i would start a poll separately but i know Jeff wants to keep the Nikon chat to one thread....
how many of you think this could actually affect the used Canon market. Im not saying it will go to hell... but I would be willing to bet that used Canon prices are going to drop some with people switching over and saturating the market with their now obsolete canon wares
Frankly the planned 40D purchase is stretching my budget as it is and I couldn't afford the extra for a D300 even if I wanted one. And until we see reviews of all the new bodies from both camps its too early to say who is going to nibble into who's market share.
Hrow wrote:
This is an interesting question and potentially a significant issue. Unless their 200 is as clean as Canon's 100 then there are a lot of people of peple who may be disappointed. The world is not entirely made up of people shooting ISO 6400 and quite a number of us even know what a tripod is and when to use it.
They have optimised the camera for high ISO, to compete with the perceived strengths of Canon.
If they had gone for ISO 100 natively, they would not have been able to hit ISO6400 natively - still less if they had made ISO50 native.
For most shooters fairly decent high ISO is more useful than marginal improvements in low ISO.
Regards,
DaveMart
Pros or hobbyists who can drop $5,000 on a camera can either easily make the money back with the camera or has enough $ to not care... most of the buyers in that category just want the best quality possible, and Canon can charge as much as they want for their high ISO performance + 10fps since Nikon doesn't have an offering that can match it.
I think people who are looking for a price/performance deal will likely turn to the 40D. Out of the box without extra grips it is faster than the D300, and it's priced significantly less.
However, the profit margin on any DSLR is very high... it is even more true with the higher end models (over $1,000). Canon's operating profit margin is 35% while Nikon's is 26%. Compare this to the ~10% Canon makes from it's point-and-shoot cameras, and you might say no matter which camera you purchase it's just not fair!
Most of the 1D3 and D300 are probably already Canon/Nikon users and have lenses that they want to continue to use. They're also probably happy with their current cameras so upgrading is more of an option than necessity.
The D300 is a new camera. We know its specs but not its performance.
It is not a professional camera although it is close. I would not make comparisons with a professional camera like the Mark III. Very soon if 6 FPS or 9 FPS are not enough we will be buying a video camera.
If a camera like a Mark III is what you need I would say it is money well expend. I surely do not need one and a camera like the D300 would make me a happy camper.
I am almost ashamed to say that I like and shoot with an ancient D1X and NO, I will not be in line to order the D300.
William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.
The only thing wrong with the D3 is the lettering on top of the viewfinder. I wish that Canon would have done this. I almost fell asleep during this past year. Nikon finally woke me up. I find myself thinking about buying the D3. I find myself thinking that Canon is just trying to soak up all they can get from work they did years ago. I thought the 1DsIII was overpriced before, but after this announcement, I would say it is a total rip-off by comparison.
I think the interesting thing about this new brace of Nikon cameras is that a high quality "sports" camera (with obvious potential for studio and weddings) has been timed for the Summer Olympics! They should easily be able to work out all serious bugs before the competition. On paper, the new set of bodies and lenses should be more than fair competition the current Canon hegemony.
Maybe we will see a "sea of black" rather than the "sea of white" at sporting competitions soon.
However, the profit margin on any DSLR is very high... it is even more true with the higher end models (over $1,000). Canon's operating profit margin is 35% while Nikon's is 26%. Compare this to the ~10% Canon makes from it's point-and-shoot cameras, and you might say no matter which camera you purchase it's just not fair!
That's the first time I recall seeing margins posted on a camera line, though they are estimates from an analyst. You did notice that the article is from 2005 and talking about a $1,000 Digital Rebel/300D?
I'd be interested to know their current margins, since so much has changed in the last couple years. Either way, I'm glad Nikon is competitve, the 40D looks great (as do the new Nikons) and maybe now Canon will have to make a new 200/2.
DaveMart wrote:
They have optimised the camera for high ISO, to compete with the perceived strengths of Canon.
If they had gone for ISO 100 natively, they would not have been able to hit ISO6400 natively - still less if they had made ISO50 native.
For most shooters fairly decent high ISO is more useful than marginal improvements in low ISO.
Regards,
DaveMart
I shoot at 50 or 100 ISO all the time. if your shooting anything moving in bright light and need to keep the aperture big to isolate the subject and shutter speed around 200 for the motion blur. The only way is a very low ISO. Still I very glad Nikon did such a great job.
Why should one assume that they have to move up the ISO to have a native 6400? Under that logic and using the D2Xs as the base they would have had to move the low end of the scale to 1600 to get to 6400. Obviously, that would be silly but it should clearly illustrate that there is no inherent reason to think that you can't have ISO 100 and 6400 as native settings.
And yes, being forced to use a neutral density filter is a huge price to pay for a feature that I, and most people, will never use except to post a picture here to say "see, my camera can do ISO 6400. Looks like crap but I can do it and if I need to shoot a mind blowing international news story in a tunnel where they don't allow flash I'll be able to get the shot!"
turnert wrote:
I use the Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 AIS (manual focus lens) on all of my digital bodies. The build quality is great and the image quality is great stopped down from f/2 to f/5.6. They're expensive in good used condition (about $500). Of course, the drawback is that it's not an autofocus lens.
This was one of my favorite Nikon lenses, *just* scored a mint one for $375 on the bay, next lens...
17-35 2.8, check, 70-200 VR, check.....this is fun!
Edited by Film_Ruled on Aug 24, 2007 at 01:11 AM GMT
I have a friend who just sold 7000 worth of nikon glass and bought a 5D for the full frame. I feel really bad for him. With the amount of money he lost selling his glass he could have upgraded and kept it all.
I am likely to buy the 40D as an upgrade to my XT since I have quite a bit of L glass now. I would like to extend my thanks to Nikon for the now likely drop in price of the 40D.
on the the other hand. Yesterday I was majorly impressed with the 40D specs. Now not so much. These are really impressive cameras. It bodes well for the future features of all DSLR
I fully agree with Jackel. I purchased the XT when it first came out at $900 and have been absolutely satisfied. The thought of being able to pick up a 40D anywhere near that price within a year and with Canon rebates absolutely thrills me given the performance improvements. Now how about that Canon 70-200 4.0 IS paid for in part to the potential price difference with the 40D and the D300.
Aug 23, 2007 at 08:05 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
I think one of the most interesting aspects of Nikon's new releases is how they have made credible inroads into areas of Canon's strength, but the new glass perhaps more than the new cameras allows for these inroads. It looks to me that the new D3 with the 2 new full frame lenses and their 70-200 f/2.8 VR will be a great set for a photojournalist. The 1DIII is a great camera for PJ, but it would seem this new camera and lenses will at least on paper be stronger for PJ work. Likewise the D300 with the new super teles with VR would seem to be better for nature and wildlife photographers. If the new pro autofocus is as good as it seems it might be, the D300 with the 1.5 crop factor and all those pro features would seem to be an ideal nature and wildlife setup.
As good as these cameras are, however, I don't see the threat in sports shooting nearly as much. As good as the D3 looks, I think many field sports photographers will miss the crop factor. Even with the new 400 f/2.8 VR, it still might be a little short for some sports shooters. Some might want to use the D300 for the crop factor, but it has relatively slow frames per second. Here I think the 1DIII, if the autofocus problems can be overcome, will still take top billing. For indoor sports the D3 might fair better, but we will have to see how it performs with Nikon's FF lenses. We still don't know how a FF Nikon will work with Nikon FF lenses.
You're right that the lower end models like the XTi are going to eclipse the number of 1Ds2's sold. However, lots of people decide who's "best" by whichever company has the best pro models.
I kinda forgot what I was going to say. Your post made my head spin.
