I think they are saying a lot between the lines here. It really reminds me of early 2007 Nikon statements - only they are way more honest now. One important reason Nikon won't talk about a roadmap is - there is none. And I would guess their shareholder relations makes it much more difficult for them to talk about strategy than e.g. Sigma.
The flat, and obviously wrong, denial of FX domination lens-wise may mean they may actually do something about it right now. And some glaring holes in the present lineup may be filled with new/updated FX glass, like 24/1.8, 135/1.8 and a new release of the 50/1.4 with better performance in the f/1.4-f/2.2 zone.
The obvious answer to the growing problem of AF precision is on-chip PDAF - that may also solve the problem of residual spherical aberration, which in many cases is considerable. The way they comment on Canon's top of the line AF systems, may be interpreted as "we won't go so far along that path".
JacquesBalthazar: Canon users should rejoice having the option of all that additional real estate: ultimate cropping flexibility.
Some will use that for billboards and advertisement in general, and skip more expensive investments in medium format, just like what happened with the D800. And that is great for young up and coming photographers confronted with the falling tariffs of an extremely competitive market.
Landscape fans will use the 50 MP for ultimate detail, and leverage the camera's anti-vibration features with wonderful Canon and Zeiss lenses.
Great news! All the complaining just seems weird from the distance (I never used Canon DSLRs). We are all so spoiled!
No doubt the increased capabilities will be useful for many, and a ca 24 MP APS-C crop is really something. In my own experience, the 16 MP crop of the D800 is really enough, though. For it is rather hard to get the full quality out of extrta pixels. But that's just me.
Zeisschen: Okay, I try to be fair before calling this Canon sensor an "epic fail", let's see first what Sony can squeeze out of their upcoming 50MP sensor.
Maybe:- 15 stops dynamic range instead 11.7 (5Dm3)?- ISO 200.000 instead of 12.000? - 5 axis IBIS?- half the size and weight?- 1000$ less?
If that's the case, then Canon "see impossible" with this camera...
It's only theoretical that pixel size does not affect noise or low light capability. Even if pooling by downsampling were perfect, there are the effects of Bayer pattern. So the "pixel quality" remains practically relevant - to a degree that astonishes me. But it may have to do with a fair amount of "cooking" nowadays.
Lea5: Interesting news from Canon. Seems to me this is a great camera for studio use. And hey it is a bargain for a price of just 3899!! I will check this camera for a day or two and if fine I'll get one to my other cameras. I still have a few Canon lenses. 50MP for that price is fantastic to me and my customers. Of course hobby shooters will call this a fail and whine like always :)
Even at the lowest ISO it will lag behind MF - the question is how much. Not necessarily so much as to be decisive for a whole lot of applications. That will be interesting to see.
balico: Meant for landscape, tripod and studio work only!
That the standard max iso is only 6400 makes me wondering about the noise level and probably there are too many pixels squeezed on this 35mm sensor (at the current level of technology) and makes it "less preferable" for event photography at low light. All together this sensor doesn't seem to be able to compete with Sony's current 36Mp sensor in any way beside resolution..
That this sensor is said to have same dynamic range as the 5D mkIII is not an improvement, also because the exposure bracketing of 3 frames at 1/3 or 1/2 EV is pretty handicapped compared to Nikon D810's 9 shots at 1 Ev or 5 shots at 2Ev..
Then they removed some of the video features that are used by many professional videographers, no built in flash and still price it higher then the Nikon D810..
It seems that Canon deliberately wants to limit the market for this product!?
Of course they do! 36 MP is already in the upper end for a general purpose camera, as witnessed by all the Nikon shooters happily "downgrading" to the D750 or even the Df.
yihlee: Year 2015, high-end fx dslr, ISO tops at 6400? Unbelievable.
I prefer to believe in physics and the reality of Poisson shot noise. Try to calculate how many electrons there are in a pixel, 18% grey correctly exposed @ISO25600.
GlobalGuyUSA: No headphone jack? Really? I mean, REALLY???
Of all the stupid stingy things to cheap out on......... I used to think that Nikon intentionally crippled their bodies... but that's just nuts. No GPS or WIFI or Touchscreen or Tilt Screen, okay, fine. But not even a headphone jack??
Just because you can't do 1080 60p, when ever other camera in the world can (and are even doing 4K) doesn't mean you need to take away the ONE feature that would actually make the 1080 30p livable (good sound).
I guess Canon has restricted features intentionally to keep away buyers who are better served with their other present and upcoming models.
photogeek: So basically it's like a Nikon D810 with no video features and worse high ISO? Good luck with that.
For some uses, I think it will compete very well with the D810, in particular when there is good control over light. But not all - and Canon has a great challenge providing glass for that sensor. Nikon has not been up to that challenge with the D800/D810.
