Do you think Canon will respond to the Nikon D800?

pwm2 wrote in post #16738769
Sigma does not have a complete line program. With some few exceptions, they can only supply a couple of good standard lenses.


Why? A small company has less options. And all cameras - doesn't matter what brand - contain components bought from other companies.

But it would be bad for the users if there aren't multiple sensor manufacturers that are big enough that they can make money.


Nothing unfair. Remember that there are always two sides of a coin - Nikon have to settle for what is on sale. Canon could introduce a dual-pixel sensor all on their own - such a sensor is a great advantage if wanting to switch over to mirrorless cameras.


Sony do have patents. But the patent is to stop other companies from making copies of the sensor. Sony can still decide to sell sensors, or sell licenses to produce sensors.

But in the case of Nikon using Sony sensors - Nikon might have requested an exclusivity deal that Sony must not also ship Exmor sensors to Canon.


Sony basically have a D800.
Canon currently do not have any answer.
Nikon only has an answer as long as Sony sells them sensors at a competitive price.


Remember that Sony invested almost a billion dollars last year to increase the production capacity of sensors. The reason? Because they make money selling their sensors. And the longer it takes Canon to release a competing sensor, the more money Sony will be able to make.


There are seldom any "better" or "best". It is mostly individual needs that decides which camera is best suited to the own needs. The Nikon D800 isn't magic.


That Sony is making lots of money from selling sensors? And that Sony may even start to make lots of money from cameras in case it takes too long for Canon to be able to release a new sensor?

interesting points. cheers but cant sony make more money by forcing us to move to Sony's camera's and lenses?

Not only will we invest in there camera's but also there lenses etc?Market share in other words because nikon and canon own most of it at the moment if i am not mistaken?

Nikon does design some of their own sensors, they just have someone else manufacture them. It's much cheaper this way. And of course buy the best sensors Sony has to offer. Its a wise move on their part.

jonneymendoza wrote in post #16738802
interesting points. cheers but cant sony make more money by forcing us to move to Sony's camera's and lenses?

Not only will we invest in there camera's but also there lenses etc?Market share in other words because nikon and canon own most of it at the moment if i am not mistaken?

Remember that Sony can't control the market.

They can want us to buy Sony cameras and Sony lenses - that doesn't make us do so.

Lots of Canon shooters just get a Sony body and an adapter and continue to buy Canon lenses.

Besides - I would think that Sony is making a huge amount of money on selling sensors. And they don't only sell 36MP full-format sensors to Nikon. They also sell sensors for use in P&S and mobile phones. And they make that money without any own work needed. They already have the sensor design and the upgraded fab to produce the sensors. So the sold sensors directly pays back on that $800 million investment in increased production capacity.

Back to Sony lenses and cameras. You may like the lenses and cameras. But remember that for every lens or body Sony releases, they have to invest a huge amount of money in RD. And then they need to invest in marketing. These costs eats away from the profit of actually selling. And Sony can just not know if their gear will sell well or not, so it's a lottery. While the sensors sold to Nikon is safe money.

Is there a smaller sony camera that has a d800 sensor in that i can use my canon lenses on?

jonneymendoza wrote in post #16739017
Is there a smaller sony camera that has a d800 sensor in that i can use my canon lenses on?

Sony a7r

andrikos wrote in post #16739027
Sony a7r

I think that was a rhetorical question.

Sony is spending a lot less on R&D than one might think, the battery is the old NEX one, the EVF is from the A99, an existing lens mount system, the basic sensor design and manufacturing capabilities were already in place, the Bionz X processor's R&D cost is covered over a multitude of cameras that all use it (a7, a7r, RX10 and a6000 as of now), and so on. The only part of the a7 that is completely unique is the chassis design, everything else already existed or would have existed for other camera bodies. Most of the R&D money is likely in the lenses.

Regarding the bolded text, I think that's been Sony's strategy in consumer electronics for at least the past decade - make something cool in hopes that it sells and capitalize on it's sales if it does. But while it's humorous to think and talk about it that way, massive corporations like Sony focus test all their products into oblivion before releasing anything, I don't think there is any company worth mentioning that isn't sure it's product will sell to someone somewhere. There are a million reasons why sales might not go as planned, but then again no one's clairvoyant.

Lots of big companies thinks they have analyzed the market and then when they do release their product they find out they have been all wrong. It may be enough that a competitor have released a new product in-between to shift a significant number of customers to completely new expectations of functionality or price.

pwm2 wrote in post #16739152
Lots of big companies thinks they have analyzed the market and then when they do release their product they find out they have been all wrong. It may be enough that a competitor have released a new product in-between to shift a significant number of customers to completely new expectations of functionality or price.

