For the pro's the D3 will be a good alternative to the 1D3. I don't see it taking too many sales from the 5D or the 1DS3. The 300D will appeal to both pros and some amateurs who otherwise might buy the 40D. So Canon still has the lead in the high end amateur/lower end pro market with the 5D and in the high end 35mm pro market with the 1DSIII but I doubt that either camera is a big money maker.
I think Canon's troubles began when they deliberately crippled the 300D to avoid taking sales from the 10D. Instead of focusing on giving the customer good value they got a bit too hung up on short term gains. This habit of withholding features from the lower end cameras instead of adding more to the midline cameras has created a mess in their product line which they still seem determined to perpetuate with the lackluster 40D. Companies which show such cynical disregard for their customers usually end up suffering the consequences in the long run and I think Canon will suffer by giving their lead back to the historical leader, Nikon.
bobbytan wrote:
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?.
I am almost 100% positive I am going back, it is a much better system for what I need to get accomplished as a photographer. I use a pair of FM3A's for sub zero high altitude work and love to manually focus ( why I own Leica ). But I have too many systems, Nikon, Canon, Leica, Hasselblad XPan, etc.
I paid for three Nikon lenses today, the 17-35 2.8, 35 1.4 AIS and 70-200 VR. More to come...I am first on a list of already over 70 people at a big supplier on the West coast for a D3 and D300 so this is happening fast for me.
Canon's flash system also just flat out blows compared to old Nikon flash. Even though I have gotten used to them, Canon's ergonomics are slow compared to Nikon's...especially the 1-series.
All in all, since I have 5 Nikon lenses, it is costing me about $1,100 to switch. During the transition, I am keeping one 5D, 35L and 85L to satisfy that need until I am convinced Nikon is back in the game..
For what I need the D3 to be, a digital F5 / F6, thus far, it blows the socks off of anything that Canon makes and it is about time.
When looking at the total system and how it works, up until digital came along, Nikon's has always blown away the competition.
Anyone else notice that the D300's lcd is not really 920k pixels, but rather 920k 'dots'
From Nikon's website:
'# The 3.0-inch Super Density 920,000-dot VGA Color Monitor with 170-degree wide-angle viewing makes possible even more critical image review.'
VGA is actually about 307k pixels (640 x 480), which is not as ridiculously high as 992k (granted, it's still more than the 40d). Just worth pointing out that we have to get through the marketing speak.
Film_Ruled wrote:
I am almost 100% positive I am going back, it is a much better system for what I need to get accomplished as a photographer.
I paid for three Nikon lenses today, the 17-35 2.8, 35 1.4 AIS and 70-200 VR. More to come...I am first on a list of already over 70 people at a big supplier on the West coast for a D3 and D300 so this is happening fast for me.
You are brave man, I'd say! Switching-in without seeing a single sample photo (not to say real hands-on).
luant16 wrote:
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"
To get a 5Mp camera for $5K? Quite useless, except, maybe for snapshots with 18-200 DX. But who else than Arnold Schwazenegger could come to an idea of such a >2kg "pocket camera"?
EOS20 wrote:
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.
Unfortunately, not. D3 is nowhere close to compete 5D. It is positioned against 1D3 and all it could do - just force Canon fix AF-issue faster and withdraw that extra $500 they charged.
Only impact on 5D2 could be some minor change in specs (LCD?). I'm suare it would be 4fps 16Mp for ~3K - enough to keeps miles aside D3 for price/performance.
Cacdaddy3 wrote:
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.
Why don't you not buy the D3 instead of not buying the D300, and then you'll have a lot more money to spend on the 40D and lenses?
David Estes wrote:
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?
Simple: Power draw (which isn't the same as battery capacity, mind you.)
At 8 fps (vs 6) you need 33% more power. More mirror actuations, more shutter cocking and, also very important, 33% more processing power. It appears that, in order to reliably get to 8 fps, the standard EN-EL3e doesn't deliver enough current. (My educated guess, not confirmed by any source.)
Sunny Sra wrote:
Sweeeeeeeeeeeet..now i can tell myself to hold off on 1Ds MKIII cuz Canon WILL have to do something about the D3 next year.
This reminds me of the incline/decline and artificial horizon thing you get in a big Mitsubishi jeep. The next thing they will include is the G counter from the Skyline or a terrain report from the Land Rover. Then hear a small voice from the camera speak "Warning you are standing on mud on a dangerous incline, warning warning"
This virtual horizon, does it appear in the VF or do you have to check the back of the camera, in which case I could use my hotshoe level the way I do now?
Does it work in two directions or just side to side (which would be worthless to me) ?
Looking at the screen grab its on the LCD. But it will come in handy. What if its a bit low light and you can't see the level on the tripod? Such situations exist when I'm doing city night photography. Its just another tool, it will have its place for some and not others.
Although Nikon very well may release a high MP camera to compete with the 1Ds MK III, I don't see why they should worry about it. Let them have it, its a tiny tiny market. Its like thinking that everyone needs to have an Lecia M8 competitor. Are your research and development costs and productions costs going to be worth competing for every segment.
The owners of the 1Ds MK II aren't going to dump all their expensive lenses and buy a Nikon instead of upgrading to the MK III. Surely, they can get excellent results from Canons top of the line camera.
What Canon MUST concentrate on is the falling sales of the XTi/400D. This camera is only hanging onto top position in camera sales because of the cash incentives which make it a good buy. Technically its better than the D40 series, but the combination of the D40/D80/D200 has placed Nikon at the top of the pack (for the 6 month period).
The reason Canon did the incentives was they didn't want to lose that top spot, for a very important reason. Success breeds success and failure does its thing also. If the 400D is not on the top of the list, people start saying things like, 'hey, it must not be any good, its no longer up the top, better get that D40'.
Forget the high end models for a moment, look at reality... the majority of users who buy a camera. The 400D, D40/D80, Olympus E510, Pentax K10 folk. This is what Canon need to contentrate on REAL hard.
I still see no reason to switch from the 1-series.
.
