i personally cant stand the size of the xti, its way too small feeling for my hand, so in a large way, im very glad you dont own one of these companies.
what works for you may not work for everyone else, some people really want/need the features that come with the bigger more expensive cameras.
i would never buy another rebel no matter how much extra stuff they packed into it.
although, the dream camera you described sounds a hell of a lot like a 40D
Canon (and Nikon) have always been top down driven companies. They almost always do the reseach on the top end professional cameras where the pricepoints make technology like 10fps affordable (it's all relative.) Eventually the technology trickles down to the prosumer (40D now shooting 6.5 fps) and finally to the point and shoot upgrade SLR market. Just the way they do it. Makes sense from a marketting perspective. How many times have you seen a TV pan of the press photographers at a football game and seen all that Canon glass? It's a lot of free advertising for XT sales. And if you don't like it, there's a new giant on the street working from the bottom of the market up - Sony. Me, I'll stick with my Canon gear.
i got to something about 90 percent of the market is the rebel blah blah
yeah, its called Choices
you think Ferrari and Lamborghini REALLY car how much of the market they control? no
im sure a LOT of people own the 10, 20 and 30D and they probably make a decent chunk of change off those - but a bigger one off the rebel. Thats why its there, so every mom and pop can use a REAL digital
The rest of us real photographers need something a little more durable and more feature laden. You want small - get a rebel, thats cool
Why spice up the 400D when it's already dominating the low-end market? Unfortunately that's Canon's mentality. I don't share your passion for an XTi-sized suped-up camera (had to at your comment comparing the 20D to a toaster--even the 20D is too small for my small hands), but you're welcome to dream of such a camera. If size is so obviously a huge issue to you, it might be time to consider other brands like Leica or Pentax (their pancake lenses are right down your alley).
You are not thinking about the continually on the go photo journalist nor the demand put on camera bodies by sport shooters. See how long that XT or XTI last at 10,000 shots per weekend banging around with a 300 hanging from it while you shoot with a shorter zoom. Pro's have to have the durability, reliability, speed and precision of their equipment in sometimes very demanding conditions.
The XT and XTI are very suitable for the average consumer and this is represented in overall camera sales, but the Pro bodies are a very important segment for both Canon and Nikon.
I'm sure the original post was interesting, but I don't have the energy to copy it out into Word and then reformat it to make it readable. On to the next thread....
Steve Spencer wrote:
Some might want to use the D300 for the crop factor, but it has relatively slow frames per second.
The D300 still shoots 8fps with the power booster, that's quite fast.
The DX crop on the D3 brings it down to 5mp, which is just removing information that you could have gotten at 9fps in full-frame, so I do believe you're right about people wanting the extra reach of a dedicated crop body.
My boss has been a Nikon user since the 50s (from the old S series) and currently has three F4s and probably 25 lenses from fisheye to 600mm . He has not taken to digital at all and even still manually focuses all his lenses though most are auto focus. "They are no where near as quick as the Canons so I don't even try any more"
I just showed him the D3 and told him about the new range of lenses - "you should be right now", I said. "I'll let everyone else try them first and then I'll see about them. Come November the ball's in Nikon's court.(or Ny Con as it is pronounced in America).
I don't understand something, this is from the D300 specs.
• With built-in battery: up to 6 fps
• With AC adapter or MB-D10 pack and batteries other than EN-EL3e: up to 8 fps
So in other words, the D300 doesn't go 8 fps without being plugged into the wall or carrying a big battery pack around? Why would they design it like that?
Too many Nikon DSLR users have already crossed over to Canon. It may be a case of Nikon doing too little too late. I mean, seriously, how many of those who have crossed over to Canon would go back to Nikon?
But this new development is certainly good news for all serious photographers. Affordable FF DSLR is now just around the corner.
EOS20 wrote:
The D300 looks like what all us Canon shooters have been waiting for! A pro model in a small body with a good removable battery grip, good AF, and proper weather sealing! Pretty much what everyone have been calling the "EOS 3D"
And the D300 price is only slightly higher then the 40D!!
exactly. For us midrange budget action shooters, well, the D300 is everything canon was afraid to put in the 40D. Nikon has gotten smart; they aren't trying to come out with a huge array of bodies that intercompete. Instead, they're giving you pro features at semipro prices and the 12mpx fullframe D3 easily competes with the 5D. Not sure how anyone can argue otherwise, considering they have roughly the same sized sensor but the D3's has 14bit raw, weathersealed construction, and top shelf AF instead of the second tier canon feeds us.