Light Pilgrim: In it is not to compete with D810, it is to compete with MF for a much cheaper price. I think they are targeting MF segment with this camera, no 5D MKIII od Nikon D810 users. Pretty sure.
Of course this camera will compete rather well with the D810, I guess it may have a harder time vs MF, because the pixels aren't that great in comparison, and there is no resolution advantage to make up for it.
Brock10: Canon is pandering to the clueless. The megapixel war should have the aim of selling to the uninformed masses in the consumer market. Canon 5D buyers aren’t studio photographers. We shoot on-location. We don’t need more megapixels.
Hey Canon. Your largest group of 5D buyers would prefer you give us sensors with better low-light capabilities. Cramming 50.6 itsy bitsy photosites into a full frame sensor is going the wrong direction. Please develop for your established professional customers. We don’t need to print for billboards. We need cameras that can see better when the lights go down, and better, faster focusing.
Stop letting your marketing department rule your engineers. Yes, 50.6MP vs. 22.3 is easy math for clueless salesmen. Let them use that higher-number-must-be-better math on uninformed point-and-shoot consumers. Don’t insult your true 5D client base with this reasoning. We know better. I was hoping the "S" stood for sensitivity. Big letdown.
I suggest that people abstain both from declaring what others need and what is relevant, effective resolution in landscape photography. I'm sure there will be scenes where the 50 MP offer a clear advantage over, say, the 36 MP of the D810, but it will be very interesting to see such demonstrations. I think resolution often may be overrated as an element of image quality. There is, rather literally, a shadow side to high resolution.
12fps: Besides Resolution advancements significantly outpace the advancements of the qualities of their image sensors, file-size especially in RAW is becoming a major headache. I don't know how big the file size for a full res image, but judging this advancement, just a couple of shoots, spaces in hard drives will run out in no-time. Also, the CF cards, even with more than 100 MB/secs, its not going to help, since the amount of data recorded will be ridiculously high. I guess Canon is using RAID in dual card formats, they need new file formats to lessen the footprint of RAW, and even JPEG.
The point about RAW file size and card writing speed is perfectly valid for general use, but hardly for the more specialized use this camera is built for. This is not a spray and pray camera, to think about this as a general purpose tool is IMHO wrong.
Balooziggy: Amazing to see all the Nikon trolls watching and commenting on Canon announcements even though the camera has not even made GA yet, I wonder what they worried about? IDIOTS !!!
Many Nikon shooters have experience with 36MP FF. And 24MP non-AA filter crop which is about the pixel density of the new Canons. I'm sure many will find them useful, but i doubt that I will ever want to go beyond the 36MP of my D800. It's a case of diminishing returns, and rather extreme requirements on glass and technique to exploit anything beyond ca 30 MP well. I have yet to find a lens that matches the D7100 sensor on the whole frame, so I'm not too curious about what it will look like in the FF corners with that pixel density. The Sigma 35/1.4 Art is not up to the task, maybe the 50/1.4 Art is. With 50MP and adequate glass, you will be able to see the diffraction effects stepping down from f/5.6 to f/8, so if you want to use all the pixels well, you should stay in f/1.2-f/5.6 land. When I use f/11 on the D800, it's not because it's good, but because it's not that bad.
Couscousdelight: And today Samsung presents it first Organic Sensor :http://image-sensors-world.blogspot.fr/2015/02/samsung-presents-organic-on-si-cmos.html
The most interesting aspect here, may be that they can reduce pixel count without reducing effective resolution in color images with the "hybrid Foveon" approach taken.
PerL: "But I was hoping for some live view. Instead, when shooting at the fastest frame rate you see a series of still images as you capture them, making it difficult to follow or anticipate action through the viewfinder."
So it also got "shutter stutter" despite the hype. It seems impossible to get a proper live view while shooting fast series with a mirrorless. So now we can settle that. DSLRs still rules for serious action.
I guess that the NX1 has too little processing power available, and that the EVF implementation takes a lot of it. As ThePhilips points out, digital black-out is a well known issue, and I'm quite sure Samsung would have fixed it by now if it just were about using the CPU/GPU better.
SnakePlissken: I find it bizarre that every DPR review descends into a war between Canikon vs Sony/Samsung etc. So pathetic. it is good for the consumer that there is so much competition and improvement in consumer electronics.
As an aside, I live in London, travel on the underground most days, visit museums and galleries most weekends and therefore come across tourists all year round - 1000s of them. Tourists carry and use cameras (commuters less so...). I would estimate that of the cameras I see tourists use, 50% would be camera phones and 40% are DSLRs from Canon or Nikon, but mainly Canon. Given the talk on here I would expect everyone to have a Sony A7 or other mirrorless system, yet I never see it. All I see are entry-level, small DSLRs. So Canon and Nikon are doing something right.
