What next for Canon?

[stevesanacore]

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.

[Martin Kristiansen]

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.

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[BJL]

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.

[Rhossydd]

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.

[shadowblade]

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.

[BJL]

@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]

@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.

[uaiomex]

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

[shadowblade]

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.

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[shadowblade]

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.

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[shadowblade]

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.

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[shadowblade]

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).

[scooby70]

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

[shadowblade]

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

Not the sensors. The rest of the camera - AF, EVF lag, etc.

[Christopher]

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

[BernardLanguillier]

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