless cameras, and the viability (or non-viability) of current lenses. Even if current lenses are non-viable, it could still work out positively for them if they keep the same physical mount and make the announcement at the same time as they release a slew of stepping-motor-equipped lenses (e.g. new Canon 400, 500, 600 and 800mm lenses) compatible with both SLR and mirrorless. I'm still at a loss to explain Sony sticking with the same mount when they released their FE-mount cameras and lenses, instead of using a wider one. The shallow flange distance is good; the narrow throat, not so much. EF mount and F mount have a lot more potential in this regard.
-
My comment wasn't about the rumored specs, it was about the purposeful leaking of what can only be misleading information one day before the actual market availability of a competitor's new product.
Canon does it every single time and the implied "soon" ends up taking years.
This is IMHO borderline blatently false advertising.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Depends on how seriously you take these leaked "possible specs", Bernard. I never took these things too seriously until an announcement date appears. And Nikon has the same problem on occasion. My hoped-for 1" sensor DL series never saw the light of day, though I seem to remember you had used a prototype.
I have to say that I look at the dawn of the 850 as a chance to pick up a used 810 and sample the Nikon universe - though all my Nikon lenses are old-fashioned AIS manual lenses.
-
Depends on how seriously you take these leaked "possible specs", Bernard. I never took these things too seriously until an announcement date appears. And Nikon has the same problem on occasion. My hoped-for 1" sensor DL series never saw the light of day, though I seem to remember you had used a prototype.
Yes, you are right of course, a large majority of photographers have learned by now to handle these information carefully, but I still find pretty pathetic the urge apparently felt by Canon to leak such misleading information.
Nikon was a bit different on the DL, they had announced it, published an availability date, shown some pre-production cameras in photoshows,... then they ran into issues later. Pretty pathetic too, for for different reasons.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
60 Mp would not make it for me. A fully articulating screen and a new generation (13+ stop DR) 50Mp sensor certainly would.
https://photorumors.com/2017/09/05/first-rumored-specifications-for-the-canon-eos-5ds-r-mark-ii-dslr-camera/
Hesitating between hilarious and pathetic.
If someone still doubted the implication of Canon marketing in various rumors spreading this should clarify it once for all. ;) Based on past occurences... the 5DsII will be an early 2019 camera annoucement shipping in summer of that year.
Now at least does it confirm the level of agitation the D850 has generated!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
60 Mp would not make it for me. A fully articulating screen and a new generation (13+ stop DR) 50Mp sensor certainly would.
Improved DR goes without saying. Every recent camera (apart from entry-level lines using the old fab facilities) has it. To not include it in the 5Ds2 - a low-ISO-focused camera - would be so dumb as to be safely discounted.
But a slow 50MP camera with 5D4-level AF, coming 15 months after the D850, isn't going to attract anyone. If it's going to be a non-action camera, it will need significantly more resolution and other features to make it stand out relative to the D850 and any Sony offerings for that purpose - lower minimum ISO, even higher DR (increased FWC), etc. If it doesn't have that, it will need to compete as an action-capable camera, with top-tier AF and better frame rate. A camera with no IQ advantage over the D850 that's slower, yet priced the same, isn't going to attract anyone.
Perhaps Canon's best bet would be to abandon SLRs altogether and make their next generation of bodies and lenses mirrorless, getting the jump on Nikon and grabbing early market share before they can get their own mirrorless lines out. A switch to mirrorless is inevitable - better to do it first, while your rival is still selling old technology.
-
Perhaps Canon's best bet would be to abandon SLRs altogether and make their next generation of bodies and lenses mirrorless, getting the jump on Nikon and grabbing early market share before they can get their own mirrorless lines out. A switch to mirrorless is inevitable - better to do it first, while your rival is still selling old technology.
They will have to be quick...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
You are looking at this assuming that Nikon won't be competitive AFwise even with newly designed lenses.
I prefer to be more positive.
I would bet we will see 2 solutions:
- new mirrorless lenses (I believe FF lenses, but this isn't really the point) that will natively be very fast AF wise on the mirrorless body. It would make no sense for Nikon to release something not as good as Sony and they have proven time and again the quality of their engineering team,
- existing lenses won't be focused with the sensor, they will be focused with an AF mechanism located in the adapter and similar to the current DSLR approach.
You will get the best of both worlds.
Cheers,
Bernard
Nikon's team is very good at SLRs, and very good at optics. So far, they haven't demonstrated a mirrorless system or other mirrorless technologies that are credible by 2017 standards - no stacked sensor or other solution to EVF lag, no dual-pixel AF or other fast, distance-aware AF solution, etc. Canon has demonstrated their AF capabilities in live-view-capable SLRs, in mirrorless cameras and in video cameras, while Sony has put everything together into the A9, which performs at the same tier as the 1Dx2 and D5. I don't know whether Nikon has any designs in the back office somewhere, but, so far, they haven't demonstrated equivalent capabilities. And expertise in one area of camera-related engineering is no guarantee of expertise in another area. Just look at all the catch-up work Sony's had to do optics-wise, or Canon with sensors.
We already have evidence on how well non-stepping-motor lenses work on mirrorless systems, even with PDAF via an SLR-type approach. Sony has its A-mount adapter, while Canon has an adapter to use EF lenses on EF-M cameras. They're not great... not up to par with native performance even on mid-grade SLRs.
Nikon would need to update almost every single one of its lenses. And, unlike the Canons (which are mostly due for updates anyway), most of the Nikons are fairly recent releases.
-
Nikon's team is very good at SLRs, and very good at optics. So far, they haven't demonstrated a mirrorless system or other mirrorless technologies that are credible by 2017 standards - ...
There we go again... Same answer, check out the 1 series and tell me it doesn't have a top notch AF... although it hasn't been updated for a few years.
Do not confuse the non release of updates to the market with a lack of Nikon internal R&D on these topics.
It is 100% sure that Nikon has maintained a very active internal R&D stream about mirrorless AF expanding what they released with the 1 series.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
There we go again... Same answer, check out the 1 series and tell me it doesn't have a top notch AF... although it hasn't been updated for a few years.
Do not confuse the non release of updates to the market with a lack of Nikon internal R&D on these topics.
It is 100% sure that Nikon has maintained a very active internal R&D stream about mirrorless AF expanding what they released with the 1 series.
Cheers,
Bernard
That's an old, discontinued line of cameras which hasn't received an update in years. Decent AF conpared to other mirrorless cameras of its time, but still with a laggy EVF. It's no A9, that's for sure.
We can only judge the state of manufacturers' technology by what they release, not what they promise. Canon and Sony have demonstrated ongoing development and prowess in mirrorless-related technologies (whether they're actually being used in a mirrorless camera, or as part of a video camera or live view system). Apart from a one-off, now-abandoned effort, Nikon has not. Until they demonstrate otherwise, e.g. by including a lag-free display or super-fast live view AF in the D850, there's no reason to believe they even have that capability. Anything else is just rhetoric or corporate marketing.
That goes for every company. No-one expected the A9 to AF as well as the top tier of SLRs (1Dx2/D4s/D5). Then they released it. There's no demonstration like a released product showing the capability.
-
There's no demonstration like a released product showing the capability.
Agreed. Future will tell.
I propose to bookmark this thread and to come back to it in a few months and assess whose assessment was the closest.
