mark fadely wrote:
This has been an interesting debate with good points on both sides. It prompted me to look up some sales figures for both Canon and Nikon and what I found was pretty interesting. Remember in 2008 Canon had the miscue with the 1D MKIII and their reputation suffered over the next couple of years. During that same time (2008 - 2010) Nikon started producing much better cameras with substantially better high ISO for the pro and consumer DSLR market.
Interestingly, Nikon's market share in DSLR's actually dropped during the period. In the end it's all about business and it looks like Canon is doing something right even though they are not satisfying a lot of the desires voiced on this board. I assure you that Canon does read this board and their web people report back with a consensus from us, the buying public. How their management decides what features eventually end up in new products only they will know.
Of course, the bottom line is the most important factor in any business. ...Show more →
but looking at those pie charts the canon slice for # copies sold increases a touch while sales increase a trace for DSLRs while for Nikon the # of copies sold goes well down for DSLRs but the money goes barely down at all so maybe they actually did well with their higher end stuff, much better, while losing sales at the very bottom of the DSLR rung?? hard to really say
plus it is a pain two swap systems so it may take more than a couple years to show and companies can often do very well short to medium with one strategy and worse long term and who is to say that Canon's slice might not have been gobbling up the whole pie and Nikon a tiny little sliver with different actions? Nikon might not even be on their radar anymore (although in the long, long term that might ahve been bad for us)
jamesf99 wrote:
Thank you John... I think he's terribly confused about what he does for a living...
Sorry for my confusion - when referring to marketing people I always jump to the conclusion that it's in my field which usually only has control of certain aspects of a company's strategic planning and overall business plan. Rarely does a marketing person get to choose specific details of a product such as the number of points that an AF system might have. This is usually decided by a product manager who usually investigates, selects, and develops products for their company. A product manager is usually not in the marketing department. The marketing people at any given company provide some input in the certain areas of new product development, but not necessarily the specific aspects that are being discussed here. Granted the CEO-level comment is totally wrong when it comes to specifics of product development as well - my bad.
And yes, I do think that it's important to identify who's making the decisions at Canon, if we're going to accuse them of not understanding the customers, so it is relevant to the conversation.
But really it's about semantics, and I understand the need to lash out at those in charge for what is perceived as poor product development.
Mike Mahoney wrote:
So instead of name calling and presenting moronic conclusions like "a high percentage of people are prevented from making good photos by some perceived lack of automation"
Whoosh! That one went right over your head. I guess it would help you if I put big sarcasm stickers on every bit of sarcasm.
Seems to me that Nikon now have a camera close to the 5D family price point with cutting edge resolution and great AF.
The ball is now in Canon's court, we are looking forward to a killer 5D3 to equal the D800. A 5D3 with cutting edge resolution (none of this 18 mpx is enough nonsense), great AF and perhaps some great extras like an expanded HDR mode. I am sure that Canon will deliver such a camera this year at a 5D2/D800 kind of price.
Until then Nikon are entitled to be boastful, the Nikon users should be really, really happy. Nikon have really delivered this time.
Am editing this to say that by the way I am grateful to Canon for my 5D2. After nearly 3 years of ownership it has served me well with stunning IQ. Indeed I have no plans to buy the 5D3, but however much I love my 5D2 it does appear prehistoric compared to the new Nikon.
Mike Mahoney wrote:
because they point out a manufacturers flawed crippling profit model just makes you look totally uninformed. Which you probably are.
You mean Canon. But you missed the memo. Who looks totally uninformed?
Mike Mahoney wrote:
[...] Canon's dependence on their product crippling profit model is coming back to bite them big time.
Oh, is it now? Or are you just bloviating? Given the evidence, I'd put my bet on the latter.
RazorTM wrote:
But Canon doesn't make money off of used cameras (for the most part), so if they want more hobbyists to buy new cameras, they need to please us.
Yep. Last time I bought new Canon was the 30D on the clearance sale when 40D arrived. Since then, I bought 4 bodies (two of them 1D) all second-hand.
