While it looks as though Nikon is on the verge of resuming its traditional leadership role in small format photography, none of Nikon offerings appeals to me. I have owned a 5d for a little over a year and neither of the new Nikons appeals to me as an upgrade. The 300D is not full frame so that disqualifies it immediately for my preferences. The D3 offers only a slight increase in performance for the type of shooting I do, certainly not enough to warrant the cost of switching brands.
I will be looking forward to the sucessor to the 5D and if it is not enough of an upgrade I will probably spend the big bucks for the 1DsIII.
Rampai65 wrote:
Tentacle, Then why is every one blowing "technical" holes into what is acknowledged as a better screen ? That's my only point.
i don't know that they are. for resolution it is clearly better.
the possibility is that there is a chance that the canon one might have truer colors, brightness, contrast to what you would see back home. if so, then it might be argued that the canon screen, for some people, would actually be better. if this is not the case, then the nikon screen is clearly better.
Aren't we all just greedy for ever more specs we rarely or never need just so we have it? 51 point AF ? 9 cross type + f2.8 center not enough? 8 fps? how much better is this than 6.5 and also for IQ? weather sealing? only in combination with sealed lens, I've personally never needed it and how comfortable would you be shooting in rain? what if it started pouring..continue? 11 fps without AF? gimmick imo... ISO 25,600 would be cool though, we'll see how that turns out.
mfoto wrote:
It's almost as if Canon says: "Come with us you'll be happy when you've bought two of our cameras". With Nikon it's more like: "We'll give you what you need in one camera".
... or if you buy a new camera every year. 30D owners have had to contend with the upgraded features on the XTi for the past year. 40D owners will be in the same boat in March when the XTi replacement is rolled out. This certainly keeps upgrading at the top of your mind, but makes for a pretty unsatifying experience. On the other side of the equation, as an XTi owner really cuts your motivation for upgrading to the xxD line. Casts doubt over picking up an entire system. The 40D has some great options (but, rather expensive accessories ... wifi grip, normal grip, focusing screens, etc.), but who wants to invest these kinds of dollars into a camera that you are going to start thinking of upgrading. Nikons approach makes more sense to me.
I am not interested in playing along with their game of upgrading each year! I have used the Canon XT 350D for more than 2 years and still have not learned it yet...
I do this for hobby and still need to get myself a portfolio up and running!
The role Nikon plays is important for the people that NEED to upgrade or are first time buyers willing to spend about $1500 give or take a couple of hundgreed dollars.
nikt wrote:
By the way... although we will wait for the results, I'd prefer to have the 10MP 14bit, 6 frames per second of the Canon than the 12MP 12 bit, 6 frames per second from Nikon. Its also a LOT cheaper. If you've got Canon stuff, I don't see what all the hoopla about Nikon releasing the D300 is all about. It has nice specs sure, but the 40D didn't all of a sudden start taking crap photos.
Geez, it was only a few days ago everyone was trying to rub the Nikon users face in it, about how good this 40D is. ...Show more →
Umm, maybe. The noink can tie AF points together for much better AI servo, which is where 20D and 30D were at their weakest IMHO. Maybe the 5D's 6 hidden AF points were carried over and they haven't mentioned it, but I haven't seen mention of it and right now I am really dissappointed. Add in weather sealing and ISO 6400 (remains to be seen how good it is) and the 40D is second banana.
Jonesy wrote:
quote "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."
Why would you nee dto get rid of the 70-200 if you switched to 1dm2? I just got a 1dm2N and a 70-200 2.8 IS and now I am confused if I should just keep it or sell it for a 40D/5d combo or even switch to Nikon since I only have 3 lenses....
I don't shoot alot of sports but love wildlife and will be doing alot of portraits.studio work soon.
Because for soccer 200mm is just good enough reach on an APS-C, but 200mm on an APS-H would be too short for anything but sideline shots. yeah, I can crop but I am already doing that with my 20D.