Frankly, I am seriously considering the D300 pending the real world results with it. My 20D's primary weakness is shooting night sports, and the 40D doesn't seem to be improving that much. It doesn't even have the 6 hidden AI servo assist points of the 2 year old 5D. My cheapest canon upgrade is $2200 for a used 1dm2, which means I will then need a 300/2.8 option to replace my venerable 70-200/2.8. So it will cost me AT LEAST $4000 if I buy a used sigma 120-300 and 1dm2, or I could just swap my canon 70-200/2.8IS for the Nikon equivalent and spend $1800 on a brand new D300. Sorry, but my enthusiasm for the 40D and what I expect in a midlevel camera have just changed significantly. Obviously I want to see what the real performance of the 2 actually is, but I have to say I am not willing to wait ANOTHER 18 months for canon to come up with a response.
Frankly, Canon squandered their long lead wanting to preserve too many market segments. Nikon is now making Canon pay for it. It serves them right to have Nikon pee on their 20th EOS anniversary celebration.
One good thing about the D3 is, Canon will now need to price the 5D2 more competitively when thats released, and not charge us what they charged for the 5D when that was released.
From the D3 rrp (And after conversion) it works out to be about $1000 (Au$) more then the 5D price at introduction. (The 5D cost $5000 when it hit the stores, and the rrp was $5500). D3 works out to be around the $6000 (Au$) mark (Or around what we are paying for a 1D3).
I hope to see 5D2 with a street price of around $3000 (Au$).
Hopefully Sony will come out with a full framed model and give Canon another kick in the A**
timbop wrote:
Frankly, Canon squandered their long lead wanting to preserve too many market segments. Nikon is now making Canon pay for it. It serves them right to have Nikon pee on their 20th EOS anniversary celebration.
DaveMart wrote:
It's not a Sony sensor - it is one designed by Nikon, which they won't tell us who manufactures it, just like that in the D2H - which is perhaps a little worrying!
Regards,
DaveMart
it's canon why do you think the final product had an accidental slip so far down for the D2H
Yes, it's about time for Nikon users like me to cheer. With all the upgrades and technical specs that are extremely attractive, however, I think this will all be short lived because Canon does already have an answer to that. With their, about to introduce, 1Ds Mk III with 21.1 mega pixel, full frame sensor. Nikon is good. But to be objective about this whole thing I believe Canon is still ahead of the pack. I wish I do have the funds to go from Nikon to Canon but it is hard to break the cycle once you have invested quite a bit with Nikon and selling these equipment means eating the bullet.
Beni wrote:
One thing that the Nikonites are going to come against is that cost barrier for backup. The D300 can't backup a D3, it will need different lenses so you might as well buy two D3's
D3 can use DX lenses..
quotes from DPreview: "Nikon F mount with AF coupling and AF contacts No field of view crop (full-frame), When using DX lenses / DX mode 1.5x FOV crop"
quotes from DPreview: "Nikon F mount with AF coupling and AF contacts No field of view crop (full-frame), When using DX lenses / DX mode 1.5x FOV crop"
I've only waded through about half this thread, but has anybody else caught the bit in the D300 specs that says it only does 2.5 FPS when shooting 14 bit RAW? I am wondering if the D3 takes a similar hit when shooting in 14 bit rather than 12 bit. The D3 is very impressive but would become a whole lot less so if its full frame 14 bit fps got cut in half.
Eric Wood wrote:
I've only waded through about half this thread, but has anybody else caught the bit in the D300 specs that says it only does 2.5 FPS when shooting 14 bit RAW? I am wondering if the D3 takes a similar hit when shooting in 14 bit rather than 12 bit. The D3 is very impressive but would become a whole lot less so if its full frame 14 bit fps got cut in half.
at your comment comparing the 20D to a toaster--even the 20D is too small for my small hands), but you're welcome to dream of such a camera. If size is so obviously a huge issue to you, it might be time to consider other brands like Leica or Pentax (their pancake lenses are right down your alley).