I am sure everyone would be happy if the next iteration of 5D series comes with an upgraded AF. However at the same time it is a fact that 5DII was great hit for canon and they sold many of those. On paper D700 had lots of nice features including high grade AF system, high FPS, excellent high iso performance. However at the end of the day Nikon did not sell as many D700's as the 5DII's sold by Canon.
In many ways D800 is a reaction to 5DII's success. Nikon has dropped the original D700 model and have gone for high MP and more emphasis on video to compete better with the 5D line. They have in the process also sacrificed the high FPS capabilities of the D700.
Also while 5DII would have benefitted from a better AF, I don't think the 51 point AF is strictly needed in the 5D series or even the D800. Those AF systems are mostly of use to action / sports photographers, and those photographers tend to go for cameras with high FPS and large buffers. Neither 5Dii, nor D800 fit that description. What is needed is having more cross points to get better performance from outer points and also better coverage of the frame.
curious80 wrote:
I am sure everyone would be happy if the next iteration of 5D series comes with an upgraded AF. However at the same time it is a fact that 5DII was great hit for canon and they sold many of those. On paper D700 had lots of nice features including high grade AF system, high FPS, excellent high iso performance. However at the end of the day Nikon did not sell as many D700's as the 5DII's sold by Canon.
In many ways D800 is a reaction to 5DII's success. Nikon has dropped the original D700 model and have gone for high MP and more emphasis on video to compete better with the 5D line. They have in the process also sacrificed the high FPS capabilities of the D700.
Also while 5DII would have benefitted from a better AF, I don't think the 51 point AF is strictly needed in the 5D series or even the D800. Those AF systems are mostly of use to action / sports photographers, and those photographers tend to go for cameras with high FPS and large buffers. Neither 5Dii, nor D800 fit that description. What is needed is having more cross points to get better performance from outer points and also better coverage of the frame. ...Show more →
Pixel Perfect wrote:
The EOS 3 was the test bed for the EOS 1V. It was always known they used the EOS 3 to refine and get feedback of this brand new 45pt AF before putting it in something as important as their flagship. 1V came out 2 years after the EOS 3 and basically only altered the AF by using a faster clocked cpu.
The point is that they didn't put 1-series AF in the EOS 3. It's the other way around.
curious80 wrote:
I am sure everyone would be happy if the next iteration of 5D series comes with an upgraded AF. However at the same time it is a fact that 5DII was great hit for canon and they sold many of those. On paper D700 had lots of nice features including high grade AF system, high FPS, excellent high iso performance. However at the end of the day Nikon did not sell as many D700's as the 5DII's sold by Canon.
Given that people almost invariably stay with the system they've currently got, I'm not sure this is indicative of anything more than the smaller market share owned by Nikon.
I was about to say something about some of these posts. Decided against it. But I would like to be helpful.
So this: Learn the limitations of your camera and lenses (you may have heard that before). Let that be a perimeter around your subject choices. Then go to work. But don't waste time and energy. Use considered discipline to keep your effort inside that perimeter. Whatever gear you may have, you will confront an infinite array of opportunities and choices within that perimeter.
New gear will come out, offering new capabilities, and if you want to use it to change or stretch your subject perimeter, go ahead. But do it to keep your interest high. It won't make a practical difference in how many choices you have. Those will continue to be infinite, just like before.
If you find yourself longing strongly for new equipment, without a clearly imagined idea about exactly what images that equipment will enable, you might want to think it over. You don't need gear in hand to exercise imagination. And before an acquisition you need to complete some of that imaginative work, because it will put the tools in mind to help you test whether specific items of equipment could advance your vision, or not. Unless you have money to burn, gear changes ought to happen slowly, thoughtfully, and with tests directed toward answering previously assembled questions. There need to be criteria that the proposed equipment could fail to meet. If you don't have those, you don't know what your plans are.
After an equipment upgrade, you may be able to do new stuff that you couldn't do before. If the stuff you were formerly doing was a bad match for your imagination and skills, making a gear change could make you a better photographer. But if it does, it won't be the new gear just handing you the improvement. It will be because of the better match between your imagination and your available subjects. It will be a payoff for the systematic use of imagination.