I suspect that this may have happened to the 7DII. The rumor mill has been churning for quite some time, release last year, than in November, then in February and no 7DII. I'm speculating that every time Canon gets ready to release the camera, something comes along causing them to go back for some re-designing. I hope that's the case and when it's finally ready, it's A6000 killer.

I don't think Canon has been close to release and changed their mind.

I think Canon do not want to release before they have a new sensor - just adding a 53-point AF to the current 7D and the 70D phase-detect AF directly on the sensor isn't really worth it. A 7D2 has to be significantly cooler than a 70D - and I can't see that happen without a new sensor.

I have no real knowledge of the processing chips or AF systems used in DSLRs, but I've always suspected that those are the areas where Canikon are really gouging us. Specifically, are we really to believe that the tech enabling the 5D3's AF and FPS was unavailable -- or even far more expensive -- back when the 5D2 was released? Maybe someone who actually knows can chime in. I wouldn't be surprised to learn there's a long pipeline of this stuff being held back from market, just to keep the upgrade cycle moving effortlessly without progressing sensor tech, which is more difficult and requires time.

I'm probably biased because I don't care about AF or framerates, but still. From my point of view where they're just a nuisance that steal marketability from advances I actually care about, I'm suspicious that Canikon could give you sports/action shooters exactly what you want at a low price point right this minute.

brettjrob wrote in post #16739808
I have no real knowledge of the processing chips or AF systems used in DSLRs, but I've always suspected that those are the areas where Canikon are really gouging us. Specifically, are we really to believe that the tech enabling the 5D3's AF and FPS was unavailable -- or even far more expensive -- back when the 5D2 was released? Maybe someone who actually knows can chime in. I wouldn't be surprised to learn there's a long pipeline of this stuff being held back from market, just to keep the upgrade cycle moving effortlessly without progressing sensor tech, which is more difficult and requires time.

I'm probably biased because I don't care about AF or framerates, but still. From my point of view where they're just a nuisance that steal marketability from advances I actually care about, I'm suspicious that Canikon could give you sports/action shooters exactly what you want at a low price point right this minute.

Price and power consumption are the main keys to this. You could have had it, but it would have been much more expensive, and your batteries probably would have only lasted for a few hundred shots at the most. There have been huge gains in the last very few years on price/performance ratio, and power consumption.

The 5D2 and 5D3 has basically the same sensor.

But Canon has been working a bit on reducing the problems with banding - so there has been new work done on the sensor.

Most probably, the 5D2 was intended to get a better AF - basically similar to the AF in the 7D. But remember that the 5D2 was released around the time when Canon had huge issues with the new 1D3 AF - the so called "blue dot" problem. Most probably they had to move too much resources into the 1D3 issues and then had to decide if they should delay the 5D2 half a year extra or send it out with the 5D AF system.

Most camera vendors does not release the best cameras they can release. But I think the main reason is that they also need to think about sales price. If they always include dual DiGIC chips, they need to increase the price of the cameras. If they drop crop-factor bodies and only sell FF then they need to recover the money for the higher production capacity needed. A newer sensor that can match the Sony Exmor sensor? Needs newer fab capacity - and a huge amount of capacity. Canon would want lots of money to recover those investments.

The newer AF systems aren't trivially easy to put to market. They need a huge amount of software to make the off-center AF points to behave well with a huge number of different lenses. And they want lots of money for supplying such a solution.

So in the end, they still have to sell a bit dumbed-down cameras just to be able to sell more cameras at a lower price each. If NASA was the customer, then they would all be able to supply way better cameras but after investing a lot in R&D and requiring a huge per-unit price.

pwm2 wrote in post #16739835
...If NASA was the customer, then they would all be able to supply way better cameras but after investing a lot in R&D and requiring a huge per-unit price.

Hmm.. I wonder if you meant to type that. You sort of just admitted that Nikon is way better than Canon as their consumer grade cameras are just fine for NASA.
http://cameras.reviewe​d.com …ry-of-nikons-nasa-cameras

gjl711 wrote in post #16739871
Hmm.. I wonder if you meant to type that. You sort of just admitted that Nikon is way better than Canon as their consumer grade cameras are just fine for NASA.
http://cameras.reviewe​d.com …ry-of-nikons-nasa-cameras

Not necessarily better over all, but better at what NASA wants them for anyway. Their shots would tend to use all the DR available, and even more, while high ISO and high FPS won't help much.