Unless I am mistaken, you had been predicting insistently the inability of Nikon to source a good sensor for the D850, right? ;)
For now, here are the latest Nikon patents for mirrorless Full Frame lenses: https://nikonrumors.com/2017/09/07/new-nikon-patents-nikkor-52mm-f0-9-and-36mm-f1-2-full-frame-mirrorless-lenses.aspx/
It seems pretty obvious based on these that Nikon has a strategy quite different from Sony's for mirrorless. Instead of going for compact, they have decided to go for super high end and to leverage the optical advantages delivered by the lack of mirror. They are not going to try to only sell those to existing Nikon lens owners, they are going to come up with lenses that every single photographer will want to own.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
As a mainly landscape shooter, I have seen the mirrorless cameras and looked into the view finders and I have to say that it will take quite a while before I would like what I see. Until the quality of what I see is close to an OVF I'm not going to like it. If DSLR's disappear I will be using the last ones until they don't work anymore or the mirrorless cameras will have a very good EVF. I'm looking forward to see the view finder on the D850 because the D810 always disappointed me a bit since it is so dark on an f/4 lens. The 5DSR is way brighter even on an f/5.6 lens. I see the flaws of the D810 (which is still a very good camera) has been fixed on the D850 so I preordered one in a split second. I expect that handling wise it will be very similar or maybe even better than the 5DSR.
It is often mentioned by people who promote or like mirrorless cameras that the advantage is all the things you can see in the viewfinder like focus and exposure information. But really what I want to see in the view finder is what I'm shooting and not overlaid by tons of information that I don't really need. What really counts for me is a camera that can be shot in a way so that I have a technically perfect shot every time I compose an image. I can do this with the 5DSR and can do this with the D810 and expect this to be even better with the D810 because of the electronic shutter.
The old nerd in me thinks it is fantastic with all the advances in technology and I can appreciate this very well, but what really counts for me is the above. For Canon and Nikon the diminishing market is more of a concern although I think sensor tech is actually benefitting a lot from mobile devices.
-
...
It is often mentioned by people who promote or like mirrorless cameras that the advantage is all the things you can see in the viewfinder like focus and exposure information. But really what I want to see in the view finder is what I'm shooting and not overlaid by tons of information that I don't really need. ...
+1
It is a good thing Nikon has put in a better OVF; the OVF is very important to me as well.
It is a pity autofocus i causes the fact that a half translucent mirror is used - it would be nice if they could make one again with a perfect mirror. Like in the old days.
-
Agreed. Future will tell.
I propose to bookmark this thread and to come back to it in a few months and assess whose assessment was the closest.
Unless I am mistaken, you had been predicting insistently the inability of Nikon to source a good sensor for the D850, right? ;)
No - I said their sensor wouldn't be as good as Sony's best. Not that it wouldn't be any good. That Sony wouldn't sell Nikon the best sensor they could develop - only the second best one, or the best one that Nikon themselves developed (that Sony would then make).
And it doesn't appear to be as good as Sony's best possible sensor at the moment. Sony managed 42MP, with base ISO performance equivalent to a D810 and high-ISO performance equivalent to a D5, more than two years ago. The next generation isn't far away and should be much better - at least in resolution (60-80MP range), possibly in other aspects as well. Meanwhile, the D850 has gained all of 4MP over the A7r2 in the 27 months since the latter's release, and early DR measurements at various ISOs suggest it is not much different from the A7r2 in that regard either.
But the sensor was never meant to be the strong point of the D850. It's a balanced camera, not a sensor-centric one. And the sensor is extremely strong for an action camera. Remember, I said nothing about the rest of the camera - frame rate, autofocus, build, battery life and other features. Only the sensor. Nikon obviously did the smart thing, took the best sensor they could get and built a high-speed, fast-focusing body around it, rather than simply jamming a slightly-better sensor into a D810-type body and keeping it as a slow-shooting non-action camera that would struggle to compete against Sony's next generation. Were they forced into this because they couldn't get a better sensor, or was it a voluntary decision to sacrifice resolution to make it a faster and more general-purpose camera? Who knows - it's certainly a very good product for what it is. But do they have an ultra-high-resolution studio/landscape/non-action body in the works - say, 72MP/5fps rather than 46MP/9fps? I doubt it.
For now, here are the latest Nikon patents for mirrorless Full Frame lenses: https://nikonrumors.com/2017/09/07/new-nikon-patents-nikkor-52mm-f0-9-and-36mm-f1-2-full-frame-mirrorless-lenses.aspx/
It seems pretty obvious based on these that Nikon has a strategy quite different from Sony's for mirrorless. Instead of going for compact, they have decided to go for super high end and to leverage the optical advantages delivered by the lack of mirror. They are not going to try to only sell those to existing Nikon lens owners, they are going to come up with lenses that every single photographer will want to own.
You realise everyone has a ton of patents for gear which never comes to fruition?
Also, lenses were never going to be the problem for Nikon. If there's one thing they're good at, it's optics. But, unless they're going to compete with Zeiss and Sigma and start making lenses for Canon and Sony mirrorless cameras, those lens designs aren't going to do them any good until they have a mirrorless camera that can focus just as fast and accurately, and has as little viewfinder lag, as a current-generation Sony or Canon mirrorless body. And where are Nikon's patents for those, let alone any actual examples?
-
As a mainly landscape shooter, I have seen the mirrorless cameras and looked into the view finders and I have to say that it will take quite a while before I would like what I see. Until the quality of what I see is close to an OVF I'm not going to like it. If DSLR's disappear I will be using the last ones until they don't work anymore or the mirrorless cameras will have a very good EVF. I'm looking forward to see the view finder on the D850 because the D810 always disappointed me a bit since it is so dark on an f/4 lens. The 5DSR is way brighter even on an f/5.6 lens. I see the flaws of the D810 (which is still a very good camera) has been fixed on the D850 so I preordered one in a split second. I expect that handling wise it will be very similar or maybe even better than the 5DSR.
It is often mentioned by people who promote or like mirrorless cameras that the advantage is all the things you can see in the viewfinder like focus and exposure information. But really what I want to see in the view finder is what I'm shooting and not overlaid by tons of information that I don't really need. What really counts for me is a camera that can be shot in a way so that I have a technically perfect shot every time I compose an image. I can do this with the 5DSR and can do this with the D810 and expect this to be even better with the D810 because of the electronic shutter.
The old nerd in me thinks it is fantastic with all the advances in technology and I can appreciate this very well, but what really counts for me is the above. For Canon and Nikon the diminishing market is more of a concern although I think sensor tech is actually benefitting a lot from mobile devices.
As a landscape shooter, those are precisely the reasons I prefer mirrorless or live view over an OVF. Even my old 5D2s were never taken out of live view mode.
Regardless of how dark it is, they always give me a big, bright image that accurately reflects the exposure of the image, rather than the brightness of the scene. An image that takes an 8-second exposure looks very different from the scene's appearance in an OVF, yet, with an EVF, what I see is what I'll get. By zooming in, I can see exactly what's in focus and what's out of focus, especially when using tilt-shifts. I can see which highlights and shadows will be blown out. In situations where DR isn't a concern, I can accurately expose to the right without fear of blowing out, for improved noise. I can instantly see what a scene will look like with various white balance settings, rather than not knowing until after the shot. And a big, bright LCD screen that can be zoomed in and out is always going to let me see a lot more detail than a relatively tiny OVF, no matter how good.