Has anyone else noticed that lots of folks are saying "astonishing specs from Nikon, but the cameras remain to be proven"...at the same time as "besides, Canon's sure-to-be-released 3D, 5DII are certainly better than Nikon's new gear!".
Hypothetically, future cameras from all manufacturers will offer features superior to current cameras...but let's not pat Canon on the back for a great job until they deliver!
The 40D seemed to amaze us at first glance, but perhaps we were just relieved that they didn't release the mess of yesterday's technology they'd almost announced last February.
Nikon deserves our admiration for what they've announced and will soon be delivering during this, Canon's "big anniversary year"!
To those who say that the 40D and D300 appeal to different customers...you might be right....but I'll bet that's not the way Canon execs wanted things to play out! Someone got betrayed by incredibly bad market research, assuming that Canon's engineering really isn't a full release cycle behind Nikon's.
UCSB wrote:
... or if you buy a new camera every year. 30D owners have had to contend with the upgraded features on the XTi for the past year. 40D owners will be in the same boat in March when the XTi replacement is rolled out. This certainly keeps upgrading at the top of your mind, but makes for a pretty unsatifying experience. On the other side of the equation, as an XTi owner really cuts your motivation for upgrading to the xxD line. Casts doubt over picking up an entire system. The 40D has some great options (but, rather expensive accessories ... wifi grip, normal grip, focusing screens, etc.), but who wants to invest these kinds of dollars into a camera that you are going to start thinking of upgrading. Nikons approach makes more sense to me. ...Show more →
Nikon's approach would not make more sense to me if I had just laid out for af D2x, and seen it's s/h value basically destroyed by the D300 - they did the same with the D2h, suddenly dropping the price enormously and stranding their customers.
They are also very lacking in the fast wide prime department.
Both camps have their weaknesses, but the latest camera and lens realeases form Nikon are certainly a big step in the right direction.
Regards,
DaveMart
Pixel Perfect wrote:
D300 is really a class above the 40D, so it's not a direct competitor in one sense as D200 will carry on at a lower price, putting 40D in a Nikon sandwich. Now we need a 3D more than ever:
1.3x 12.4MP
7.5 fps for 20 RAW, 1000000JPG (I could care less about jpg)
100% VF
Working version of 1D III AF with other enhancements
some sealing
AF calibration
14 bit
VGA 3" LCD (1MP)
ISO 50-6400
New D light option (copy them I say)
Pop up flash 1/300 X-Sync
AF version of live view
New metering
-3EV to + 3EV metering range,
Finer spot meter
Improved colour and WB
YellowBullet wrote:
So you want a better camera than 1DIII (only fps is lower, most of other things are equal or better) for less than half the price?
Somehow I don't see that happening...
Then you need to open your eyes, because it already did. Foregoing the arguments over which pro AF is better, the D300 has PRO AF and weathersealing, the microfocus AF adjust, etc. I'm not sure I see how the 1dm3 is $2500 better than the D300. That may change when we see actual images/hands on reports, but right now it doesn't look like it
fourfa wrote:
Nikon explicitly did not state where they source the sensor. It's their own DESIGN, but it's doubtful they make it in-house (as Canon does). It could well be a Sony sensor, with Sony and Nikon under contract not to disclose that fact until year XXXX after which Sony can sell it under their name. Or it may be made by Kodak, Dalsa, etc.
And please tell me why this matters. If it is a good sensor, who cares if Nikon produces the sensor, or just collaborates with another company. In the end, it is either a great sensor or it is not.
Does Dell, Lenovo, HP etc... make their own CPU's??
Does everyone really think a new camera is going to make any kind of difference in your ability to capture a picture. I've seen incredible pictures taken with a PS and horrible pictures taken with a MK III (ie by my wife) so to me everyone who has a woody over the specs and actually thinks it will make there photos that much better needs to think about it a bit more. The camera does not give you composition and light two of the main factors I need and look for. All things equal the image quality between all of the top Canon and Nikons will be in the same ball park.
chez wrote:
And please tell me why this matters. If it is a good sensor, who cares if Nikon produces the sensor, or just collaborates with another company. In the end, it is either a great sensor or it is not.
