What next for Canon?

[shadowblade]

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.

[hogloff]

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?

[MoreOrLess]

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.

[shadowblade]

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.

[John Cothron]

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.

[shadowblade]

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.

[Martin Kristiansen]

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

[John Cothron]

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.

[shadowblade]

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.

[shadowblade]

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.

[Hans Kruse]

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.

[shadowblade]

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.

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[shadowblade]

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.

[Hans Kruse]

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. 

[shadowblade]

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.

[cgarnerhome]

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

[stevesanacore]

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).

[shadowblade]

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.

[BernardLanguillier]

I would include the Nikon D1 in any game changer list since they pretty much invented the DSLR with it.

Cheers,
Bernard