-
Shadowblade,
Your ability to build stories around your beliefs if quite remarkable. I honnestly think that you should consider writing fiction novels if you have not done so yet.
Do you really believe for a second that Nikon, a company not doing well according to you, would waste precious resources patenting designs they have no intention to release? That's what you do when you have cash to burn.
Besides, what makes you think they would invest in mirrorless at this point without a winning product, whch must mean a product with great focusing abilities. Why would they go from dominating the DSLR AF technology to going subpar in the mirrorless world?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
.... And a big, bright LCD screen that can be zoomed in and out is always going to let me see a lot more detail than a relatively tiny OVF, no matter how good.
yes, one detail at a time...
I prefer both; a good OVF ( screen + loop) + a good EVF - since both have their strengths and weaknesses
-
Shadowblade,
Your ability to build stories around your beliefs if quite remarkable. I honnestly think that you should consider writing fiction novels if you have not done so yet.
Do you really believe for a second that Nikon, a company not doing well according to you, would waste precious resources patenting designs they have no intention to release? That's what you do when you have cash to burn.
When you pursue a direction in R&D, you come up with a lot of things that could prove useful in the future, even if they aren't useful now. At very least, if you came up with something in the course of your work, you wouldn't want someone else capitalising on it without paying you, even if you can't use it yourself. Hence the patent.
A lot of ideas and design that are patented - in any field of science or engineering - are not the goal of the project, but merely the result of one of the side-paths you went down while trying to find the path to your intended destination. But, just as you don't just ignore and forget any side-paths and interesting features you find while exploring a new area, you don't just discard any good, but non-applicable (to your current goal) ideas you come up with during a project - you mark the side-paths and features on a map, and you patent the ideas.
Besides, what makes you think they would invest in mirrorless at this point without a winning product, whch must mean a product with great focusing abilities. Why would they go from dominating the DSLR AF technology to going subpar in the mirrorless world?
Because it's either that or go the way of Kodak. Kodak also had a winning product. Once alternate technology (digital vs film) surpassed them, they went the way of the dodo. It will be the same with the SLR - once mirrorless surpasses it (and it will, given that there's so much more than can be done using sensor data rather than an image reflected in a mirror), it won't matter how good an SLR they can make.
Besides, they're not doing too well in the SLR world either, market-share wise. Momentum goes a long way, and Canon grabbed a lot of that by being first off the block with a lot of technologies earlier on - full-frame, CMOS, video, etc. Better to compete in an area where everyone has to start from scratch.
-
Shadowblade,
Your ability to build stories around your beliefs if quite remarkable. I honnestly think that you should consider writing fiction novels if you have not done so yet.
You have yet to refute the argument.
I suggest you take a class in logic or debating. Ad hominem attacks won't get you very far.
We get it. You love Nikon to death. But you haven't once explained how Nikon will survive the rise of mirrorless technology, what assets they have that will help them do so, what steps they have taken to do this and what evidence there is for it (e.g. features in released products). 'I like Nikon, so they're better and they'll do well' doesn't constitute an argument.
-
You have yet to refute the argument.
I suggest you take a class in logic or debating. Ad hominem attacks won't get you very far.
We get it. You love Nikon to death. 'I like Nikon, so they're better and they'll do well' doesn't constitute an argument.
Re-read our exchanges, there has been plenty of perfectly reasonnable refutation. You are not listening because you base your argument on some unfounded dogma about supposed Nikon inabilties.
And no, I don't love Nikon to death, I just think they design the best DSLRs today and facts appear to support this belief pretty well.
But I will have zero hesitation the day somebody else makes a better tool for some applications. This is the reason why I also own a Sony a5100 and RX100 mkIV and a Hasselblad. Would I have preferred to own an P1? Yes, but it was above my pay grade. ;) I use the cameras I own and can justify pretty well the ratinale for my choices of equipment, my portfolio should be evidence of this.
In short, I go with the best I can afford while trying to maintain as little overlap as possible.
Regarding my Nikon mirrorless forecast... it doesn't derive from brand love, it derives from factual evidence such as patents, Nikon's own public comments, the current under usage of their main high end production facility in Japan and their past achievements in terms of AF and mirrorless technology. Add to this informed comments from people like Thom Hogan and it is 90% sure that we will see interesting things from Nikon in mirrorless soon.
I currently prefer OVFs so no idea if I would buy such a camera or whatever Sony may come up with or even Canon for that matter.
I will look at facts and decide what works best for me based on my current investement in Nikon lenss.
I love diversity and have only praise for what Sony has been doing. I have a lot less respect for Canon because in my view they have not been serving the market as well as they could/should have. But this has nothing to do with me using Nikon gear in the DSLR segment.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Re-read our exchanges, there has been plenty of perfectly reasonnable refutation. You are not listening because you base your argument on some unfounded dogma about supposed Nikon inabilties.
I regard every manufacturer as 'unable' until they demonstrate the ability to do something.
So far, Canon and Sony have demonstrated numerous mirrorless-related technologies - dual-pixel technology, fast on-sensor PDAF, lag-free EVFs, etc. These have gotten better with every generation, whether implemented in mirrorless cameras or as part of the live view or video functions in SLRs or video cameras. Nikon hasn't demonstrated any for years.
I'll regard Nikon as being able to do it when they actually demonstrate that capability.
And no, I don't love Nikon to death, I just think they design the best DSLRs today and facts appear to support this belief pretty well.
Yes, they make the best SLRs. Twenty years ago, Kodak was a top film producer. And, at one stage, someone probably made better horse-drawn buggies than anyone else. They all became irrelevant when they were superseded by new technology.
I'm interested in future developments, not past ones. The end of the road is in sight for SLRs. I have no interest in investing in a system which may not make that transition smoothly. No good buying a full set of lenses now, only to have to replace them in a few years time because they won't let mirrorless bodies work to the best of their ability.
Regarding my Nikon mirrorless forecast... it doesn't derive from brand love, it derives from factual evidence such as patents, Nikon's own public comments, the current under usage of their main high end production facility in Japan and their past achievements in terms of AF and mirrorless technology. Add to this informed comments from people like Thom Hogan and it is 90% sure that we will see interesting things from Nikon in mirrorless soon.
There is little overlap between SLR and mirrorless focusing methods. Mirrorless cameras can take advantage of a lot of things not available to SLRs, due to the through-the-sensor composition and focusing (such as a lot of AI-based focusing), while some methods are available to SLRs but inapplicable to mirrorless cameras (since the AF system and the imaging system must use the same sensor). So proficiency in one system doesn't mean proficiency in the other.
Any company involved in R&D will produce a lot of patents. Most of them don't mean very much and will never see the light of day - they're registered for intellectual property reasons more than anything else. Someone even patented an automated butt-kicker - I doubt anyone's actually built one.
It's a fact that Nikon cannot make sensors - they rely on others to do so. In a mirrorless camera, the sensor is a lot more central to function than it ever was in an SLR - whereas in an SLR it merely takes the place of film, in a mirrorless camera, it's responsible for almost every function of the camera. That is, the sensor almost defines the camera. The inability to make sensors leaves Nikon at the mercy of everyone else, which isn't a great position to be in.