Does Dell, Lenovo, HP etc... make their own CPU's??
In the end, I was stating my opinion and what I had read, that Nikon made their own sensor for the D3. Maybe it really is a Sony, I was merely pointing out what I saw written. The sensor and the processor are two of the most important parts of the camera. if not the most. I would much rather have a company that does it all rather than a company that out sources....again my opinion.
These new Nikons have just been released, lets give them a chance to prove there worth. We all went gaga when the 1DMK3 was released and then it came out a little later about the focusing issue. So give them time to prove the gear.
My only real question is why no self-cleaning sensor on the D3...full frame with no self clean is a pain..just ask any 5D user.
Bruce Sawle wrote:
Does everyone really think a new camera is going to make any kind of difference in your ability to capture a picture.
You're right. Let's all go back to using Kodak Brownies. Canon shouldn't worry about new cameras from Nikon, they should be worried by the fact that no one on earth could possibly want or need a new camera.
I love hearing all the specs, soon enough all we will have to do is set our camera on a tripod and turn it on, and it will do the rest. I think to many people are forgetting one thing, no matter how good your gear is, you still need a photographer. Honestly specs only go so far, I haven't heard anything about functionality, just all specs. Why do we continue to prove which company is better Nikon or Canon. Are they paying you to support them in trying to prove there product is better. Just because you bought one not the other, big deal. I'll wait to see the test shots before I go on bragging about how amazing the new 1ds mk 3 is, or how amazing the new d3 is. Nobody here has even taken a picture with either new camera. (correct me if I am wrong). Just my humble opinion, yes it's exciting that the new models are coming out!, but don't try and prove one is better than the other till you used both or seen accurate test shots.
All the best
Drew Sinclair
Aug 24, 2007 at 07:48 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
It seems to me that the big story here is that if Nikon's new 51 pt. pro autofocus works, then Canon needs to respond with much better autofocus on their lower level cameras or risk ceding to Nikon a claim that they have much better autofocus. Nikon now has the stars alligned. Canon has committed to a new pro autofocus system, but it has problems. Nikon has more autofocus points and if it doesn't have problems like Canon's then it would seem at the pro level Nikon would be able to claim an advantage at least until Canon can fixes their system--but Canon will still be taking a reputation hit.
On top of this advantage, Nikon has put this pro level autofocus system in a sub $2000 camera. Canon is really put in a bind by this introduction. If they put their pro level system in a similarly priced camera--they will have a hard time differentiating this camera from the 1DMKIII--severely canabalizing its sales--and this camera has only been out for a few months. If they don't respond, then they risk gaining the reputation of having inferior autofocus to Nikon.
It seems to me that Canon doesn't have a lot of good options, but my guess is they will split the difference between these unattractive options. The 5D replacement might well have a 25 point autofocus system with something like 5 high precision cross-type autofocus sensors and another 10 or so regular cross type sensors. They could then put this upgraded but less than pro autofocus in either or both a new prosumer APS-H camera or the replacement for the 40D. This would be real substantial improvement in autofocus, but still allow the pro level cameras to be better.
My guess is that Canon new much about the Nikon release, but I got to think they got caught with their shorts down on the autofocus in the D300 or they would have made a more substantial upgrade to the 40D autofocus.
Here is a clip from an article I read about the launching of the new Nikon Cameras:
One of the remarks I found most interesting though, I heard offline the night before, when a Nikon exec said that they'd "breathed a huge sigh of relief" when they saw Canon's announcements of this Monday.
I guess Nikon was expecting something more from Canon. I wonder if Nikon caught Canon with their pants down, or did Canon not think Nikon could come out with these new cameras in the timeframe they did?
with other enhancements
??
!!