How will Canon respond to Nikon's D810?

If you skim through Nikon message boards, a good number of people complained about and switched from their D800s to 5DIIIs since they wanted something more like the D700 without dealing with huge RAW files and AF issues. We're here talking about how Canon is falling behind and failing while people from the Nikon side are saying the same thing. Its just funny how people react and assume the worst because their 'team' is losing. As to losing what, neither side have any clue.

The grass is always greener, I guess

I don't see the D810 is a big game changer. It seems like a nice evolution of the 800/ 800e. It still doesn't surpass the areas people prefer the 5DmkIII over the 800 series. And one of the main features of the 800, the higher resolution sensor, hasn't changed much from the 800e.

If Canon comes out with the 5DmkIV next year, I think the main pressure Canon will have is to price it the same as the current 5DmkIII/D810.

The most interesting rumor I've seen is that Canon is working on a new sensor format...a pseudo foveon design. No telling if they are going to take some risk with new technology, as I guess both Nikon and Canon are seeing market shares in DSLR shrink while competing mirrorless are growing.

http://www.imaging-resource.com …ith-uv-and-ir-sensitivity

http://www.bobatkins.c​om …/canon_sensor_p​atent.html

^The two points above are exactly what I was talking about, the D810 if anything is an answer to the 5D. Kudos to them for knowing what their customers want, but in no way do I feel that Canon needs to "respond" to what they release.

I think they will respond to both the D610 and D810 by continuing to wait until a product is ready for release so they aren't forced to put out an upgrade in 12 months time.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #17052148
^The two points above are exactly what I was talking about, the D810 if anything is an answer to the 5D. Kudos to them for knowing what their customers want, but in no way do I feel that Canon needs to "respond" to what they release.

It really depends on your perspective. On the one hand the performance of the body (D800) was not as good as the 5DIII, so I can see people being annoyed by that over in Nikonia; however the sensor is leagues better for low iso work like studio and landscape. For someone like me the D810 sounds ideal while the 5DIII is like a minivan with too many cupholders and not enough seats. Granted I understand that I fall in the small minority of shooters whose desires would likely be better served by a medium format digital back but for our inadequate bank accounts.

May be Canon is behind Nikon if you compare 5DIII vs. D810, but if you compare the whole system they are almost equal. Think about the EF 135L, the EF 85L, the new EF 16-35 f4 and the superb 70-200 ISII. A nice body is nice, but without nice lenses it is just a nice body...

panicatnabisco wrote in post #17052042
If you skim through Nikon message boards, a good number of people complained about and switched from their D800s to 5DIIIs since they wanted something more like the D700 without dealing with huge RAW files and AF issues. We're here talking about how Canon is falling behind and failing while people from the Nikon side are saying the same thing. Its just funny how people react and assume the worst because their 'team' is losing. As to losing what, neither side have any clue.

The grass is always greener, I guess

I've run into a couple of people who have made that comment comparing my 5DIII to whatever Nikon they've got. I've always found t interesting.

Scatterbrained wrote in post #17052237
It really depends on your perspective. On the one hand the performance of the body (D800) was not as good as the 5DIII, so I can see people being annoyed by that over in Nikonia; however the sensor is leagues better for low iso work like studio and landscape. For someone like me the D810 sounds ideal while the 5DIII is like a minivan with too many cupholders and not enough seats. Granted I understand that I fall in the small minority of shooters whose desires would likely be better served by a medium format digital back but for our inadequate bank accounts.

Again, I think "leagues" better is pure hyperbole. It's better at certain things, not all of them. As I said, I think the D810 is much closer to what the 5D is and it's a much more serious competitor, so kudos to Nikon for coming out with it, but it does make me wonder what they're doing with their R&D since they've come out with what, 4 FF bodies in the past 2 years?

"How will Canon respond to Nikon's D810? "

If you refer to total lack of inspiration in part of Nikon when introducing a just "Face lift" (D810) to replace then revolutionary at the time of introduction D800, then I must add:

Canon needs to paint current 5D MK III, white and name it 5D.1 or may be 5.1D !
bazinga!!

But if it is to ask how Canon can answer to the shame of introducing 5D mK III just following introduction of D800, or the real question here, How Canon wants to truly answer Nikon's Original D800 at least now, then I am so interested to see the real version.
I have feeling of not being disappointed this time. Well we should see that very soon.

samsen wrote in post #17052282
"How will Canon respond to Nikon's D810? "

If you refer to total lack of inspiration in part of Nikon when introducing a just "Face lift" (D810) to replace then revolutionary at the time of introduction D800, then I must add:

Canon needs to paint current 5D MK III, white and name it 5D.1 or may be 5.1D !
bazinga!!

But if it is to ask how Canon can answer to the shame of introducing 5D mK III just following introduction of D800, or the real question here, How Canon wants to truly answer Nikon's Original D800 at least now, then I am so interested to see the real version.
I have feeling of not being disappointed this time. Well we should see that very soon.

well the face lift was very good IMO, but since the D800 was so revolutionary, why the early facelift? maybe not so revolutionary to start with? or making up for the D600 incident?

samsen wrote in post #17052282
But if it is to ask how Canon can answer to the shame of introducing 5D mK III just following introduction of D800, or the real question here, How Canon wants to truly answer Nikon's Original D800 at least now, then I am so interested to see the real version.
I have feeling of not being disappointed this time. Well we should see that very soon.

Shame? The 5Diii was just as revolutionary in what it offered, they were two very different cameras that were marketed to the same people. From all the data I've seen (and just judging what I've seen out in the field) the 5Diii outsold the D800 pretty much everywhere...

That grass looks so green over there... don't fall for it though, it's just the way Nikon AWB works

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #17052298
From all the data I've seen (and just judging what I've seen out in the field) the 5Diii outsold the D800 pretty much everywhere...

This part is absolutely true and "Thanks" Canon's marketers and right marketing policies.

Not a good product sells and Not what sells well, is a good product!

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #17052273
Again, I think "leagues" better is pure hyperbole. It's better at certain things, not all of them. As I said, I think the D810 is much closer to what the 5D is and it's a much more serious competitor, so kudos to Nikon for coming out with it, but it does make me wonder what they're doing with their R&D since they've come out with what, 4 FF bodies in the past 2 years?

Did you actually read my post? I said the sensor is leagues better, at low iso, and it is. I've worked with files from both systems and there is a huge difference. Will the average shooter notice? Many probably won't, and that's OK; it doesn't change the fact that there is a huge performance difference between the two sensors. It's why so many Canon shooters picked up the A7R, to get their hands on an ever so slightly inferior iteration of that same sensor. (Odd that Nikon can get more out of the Sony sensor than Sony does:confused

I think 5D MKIII is a better overall tool, but one area where Nikon is better is Landscape Photography (Resolution, Sharoness, DR).

Scatterbrained wrote in post #17052361
Did you actually read my post? I said the sensor is leagues better, at low iso, and it is. I've worked with files from both systems and there is a huge difference. Will the average shooter notice? Many probably won't, and that's OK; it doesn't change the fact that there is a huge performance difference between the two sensors. It's why so many Canon shooters picked up the A7R, to get their hands on an ever so slightly inferior iteration of that same sensor. (Odd that Nikon can get more out of the Sony sensor than Sony does:confused

Yeah, I did read your post, and yes, I still think it's hyperbole. I've seen files from the D800 (one of my best friends has one), the resolution is pretty cool, but it's not something that's necessary for the vast majority of shooters.