They could do very well as an optics specialist, producing lenses to go on Canon, Sony and other cameras. They have the production facilities and engineering credentials for that. But I doubt they will.
I love diversity and have only praise for what Sony has been doing. I have a lot less respect for Canon because in my view they have not been serving the market as well as they could/should have. But this has nothing to do with me using Nikon gear in the DSLR segment.
Canon is sitting on its laurels, which it earned in the early days of DSLRs.
But it has a lot of latent potential - financial, infrastructure and human. It has much more money than Nikon, more manufacturing capacity (sensors, electronics and optics) and just as many talented engineers. At the moment, I get the sense they're mostly sitting back, trickling out products as the market demands, while building up an arsenal of unreleased technologies that can be released in the future, rather like a military force in peacetime. All it takes is management will, or a looming threat to the company's bottom line, and it can easily kick into action again and release game-changing products.
-
Canon is sitting on its laurels, which it earned in the early days of DSLRs.
But it has a lot of latent potential - financial, infrastructure and human. It has much more money than Nikon, more manufacturing capacity (sensors, electronics and optics) and just as many talented engineers. At the moment, I get the sense they're mostly sitting back, trickling out products as the market demands, while building up an arsenal of unreleased technologies that can be released in the future, rather like a military force in peacetime. All it takes is management will, or a looming threat to the company's bottom line, and it can easily kick into action again and release game-changing products.
Don't know about game changing products (although they've already demonstrated an APS-H-format 250 megapixel CMOS-sensor in 2015), but they are in the game for the long haul, it seems:
Canon to launch new, partially-automated camera plant in Japan in 2019
https://www.dpreview.com/news/4275055835/canon-will-launch-a-new-partially-automated-camera-plant-in-japan-in-2019
Canon has revealed that it is building a new semi-automated camera plant in Japan, and that it expects to open the plant in 2019. The factory will be located in the Miyazaki Prefecture on a 300,000 square meter land parcel, marking this the first time Canon has built a new camera production facility in Japan since 2010. The plant will focus on producing single-lens reflex cameras, according to Nikkei.
While a regrouping/consolidation of manufacturing plants that are now situated elsewhere, one doesn't invest in such a facility for the short term.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I hesitate to comment considering that everyone who has done so on this thread is far more knowledgeable than me, but here goes anyhow. For my landscape photography, I used to lug around a 4x5 film camera, heavy tripod, dark cloth, multi lenses, etc. etc., up and down mountains. When I saw the specs of the first full frame pro Canon DSLR, I assembled all my LF cameras, lenses and accessories and sold them. Haven't looked back since. Right now, I have a 5D MK II, and a Sony NEX 7 for travel. I have only two Canon lenses, the 24mm T/S II, and 70-200 2.8 L. I was planning to get a 5DS R, but based on comments on this thread, I'm going to hold off for another year or two. I have no idea what the future will bring, but am confident that any of the famous landscape phtographers of the past would have been thrilled to replace their LF gear with any currently available full frame DLSR, together with PS and LR. Maybe even an iPhone 6. The lenses I use are Contax, with adapters, and Mamiya 645 M with a Mirex T/S adapter. It wouldn't shock me that the DLSR will die, not necessarily because mirrorless cameras have become better, but possibly because they're eventually less expensive to make with comparable results. What photographic artist needs anything better than what is now available?
-
As a landscape shooter, those are precisely the reasons I prefer mirrorless or live view over an OVF. Even my old 5D2s were never taken out of live view mode.
Regardless of how dark it is, they always give me a big, bright image that accurately reflects the exposure of the image, rather than the brightness of the scene. An image that takes an 8-second exposure looks very different from the scene's appearance in an OVF, yet, with an EVF, what I see is what I'll get. By zooming in, I can see exactly what's in focus and what's out of focus, especially when using tilt-shifts. I can see which highlights and shadows will be blown out. In situations where DR isn't a concern, I can accurately expose to the right without fear of blowing out, for improved noise. I can instantly see what a scene will look like with various white balance settings, rather than not knowing until after the shot. And a big, bright LCD screen that can be zoomed in and out is always going to let me see a lot more detail than a relatively tiny OVF, no matter how good.
The thing is that this is exactly the way of shooting that I don't do. Btw. I had tilt-shift for landscape because I thought this would be an advantage, but they are not in my opinion so I sold them again. With my way of shooting I don't need to check for blown highlights in the viewfinder and I don't need to check for focus. If I didn't get the results I want I would not shoot that way. I do and I concentrate on my compositions and doind what you describe is a distraction to me from what really matters. I'm not saying you are wrong, just that's not the way I shoot. I don't want to look at an ugly TV screen in the viewfinder. I'm sure they will get really good at some point in time, but so far they all look ugly. My mind translates what I see in the OVF to the images I want to make in post processing.
-
The thing is that this is exactly the way of shooting that I don't do. Btw. I had tilt-shift for landscape because I thought this would be an advantage, but they are not in my opinion so I sold them again. With my way of shooting I don't need to check for blown highlights in the viewfinder and I don't need to check for focus. If I didn't get the results I want I would not shoot that way. I do and I concentrate on my compositions and doind what you describe is a distraction to me from what really matters. I'm not saying you are wrong, just that's not the way I shoot. I don't want to look at an ugly TV screen in the viewfinder. I'm sure they will get really good at some point in time, but so far they all look ugly. My mind translates what I see in the OVF to the images I want to make in post processing.
WoW.
You're not concerned with blown highlights and focus is a non issue and freed from these trivialities you can concentrate on composition. That's a different way of shooting :D
Maybe it's because I worked with technology and sat and stared at a screen for years that I accepted and embraced mirrorless quite easily but it does seem to suit how I want to make pictures. Having exposure aids and being able to see what's in focus because the image is greatly magnified seem like big plus points to me and freed from these technical challenges and difficulties which may ruin an image I can concentrate on the image as it'll appear in its final form. A thing that IMO mirrorless makes much easier.
-
WoW.
You're not concerned with blown highlights and focus is a non issue and freed from these trivialities you can concentrate on composition. That's a different way of shooting :D
Maybe it's because I worked with technology and sat and stared at a screen for years that I accepted and embraced mirrorless quite easily but it does seem to suit how I want to make pictures. Having exposure aids and being able to see what's in focus because the image is greatly magnified seem like big plus points to me and freed from these technical challenges and difficulties which may ruin an image I can concentrate on the image as it'll appear in its final form. A thing that IMO mirrorless makes much easier.
I didn't say I was not concerned with blowing highlights or focus, did I? I was saying that I have a shooting technique where I know I have the right focus and I'm not blowing highlights. Obviously it is needed to have these things under control. You could browse my galleries and see that this is the case.
-
My comment wasn't about the rumored specs, it was about the purposeful leaking of what can only be misleading information one day before the actual market availability of a competitor's new product.
Canon does it every single time and the implied "soon" ends up taking years.
This is IMHO borderline blatently false advertising.
Cheers,
Bernard
Seems like their "blatant false advertising" is working. They caught you hook, line and sinker and you are talking about it...job done!
-
That's an old, discontinued line of cameras which hasn't received an update in years. Decent AF conpared to other mirrorless cameras of its time, but still with a laggy EVF. It's no A9, that's for sure.