The remaining 10% tend to be pocket digital cameras. I never see mirrorless ILC systems (not that they aren't impressive).
First, looking at actual use of brands may give little information about where the market is heading. DSLR is a rather mature technology, and lots of users are happy using 2-6 year old gear. CaNikon+Pentax definitely did something right, the question is, what is right now? When those casual CaNikon DSLR shooters find it is time to upgrade... I guess a lot of them will go mirrorless.
Randy Veeman: What I really like is in the couple of months since the NX1 was released Samsung had issues 2 major FW updates improving features and adding more functionality.They have reached out to review sites and top users and are addressing their ideas and concerns quickly. From what I have read more updates are on the way too and they added a feature to directly update the FW via WiFi. One other thing I have not seen mentioned is Samsung has reached out to various people included those at Magic Lantern asking for help in customizing the camera via its open OS and free developers kit. Ever since Samsung merged their cameras with the smartphone division which essentially gave them an unlimited budget, they've really changed and done a lot things right IMHO.And now I see they have a working prototpye of an organic sensor too.
I think Samsung may be doing a lot of things right with the NX1. They seem to be on their way to providing a full moderate dimension high-quality lens lineup (something CaNikon has not bothered to do with their crop DSLRs, leaving the job to Sigma/Tamron/Tokina. Then they seem to avoid closing off the opportunities Tizen OS provides for independent software development - think about it as a camera with apps having, potentially, access to low-level functionality. That will probably pay off, at least in the long run.
PerL: I think Samsung has chosen the wrong strategy. Few people see anything wrong with the performance or handling with top DSLRs. What people object to and what provides the opportunity for mirrorless is the form factor with the bulk and weight.Why mimic a concept that is almost perfected in its own way, instead of trying something different, like the other mirrorless companies.(I am talking about it as a still camera, the video part is something different)
No, the DSLR concept is by no means almost perfect. And, to give just one example, if you shoot fast glass, there may be an important case for EVF. Many of the best lenses have considerable (on hi-res sensors) focus shift on stopping down, and also are tricky for AF _and_ MF. Live view is not an alternative for, say candids. Whenever there is a case for using Live view, there is a case for EVF.
aris14: Well, well...Generally speaking I think that "mirrors" don't have a really good reason to exist.It may sound premature, but designers have to understand that digital era demands its genuine solutions, no matter what. You cannot adopt film era solutions anymore.If "mirrors" still have some advantages then we go back to drawing boards and we 're trying to solve the problem. And the solution has to be cheaper than current, better and lighter.And if along with the solution comes the redesign of cameras as we know them today it won't be an issue.
Ideally, I would want both ;-) But an important point, which I think may be decisive over time, is that a lot of the properties of an OVF may be simulated fairly well by an EVF. In fact, different focusing screens may be simulated. NX1 is just one step on a long development path. But mirrors will always have some advantages - the question is, are they important enough for DSLR to survive?
SNRatio: Retro is quite fine with me if the priorities are set right: Adequate performance, and function above looks. Nikon has missed out on too much here, to the degree that if I am to keep a "classic" FF body for years, it will still be the D700, not the Df.
* Focussing screen should have been selectable* AF system too simplistic for a "timeless" allround camera* Manual controls are not ergonomically laid out, which reveals that this project is more about fashion than photography* No dual card slots.* Top LCD should have been a bit bigger* No built-in flash is OK, but it should have been replaced by a smallish external flash with a cable* 2 years, really still no improvements from the D4 sensor?* Why no battery grip and chance of going above 5.5 fps?
16MP: Not for landscape shooters. Who is it for?If Nikon had done this well, the price would have been less of an issue. And if they are really serious about this, they will cater for such objections in an Fn-2 or Fn-s update.
In the old Nikon F days we used different screens for different purposes. A retro body is exactly the place to have this feature reappear.
As for the top LCD, I think the standard size is a waste of space, but the Df window is a bit too small.
Exactly because a flash so often can be avoided, an external flash would be the right thing. If it could be operated wireless, it would be still better for creative use.
Exposure compensation is something many use a lot, typically in the shooting situation, and the standard thumb/index finger operating mode is very efficient. No reason for changing that.
Of course landscape @12MP can be quite OK, but the tendency is to go above 20MP for that. I think 16MP is a very good choice for the Df, but that will typically draw more PJ/action shooters, frame rate and AF becoming higher priorities.
Retro is quite fine with me if the priorities are set right: Adequate performance, and function above looks. Nikon has missed out on too much here, to the degree that if I am to keep a "classic" FF body for years, it will still be the D700, not the Df.