Somewhere in the process, you have to learn the discipline to manage a paradox: using the freedom of imagination within the confinement of a perimeter. There is nothing you can buy to escape that.
surf monkey wrote:
2010 sales numbers
This doesn't seem to correspond to the piechart stats
source: BCNRanking.jp
it doesn't maybe one is for worldwide and one for only a given region or country?
piechart stats did seem a bit weird with nikon losing a ton or market share but barely any in dollars of sales and usually high end can't sell enough to make up for loss of low end
surf monkey wrote:
2010 sales numbers
This doesn't seem to correspond to the piechart stats
source: BCNRanking.jp
You have to be careful with sales charts. If you look at numbers out of Japan vs. numbers out of the rest of the world, they look very different. Something to keep in mind.
thedigitalbean wrote:
You have to be careful with sales charts. If you look at numbers out of Japan vs. numbers out of the rest of the world, they look very different. Something to keep in mind.
Yes, those may or may not be worldwide sales for 2010. Thanks for the warning.
The 2009 numbers are for the U.S.
The pie chart numbers don't seem to match the accompanying stats. The 2008 pie chart makes Canon and Nikon about even, but the numbers show Canon way ahead.
miccullen wrote:
Given that people almost invariably stay with the system they've currently got, I'm not sure this is indicative of anything more than the smaller market share owned by Nikon.
Sure but that puts into perspective the notion that canon will be doomed if they don't put a D800-like AF in 5DII successors. Plus note my second point as well that D800 has clearly left the D700 model and has gone for high-MP and a focus on video like 5DII. That seems to indicate that Nikon feels D700 model has not worked as well for them and that the 5DII model seems to be more successful. Don't get me wrong - I am not a fan of 5D series AF myself either. But people go a bit overboard with their predictions of doom or talking about how a manufacturer must include certain features. Each company comes up with its own product strategy and so far canon's strategy has worked for them. I do hope that D700 and D800 put enough pressure on canon that 5D series AF gets a good upgrade. However I would not expect 1-series AF.
mttran wrote:
My $ works for me, not other way around
I absolutely agree. If you don't like what Canon offers, sell your gear and buy Nikon, or whichever company you feel is doing things right. It's a free market.
curious80 wrote
In many ways D800 is a reaction to 5DII's success. Nikon has dropped the original D700 model and have gone for high MP and more emphasis on video to compete better with the 5D line. They have in the process also sacrificed the high FPS capabilities of the D700.
Dude all Nikon's been doing with FF dslr is a reaction to Canon.
When Canon released the 5d back in 2005/6 it was a game changer but no one knew how big it was back then. Even Nikon stoutly said that FF is niche and that DX is the way to go.
As we have seen consumers glorm onto the 5d and its images. So Nikon cannot ignore that. Using the 5d as the benchmark they finally released the D700 3 years later. It was well received. The first Nikon compact FF that people can buy.
Little did that know that Canon has already had plans for another game changer product with the 5d2. At 21MP and ability for hdslr, it left Nikon wondering WTF. The 21MP is not that big a deal IMHO. It is the hdslr feature that accelerated the indie movie market. It is a growing segment. Canon has solidly established stronghold. Many support systems are built around the Canon hdslr to the point that many of my Nikon friends have sold their cameras for a Canon hdslr.
Why am I writing this? Because Canon has so far been setting the pace. Sure the D800 is great and I am impressed with its features honestly. But this is what the D700 should've been (well maybe not with 36MP). Nikon seems to be benchmarking on Canon's existing 5ds. I have no doubt that a few months down the road the 5d2 successor will be another game changer in the FF segment. Afterall this has been proven twice over now.
I suspect Nikon users are going to be unhappy if Nikon makes the D800 a replacement for the D700. I doubt they will end up being used for the same kinds of work. It could be D800 is going to be a more flash-style camera, more of a studio camera, more of an indoor camera, and more comfortably useful for people with high-end post processing capability.
D700 enjoys great capability at managing variable natural light outdoors, offers files that are easier on the media budget, and less demanding of computer power. I suspect the D700 is a better fit for the enthusiast who likes to shoot outdoor scenes, along with family events and portraits.