We can only judge the state of manufacturers' technology by what they release, not what they promise. Canon and Sony have demonstrated ongoing development and prowess in mirrorless-related technologies (whether they're actually being used in a mirrorless camera, or as part of a video camera or live view system). Apart from a one-off, now-abandoned effort, Nikon has not. Until they demonstrate otherwise, e.g. by including a lag-free display or super-fast live view AF in the D850, there's no reason to believe they even have that capability. Anything else is just rhetoric or corporate marketing.
That goes for every company. No-one expected the A9 to AF as well as the top tier of SLRs (1Dx2/D4s/D5). Then they released it. There's no demonstration like a released product showing the capability.
Yeh with the abandoned 1 series and the DF disaster, I would not be one jumping into any new line of cameras from Nikon until they become serious.
-
It is often mentioned by people who promote or like mirrorless cameras that the advantage is all the things you can see in the viewfinder like focus and exposure information. But really what I want to see in the view finder is what I'm shooting and not overlaid by tons of information that I don't really need.
Actually you can pick and choose what information you see in the viewfinder. I have a few with the histogram setup in the bottom right corner. To see this histogram appear in the viewfinder, I hit a button and it's there for a quick check if I like. Hit the button again, it is gone. Love this feature.
I also like the ability to actually see your exposure in the viewfinder rather than chimping with the rear LCD which I have turned off most of the time now.
Shooting street where you don't have a 2nd chance...the what you see is what you get is invaluable.
I guess I'm not like you...getting perfect exposure every time.
-
Do you really believe for a second that Nikon, a company not doing well according to you, would waste precious resources patenting designs they have no intention to release? That's what you do when you have cash to burn.
Cheers,
Bernard
The vast majority of patents never ever get commercialized. Patents are used by companies to block others from developing technology...happens all the time. In fact many companies have more value in their patents than their products.
-
I like my Canon gear. Is it perfect? No. I do desire more dynamic range in some situations, and when a sensor comes along that is SIGNIFICANTLY better than the 6D sensor, I will consider an upgrade. HDR or other exposure blending can't handle all situations. However, I like the lens selections and I like the handling. Colors are pleasing. I also desire waterproofness, and have thought about adding a Pentax if I do more kayaking than I do at present.
Hogloff is quite correct that many patents are made to keep others from building on those patents.
-
It is often mentioned by people who promote or like mirrorless cameras that the advantage is all the things you can see in the viewfinder like focus and exposure information. But really what I want to see in the view finder is what I'm shooting and not overlaid by tons of information that I don't really need. What really counts for me is a camera that can be shot in a way so that I have a technically perfect shot every time I compose an image. I can do this with the 5DSR and can do this with the D810 and expect this to be even better with the D810 because of the electronic shutter.
This is an excellent point. I started shooting landscapes exclusively in live view on my canon's and now on the rear LCD instead of the EVF on my Sony. I have poor eyesight and my glasses always seemed to get in the way when using a VF. So LV and/or mirrorless has been a godsend for me but this is a personal/subjective factor.
I do find that many of the Sony screens have a lot of extra junk displayed on them that I do not need. I wish there were a way to customize what indicators are shown. When I first switched to Sony from Canon I made many more setting/technical errors in my shots (e.g. forgetting to turn off IS or leaving the ISO too high). Part of this is due to shooting canon for many years but also I believe due to the simpler UI (e.g. a dedicated switch for IS on the lens instead of having to go into a quick menu on Sony). I'm happy I switched but I do miss the "it just works" nature of my old canons.
-
Yeh with the abandoned 1 series and the DF disaster, I would not be one jumping into any new line of cameras from Nikon until they become serious.
You probably mean DL? They never shipped them, so nobody was caught having invested in a dead product line, correct?
As far as 1 goes, I do agree. Now, although it may happen, the line isn't discontinued yet.
But really, do you seriously think there is even 1% chance that Nikon would venture in a non strategic mirrorless effort at this point in time? My view is that they won't. They will have spared their customers 2 rounds of half baked products and come up right away with a camera suitable for the most demanding applications with unique lenses. At least this is my guess. ;)
Besides, I believe that Canon will follow suite, but probably one year later (too late?).
Either way, we should all hope this forecast will turn true. Although I love what Sony is doing we don't want to live in a monopoly led world.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
You probably mean DL? They never shipped them, so nobody was caught having invested in a dead product line, correct?
As far as 1 goes, I do agree. Now, although it may happen, the line isn't discontinued yet.
But really, do you seriously think there is even 1% chance that Nikon would venture in a non strategic mirrorless effort at this point in time? My view is that they won't. They will have spared their customers 2 rounds of half baked products and come up right away with a camera suitable for the most demanding applications with unique lenses. At least this is my guess. ;)
Besides, I believe that Canon will follow suite, but probably one year later (too late?).
Either way, we should all hope this forecast will turn true. Although I love what Sony is doing we don't want to live in a monopoly led world.
Cheers,
Bernard
Trouble with aiming at the "most demanding...whatever that means" is all the new technologies that need to be available for this to occur need to be perfected which means huge R&D costs which Nikon does not have too much of. The 850 really is built from a bunch of existing tech...nothing really new. That will not be the case for mirrorless...especially if they aim for that "most demanding" market which just happens to be the smallest market compared to the lower level consumer market.
-
Nikon has been a profitable company year on year for as long as I remember. They certainly have more cash piled up now than they had when they developped breakthrough products such as the D3, another time when mode internet forum experts had declared then death and buried. ;) So there really is no reason to doubt their ability to invest.
Besides, the 1 series has proven their mastery of on sensor AF, what are they missing really?
I'll tell you, the one and only thing they have been missing is the intention to compete in the mirrorless high end market. Why? Probably because some decision makers in Nikon didn't want to canibalize their DSLR sales... yet... Now that Sony is deservedly eating away big chunks of their market Nikon has no more reasons to hesitate, do they?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Nikon has been a profitable company year on year for as long as I remember. They certainly have more cash piled up now than they had when they developped breakthrough products such as the D3, another time when mode internet forum experts had declared then death and buried. ;) So there really is no reason to doubt their ability to invest.
Besides, the 1 series has proven their mastery of on sensor AF, what are they missing really?
I'll tell you, the one and only thing they have been missing is the intention to compete in the mirrorless high end market. Why? Probably because some decision makers in Nikon didn't want to canibalize their DSLR sales... yet... Now that Sony is deservedly eating away big chunks of their market Nikon has no more reasons to hesitate, do they?
Cheers,
Bernard
One very key technology they are dependent on others is the sensor and it will be interesting how eager Sony will be to help Nikon develop a sensor for a mirrorless system that directly competes with their cameras. Right now the sensors all were developed for DSLR systems which might indirectly compete with the Sony cameras...but a "high end" Nikon mirrorless will be direct competition.
This could be Nikon's noose as far as mirrorless capabilities.
-
Nikon has been a profitable company year on year for as long as I remember. They certainly have more cash piled up now than they had when they developped breakthrough products such as the D3, another time when mode internet forum experts had declared then death and buried. ;) So there really is no reason to doubt their ability to invest.
Besides, the 1 series has proven their mastery of on sensor AF, what are they missing really?
I'll tell you, the one and only thing they have been missing is the intention to compete in the mirrorless high end market. Why? Probably because some decision makers in Nikon didn't want to canibalize their DSLR sales... yet... Now that Sony is deservedly eating away big chunks of their market Nikon has no more reasons to hesitate, do they?
Cheers,
Bernard
Im glad I don't hold Nikon shares if thats considered profitable...
-
One very key technology they are dependent on others is the sensor and it will be interesting how eager Sony will be to help Nikon develop a sensor for a mirrorless system that directly competes with their cameras. Right now the sensors all were developed for DSLR systems which might indirectly compete with the Sony cameras...but a "high end" Nikon mirrorless will be direct competition.
This could be Nikon's noose as far as mirrorless capabilities.
all Sony sensors can be used in dSLMs - it is not like Canon sensors with dual sensels technology in silicone itself... all big Sony sensors have PDAF on sensor implemented by what is on top of the sensor... so Nikon can take either Sony developed 20mp from D500 or Sony developed 45mp from D850 or their own from D5 and simply use those in dSLM ... they just need to ask Sony Semi to lay out what necessary on top of the sensor according to their specifications or they even can do that themselves...
-
Besides, the 1 series has proven their mastery of on sensor AF, what are they missing really?
that N1 mastery is due to sensor design from Aptina (and from Sony in the most recent generation) ... small sensor size = good DOF and fast readout off sensor that Aptina (and later Sony) achieved... of course Nikon gets the credit for camera design, components integration, optics, CFA & colors, you name it...
-
all Sony sensors can be used in dSLMs - it is not like Canon sensors with dual sensels technology in silicone itself... all big Sony sensors have PDAF on sensor implemented by what is on top of the sensor... so Nikon can take either Sony developed 20mp from D500 or Sony developed 45mp from D850 or their own from D5 and simply use those in dSLM ... they just need to ask Sony Semi to lay out what necessary on top of the sensor according to their specifications or they even can do that themselves...
Right, and Sony holds all those cards. They just might not want to help a direct competitor in the mirrorless market.
-
Nikon has been a profitable company year on year for as long as I remember. They certainly have more cash piled up now than they had when they developped breakthrough products such as the D3, another time when mode internet forum experts had declared then death and buried. ;) So there really is no reason to doubt their ability to invest.
Last time I checked, Nikon were operating at a loss.
There's much more to being a successful company than having the best current product. Otherwise Betamax would have prevailed over VHS.
Besides, the 1 series has proven their mastery of on sensor AF, what are they missing really?
No, it means that they could keep up with Sony's first-generation systems (the A7r didn't even have PDAF, while the A7's was rudimentary), and Canon's technology at the same time, four years ago. While using lightweight lenses on a 2.7x crop sensor that didn't require nearly as precise focusing as full-frame and APS-C sensors.
The difference in level of precision required makes it similar to you saying that two marksmen are equal because one can hit a 1m-wide target just as quickly and consistently as the other can hit a 30cm-wide target.
They haven't released anything since, and the AF performance of Nikon's SLRs in live view mode is woeful in comparison to current Canon models with dual-pixel technology (particularly when using STM lenses), let alone Sony mirrorless cameras.
Also, unlike both Canon (on video cameras) and Sony (on the A9 and on video cameras), Nikon has yet to demonstrate a lag-free EVF or live view system, which is required for action photography on a mirrorless camera.
I'll tell you, the one and only thing they have been missing is the intention to compete in the mirrorless high end market. Why? Probably because some decision makers in Nikon didn't want to canibalize their DSLR sales... yet... Now that Sony is deservedly eating away big chunks of their market Nikon has no more reasons to hesitate, do they?
It's not hesitation. More likely it's because they haven't got the capability to compete.
Nikon and Sony have been taking big chunks from Canon's market share for years, due to their low-ISO weakness. At low-ISO, the 5D3's shadow areas were a mess of horizontal lines. It took them until 2016 to respond with the 1Dx2 and 5D4 - full-frame cameras capable of low-ISO performance in the same ballpark (if not quite up there) with the leaders. And Canon's a much larger and better-resourced company than Nikon.
Besides, I believe that Canon will follow suite, but probably one year later (too late?).
Why would Canon be later?
Their demonstrated mirrorless AF capabilities are far more advanced than Nikon's and they have a more mature mirrorless-capable lens motor system (the STM lenses) which can easily be added to the next generation of L-lenses.
Moreover, unlike Nikon, many of the key Canon L-lenses are older than their Nikon counterparts and due for an update anyway. The 24-70 and 70-200 could be updated tomorrow, with improved optics as well as stepper motors, and it wouldn't be out of place in the product cycle. Same with many of their supertele lenses.
It would make sense for the 5Ds2 to be Canon's first mirrorless full-frame camera. Canon has already lost much of the high-resolution, non-action SLR market anyway (owing to their inability to compete with the D800/D810 and A7r/A7r2), so not a lot of candidate buyers will be carrying a large lens collection across. As a high-resolution, slow-shooting non-action camera, which, most likely, will be able to stand against Exmor sensors DR-wise for the first time in ten years, it is an ideal candidate to launch a new line of mirrorless cameras and lenses, or even a new lens mount - even if it doesn't match the A9 (or successor) AF-wise (understandably, since Sony has such a head-start in mirrorless), it doesn't particularly matter for most non-action shooters anyway. This could then be followed up with balanced, speed-focused and entry-level successors.
For Nikon, the entry-level route makes more sense than the high-end/high-resolution route. Nikon already half-owns the high-resolution scene (split with Sony), so many users would be carrying a lot of lenses across to the new system and would be understandably reluctant to have to replace them. But the D610 also needs a successor, and APS-C bodies are in constant need of successors. Users of these cameras often don't have a lot of lenses to carry across, or are stepping up from various small-sensor or fixed-lens cameras, so would have to buy new lenses anyway - an ideal place to launch a new mount and lens lineup.
-
Anyway, we should know pretty soon if rumors are to be believed.
For now I have a very hard time identifying things my DSLRs don't do incredibly well.
I am on my way back from a shoot in the backcountry and the Nikon 19mm T/S appears to be a great match to the D850.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Anyway, we should know pretty soon if rumors are to be believed.
For now I have a very hard time identifying things my DSLRs don't do incredibly well.
I am on my way back from a shoot in the backcountry and the Nikon 19mm T/S appears to be a great match to the D850.
Cheers,
Bernard
The issue isn't its capabilities. The issue is with its future.
If the D850 was Nikon's first full-frame mirrorless camera, with a new line of mirrorless-compatible lenses (possibly on a new mount) and the same specs in every other way, I'd have ordered one today, when the DR/ISO charts came out. But, being an SLR, there's little guarantee that any lenses I buy for the system now will still be useful in five years' time, at least without an adapter. I'd rather buy into a system which is likely to still be around in 20 years' time.
-
Whatever works for you,
I take photographs today not in 5 years from now and I couldn't care less if something else better comes out if what I user covers my, rather demanding, needs.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
To put the original question another way, does anyone here believe that Canon will still be making DSLR cameras ten years from now?
-
To put the original question another way, does anyone here believe that Canon will still be making DSLR cameras ten years from now?
In 10 years??? I think EVF will take over by them... I don't believe what many people said about mirrorless revolution, like it happened with digital vs analog, but just natural evolution... considering that mirrorless has been in the market since 2008 (with EVF... if not, any rangefinder could be consider mirrorless)... it is just a natural evolution...
Now the question will be if Canon will still making EF mount with somekind of EVF/OVF system and a mirror... or something else... not sure about that...
-
The issue isn't its capabilities. The issue is with its future.
If the D850 was Nikon's first full-frame mirrorless camera, with a new line of mirrorless-compatible lenses (possibly on a new mount) and the same specs in every other way, I'd have ordered one today, when the DR/ISO charts came out. But, being an SLR, there's little guarantee that any lenses I buy for the system now will still be useful in five years' time, at least without an adapter. I'd rather buy into a system which is likely to still be around in 20 years' time.
Well, you have a lot of future problems, I can imagine your pension is well taken care of ;)
As you know Nikons F Bajonet is out there since... ... ... so you can still mount very old Nikkor lenses on the d850.
So if you want to put your money on Canon/Nikon equipment it is obvious what will have a bigger change to be useful in future.
-
Well, you have a lot of future problems, I can imagine your pension is well taken care of ;)
As you know Nikons F Bajonet is out there since... ... ... so you can still mount very old Nikkor lenses on the d850.
So if you want to put your money on Canon/Nikon equipment it is obvious what will have a bigger change to be useful in future.
Shifting from SLR to mirrorless is very different - the flange distance will likely be much shorter, to better accommodate wide-angle lenses. No company which has made both SLR and mirrorless cameras kept the same mount for both. Even if the physical attachment is the same, the flange distance may well be different, making current lenses unusable without an adapter.
And mounting it is different from having it work well. No stepper motor means that most current lenses can't make use of the rapid, fine AF adjustments that mirrorless cameras rely on. Fine if you just want to focus manually, but not so great if you expect it to focus as fast as it does on your SLR.
I wouldn't buy a diesel-powered car, no matter how good, if it seemed that diesel was going out of favour and diesel fuel wouldn't be readily available in 5 years' time. Same with leaded fuel 30 years ago. And it's the same with lenses - why spend a small fortune on SLR lenses when there won't be a new body to attach them to in 5-10 years' time?
-
Why buy gasoline car also when the future is obviously electric?
For the same reason I bought a DSLR last week, because gasoline cars are still overall better cars than electric ones today.
Is it economically sound? Maybe not but it is the best way to stay close to the cutting edge.
Now if I had less cash and no hope to be better off in 3-5 years, I would perhaps go Sony today, but it would be a cost saving measure.
Similarly, I do totally understand that some photographers prefer the compactness of mirrorless systems but I still see this today as a compromise in favor of ease of use over image quality.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Why buy gasoline car also when the future is obviously electric?
For the same reason I bought a DSLR last week, because gasoline cars are still overall better cars than electric ones today.
Is it economically sound? Maybe not but it is the best way to stay close to the cutting edge.
Petrol will probably still be available everywhere in Australia for the 10-or-so year life of a petrol-powered car. By the time I can no longer get petrol, I'd be ready to replace the car anyway.
Not so with SLR lenses. I would expect to struggle to find a compatible top-end SLR body - particularly a resolution-focused one - well before the lenses themselves are obsolete.
Now if I had less cash and no hope to be better off in 3-5 years, I would perhaps go Sony today, but it would be a cost saving measure.
Similarly, I do totally understand that some photographers prefer the compactness of mirrorless systems but I still see this today as a compromise in favor of ease of use over image quality.
Nothing to do with cost or size.
Some early adopters may have gone for the size, but many were Canon shooters moving for IQ. And no-one buying the GM lenses made the choice based on size. The fact that a mirrorless camera can be smaller than an SLR doesn't mean that size is the main consideration for choosing one, or even a consideration at all.
The A7r2 offered much more DR than the 5Ds and was short only a few megapixels. It also offered similar DR to the D810, with a few extra MP, better high-ISO IQ and the ability to take a much wider variety of lenses (especially the Canon tilt-shifts). The D850, obviously, is a next-generation model. Sony has yet to announce its competitor.
-
Shifting from SLR to mirrorless is very different - the flange distance will likely be much shorter, to better accommodate wide-angle lenses. No company which has made both SLR and mirrorless cameras kept the same mount for both. . . .
And mounting it is different from having it work well. No stepper motor means that most current lenses can't make use of the rapid, fine AF adjustments that mirrorless cameras rely on. . . .
I think you are probably right: so far at least, the best lens designs for a mirrorless camera (including range-finders!) are different than the best designs for an SLR, due to different AF systems and the different constraints on how close rear-elements can get to the focal plane. AFAIK, even with on-sensor PDAF, new approaches like linear stepper motors are best with mirrorless bodies and for video, but are not as fast as ring-style motors when used on an SLR. If that persists, any competitive mirrorless camera system will rely primarily on new lens designs, while using SLR lenses will be a bit of a hack. And it is an easier first step to develop such a new lens system for a mainstream format like DX, where the system needs fewer lenses to be competitive, and each lens sells in higher numbers.
why spend a small fortune on SLR lenses when there won't be a new body to attach them to in 5-10 years' time?
Yes: well-chosen lenses should outlive many generations of ILC body technology, and I now choose my lenses accordingly. I expect some SLR bodies to still be offered for a decade or more, but mostly as backward compatibility tools for good and expensive old lenses, and for photographers of "certain tastes". (Nikon still sells the F6, released in 2004.)
-
I think you are probably right: so far at least, the best lens designs for a mirrorless camera (including range-finders!) are different than the best designs for an SLR, due to different AF systems and the different constraints on how close rear-elements can get to the focal plane. AFAIK, even with on-sensor PDAF, new approaches like linear stepper motors are best with mirrorless bodies and for video, but are not as fast as ring-style motors when used on an SLR. If that persists, any competitive mirrorless camera system will rely primarily on new lens designs, while using SLR lenses will be a bit of a hack. And it is an easier first step to develop such a new lens system for a mainstream format like DX, where the system needs fewer lenses to be competitive, and each lens sells in higher numbers.
Actually, linear stepper motors being 'slower' than ring motors is a myth.
Mirrorless AF has two steps - PDAF, which quickly gets the lens to the vicinity of correct focus, and 'through-the-sensor' (contrast-detection, AI-based or a combination of both) fine-tuning for perfect focus.
SLRs only have one step - PDAF. It gets the lens to the general vicinity of correct focus, but SLR bodies don't have a second fine-tuning step. The lens moves once, then stops moving (providing it's not trying to track).
Stepper motors and ring motors perform the PDAF part just as fast as each other. But, because SLRs using PDAF stop there, while stepping motors using mirrorless or live view approaches keep moving while refining the focus, it gives the impression that the ring motor, which stops first, is faster than the stepping motor. This is not the case - both motors reach the general vicinity of correct focus just as fast as each other, but, whereas the ring motor/SLR combination stops there, leaving a slight (often unnoticeable, due to DOF) error, the stepping motor/mirrorless combination keeps going to refine it further.
Yes: well-chosen lenses should outlive many generations of ILC body technology, and I now choose my lenses accordingly. I expect some SLR bodies to still be offered for a decade or more, but mostly as backward compatibility tools for good and expensive old lenses, and for photographers of "certain tastes". (Nikon still sells the F6, released in 2004.)
The thing is, once mirrorless becomes dominant, manufacturers will no longer be putting their best technologies into SLR bodies (which, as you say, will only be there for backward compatibility and niche tastes with sales declining with each generation). Sensors may improve (it's easier to make a few sensors that go into every product, rather than having a separate one for low-volume SLRs) but anything other than the imaging sensor itself is likely to stagnate, until they stop making them altogether (how many TLR cameras do you see these days?).
-
I don't see the Sony as a "cost-saving measure".
Many of the best new, reasonably-sized lenses are at this point only available for Sony. Unless one really enjoys shooting with behemoth-style gear, the A7R2 with Laowa 15, Loxia 21, CV 65, and Batis 135 really is the best option for landscape photography on the market. The logical next step up from Sony is a Phase 1 100MP camera, not a bulky dSLR with giant Otus lenses.
-
I don't see the Sony as a "cost-saving measure".
Many of the best new, reasonably-sized lenses are at this point only available for Sony. Unless one really enjoys shooting with behemoth-style gear, the A7R2 with Laowa 15, Loxia 21, CV 65, and Batis 135 really is the best option for landscape photography on the market. The logical next step up from Sony is a Phase 1 100MP camera, not a bulky dSLR with giant Otus lenses.
It's not necessarily a size-saving measure either. The fixation on size - whether through marketing or through engineering - has probably held mirrorless back more than anything else. Yes, it's possible to make a mirrorless camera smaller than an SLR of the same sensor size, and mirrorless wide-angle lenses can be smaller. But that's hardly the only - or even a main - reason to move towards mirrorless.
None of the lenses you mentioned are the sharpest lenses available in their focal length range. If you want ultra-sharp, high-resolution photos for large prints, can do far better for landscape photography. They won't be small, but they also won't be compromised, sacrificing image quality in the name of size or cost.
-
It's not necessarily a size-saving measure either. The fixation on size - whether through marketing or through engineering - has probably held mirrorless back more than anything else. Yes, it's possible to make a mirrorless camera smaller than an SLR of the same sensor size, and mirrorless wide-angle lenses can be smaller. But that's hardly the only - or even a main - reason to move towards mirrorless.
None of the lenses you mentioned are the sharpest lenses available in their focal length range. If you want ultra-sharp, high-resolution photos for large prints, can do far better for landscape photography. They won't be small, but they also won't be compromised, sacrificing image quality in the name of size or cost.
With large prints displayed on the wall, do you really think you can pick out which lens was used if all the lenses were top quality and yes I say the Batis 135 and loxia 21 are top quality. I highly doubt you can accurately tell if proper technique and processing were used.
-
None of the lenses you mentioned are the sharpest lenses available in their focal length range.
:o
If you want ultra-sharp, high-resolution photos for large prints, can do far better for landscape photography.
Please list them:
14-15mm
20-21mm
55-70mm
125-150mm
-
:o
Please list them:
14-15mm
The Laowa has poor edges/corners.
For a prime, I'd go for the Sigma 14mm f/1.8.
The Canon 11-24 f/4 and Sony 12-24 f/4 are also just as sharp when shooting at typical landscape apertures, and a lot more versatile.
20-21mm
I'd have this focal length bracketed with the TS-E 17 and TS-E 24. Both are super-sharp to the corners when unshifted and untilted (and the Loxia doesn't even have that option) with no moustache distortion.
Also, when you need 21mm exactly, the Canon 16-35 f/2.8 III, Sony 16-35 f/2.8 GM and Sony 12-24 f/4 all equal or come close to the Loxia at equal aperture (I believe there was a direct comparison between the 12-24 and Loxia on FredMiranda).
55-70mm
55mm Otus.
125-150mm
Sigma 135mm Art probably has the Batis beaten by a bit. The Sigma at f/1.8 comes close to the Batis at f/2.8, and likely beats it at the same aperture. Also, it can go faster when needed.
But, really, at 135mm, I'd be looking at a 70-200mm or 100-400mm zoom.
-
The lenses you listed are not sharper than the ones I listed, and in many cases aren't even the right focal length.
They also typically have lousy to non-existent sunstars, particularly important when photographing landscapes at wide angles.
However, you are quite correct that they are all huge and mostly enormously expensive.
So, you can pay a lot of money for enormous dSLR lenses and more or less match the IQ of less expensive, reasonably sized Sony glass.
-
The lenses you listed are not sharper than the ones I listed, and in many cases aren't even the right focal length.
They also typically have lousy to non-existent sunstars, particularly important when photographing landscapes at wide angles.
However, you are quite correct that they are all huge and mostly enormously expensive.
So, you can pay a lot of money for enormous dSLR lenses and more or less match the IQ of less expensive, reasonably sized Sony glass.
The Laowa 15 has soft corners/edges even when stopped down. Any of the other 14-15mm options mentioned beats it optically, and the zooms are more versatile as well.
Regarding sunstars, the Loxia 21mm isn't exactly great for that. It gives 10-pointed stars whose rays appear spread too far apart (for landscape, and especially cityscape photography, that's the major failing of most lenses with an even number of aperture blades). The 14- and 18-pointed stars generated by the Canon and Sony zooms with 7 or 9 blades are much better.
I don't think anything quite touches the Otus lenses for sharpness in their comparable focal length ranges (the only ones that come close being some of the Sigma Art lenses).
I don't see the point of the Batis 135 f/2.8 at all. It doesn't cost much less than the 70-200 f/2.8 zooms and is no faster, and is much more expensive than the much faster and equally sharp (if not a bit sharper) Sigma 135mm f/1.8. Essentially, you're paying a huge premium for small size, without any real performance benefit.
And what you're getting in most of these cases isn't just size - it's versatility. The Canon 16-35 f/2.8 and the Sony 12-24 f/4 and 16-35 f/2.8 can each cover for a number of primes. What's easier to carry - a single 12-24 or 16-35, or both the 15mm Laowa and the 21mm Loxia?
-
The Laowa 15 has soft corners/edges even when stopped down. Any of the other 14-15mm options mentioned beats it optically, and the zooms are more versatile as well.
Regarding sunstars, the Loxia 21mm isn't exactly great for that. It gives 10-pointed stars whose rays appear spread too far apart (for landscape, and especially cityscape photography, that's the major failing of most lenses with an even number of aperture blades). The 14- and 18-pointed stars generated by the Canon and Sony zooms with 7 or 9 blades are much better.
I don't think anything quite touches the Otus lenses for sharpness in their comparable focal length ranges (the only ones that come close being some of the Sigma Art lenses).
I don't see the point of the Batis 135 f/2.8 at all. It doesn't cost much less than the 70-200 f/2.8 zooms and is no faster, and is much more expensive than the much faster and equally sharp (if not a bit sharper) Sigma 135mm f/1.8. Essentially, you're paying a huge premium for small size, without any real performance benefit.
And what you're getting in most of these cases isn't just size - it's versatility. The Canon 16-35 f/2.8 and the Sony 12-24 f/4 and 16-35 f/2.8 can each cover for a number of primes. What's easier to carry - a single 12-24 or 16-35, or both the 15mm Laowa and the 21mm Loxia?
Depends on what you mean by carry. When I travel I carry my camera around my wrist for weeks on end. I can tell you the 16-35 zoom hanging off my wrist is much more noticable than a Batis 25. I really can handle much more weight in my pack...but hanging off my wrist, the big zooms become a pain.
-
The Laowa 15 has soft corners/edges even when stopped down.
I own the Laowa, and it's extremely sharp in the corners at landscape apertures. Simply blows away the Zeiss ZE 15/2.8 I used to own, at any aperture.