Are YOU going to switch brands is one question...some I suppose will, but then people do funny things all the time.
So who will Nikon sell these new camera's too? Their current customers as upgrades, and perhaps with the FF body some film die-hards will finally convert.
Nikon's marketing in the past year has been primarily to consumers with the D40 at what, $600? And for $100 more you get a much more capable 350XT - great for savvy consumers. So non-savvy buy the D40-...and they're not the ones likely to move to a $1800 D300 or more.
I am surprised by Nikon's new cameras...I don't see them stealing many Canon users other than perhaps the ones that recently converted.
I bet the 40D could have new firmware to address some of the issues, and it's 50% cheaper - that is a big deal IMO to many people.
Mostly what Canon has lost is bragging rights in being the only FF digial camera maker, having the fastest dSLR in frame rates, etc. To the tech savvy it's not a big deal, but it will give Nikon a nice marketing edge that will most definitely hurt Canon long term if there is no response.
prof_fate wrote:
Are YOU going to switch brands is one question...some I suppose will, but then people do funny things all the time.
So who will Nikon sell these new camera's too? Their current customers as upgrades, and perhaps with the FF body some film die-hards will finally convert.
Nikon's marketing in the past year has been primarily to consumers with the D40 at what, $600? And for $100 more you get a much more capable 350XT - great for savvy consumers. So non-savvy buy the D40-...and they're not the ones likely to move to a $1800 D300 or more.
I am surprised by Nikon's new cameras...I don't see them stealing many Canon users other than perhaps the ones that recently converted.
I bet the 40D could have new firmware to address some of the issues, and it's 50% cheaper - that is a big deal IMO to many people.
Mostly what Canon has lost is bragging rights in being the only FF digial camera maker, having the fastest dSLR in frame rates, etc. To the tech savvy it's not a big deal, but it will give Nikon a nice marketing edge that will most definitely hurt Canon long term if there is no response.
The Ds II? My understanding is it's out of production with the introduction of the Ds III. Doubt Canon would lower the price on the new unit, just isn't going to happen, though I'd love to see it.
I definitely think Canon should think about lowering their Pro prices. Maybe $5K for the MKIII and 7K(max) for the 1Ds. This way they'll be REALLY competing. I do find that 40D is priced just right. $1300 it's an excellent price for what it has. I can sure compete with D300. None,but wannabe photographers will be switching,because D300 can give an extra feature. D3 looks perfect,I can't say anything about it. Specs are just perfect,so is the price. Canon still has a huge market in dslr cameras with price ranges from low to hi-end.
Bottom line-competition is good, Now that Nikon is finally have very good cameras to compete,Canon will start listening to consumers more and more. This can only be good for us. I am sure Canon's new cameras will implement all of Nikon's features plus a bunch of new ones.
Switching right now,by just specs and previews is just dumb
it is the old story. it doesnt matter whether you are a photographer or a farmer, emotions are the same. "The only difference between men and boys are the price of their toys!" but ultimately it comes down to an old dogger (Dingo Hunter) I met in the snowy mountains of southern New South Wales back in the sixties. He had an old very battered looking .22 rimfire and my friend had a collection of high tech (Scopes/Hi velocity etc) rifles. His comment said it all. "you want to watch out for the old fellows with only one rifle. They might know how to use it!"
No doubt in the future I will upgrade to a d300, but will it make me take pics like Bjorn Rorsllett, Uwe Steinmueller? No way, but it might make me feel a little better! Maybe
I just cancelled my Amazon pre-order for the 40D. The new Nikons did have a little to do with it, but mostly it was because it is becoming clear that there is little (if any) improvement in the IQ when I compare my 20D high ISO pictures (RAW before Photoshop processing) with the samples that have been appearing on the web (JPEGS though they be).
I might have gone ahead with the purchase if the Nikons had not come out, for the sake of the 14 bits, better viewfinder, possibly better autofocus and figuring that the IQ was as good as it is going to get for the next 18 months. But, the viewfinder and autofocus on my 20D are sufficient, if not a pleasure, for my needs and I haven’t yet seen that the 14 bits makes a noticeable difference. Where the Nikons come in is that Canon has frankly had its butt kicked in value for the money. I have to figure that either Canon prices are going to come way down in the next year, or, at the least, the 5D successor will be at a value for the dollar point that is much better than the 40D’s point. I have been tempted to go to the 5D level, so I will wait to see what its successor is like, or get a 5D if its price gets below $2,000 (I’m not counting on it).
Bottom line, Nikon changed the market price for technology, and Canon is now asking too much for what it gives.
And to EMC 2 who asked
I have a quick question about these new camera's -- Do they offer any kind of auto ISO adjustment similar to what's on the 1DIII ?
Chances are they do
Even my very battered D70s has auto ISO
Just for the record I want to post in this thread even though with so many pages nobody is going to read it anyway lol, but here it is...
Thank you Nikon!!!
The low noise and DR is far more important to me than MP race.
If the ISO 25,600 on Nikon is usable and the "gap-less micro lens" can extend the DR, than in my mind we have a whole different leap in picture quality.
Until now I was sure that the 5D replacement (I'm interested in this one) will have 16 or whatever MP the same or lower picture quality than my 5D, bigger LCD and 2 more print buttons on the front for our convenience but finally and hopefully and thanks to Nikon and Sony IMHO we have a chance to get a "real" upgrade not like the one from 20D to 30D.
Blushark wrote:
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.
Whaddya got? I'm possibly looking to trade/get the Nikkor equivalents of what I have in Canon lenses (see profile).
prof_fate wrote:
Are YOU going to switch brands is one question...some I suppose will, but then people do funny things all the time.
So who will Nikon sell these new camera's too? Their current customers as upgrades, and perhaps with the FF body some film die-hards will finally convert.
Nikon's marketing in the past year has been primarily to consumers with the D40 at what, $600? And for $100 more you get a much more capable 350XT - great for savvy consumers. So non-savvy buy the D40-...and they're not the ones likely to move to a $1800 D300 or more.
I am surprised by Nikon's new cameras...I don't see them stealing many Canon users other than perhaps the ones that recently converted.
I bet the 40D could have new firmware to address some of the issues, and it's 50% cheaper - that is a big deal IMO to many people.
Mostly what Canon has lost is bragging rights in being the only FF digial camera maker, having the fastest dSLR in frame rates, etc. To the tech savvy it's not a big deal, but it will give Nikon a nice marketing edge that will most definitely hurt Canon long term if there is no response.
timbop wrote:
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.
Timpob, don't get me wrong, I think the D300 reads great. I just also think he 40D will be a very good camera and something the Canon users will really like. I say this as a user with a primary camera of Nikon ((temporarily is not though). I do hear what you're saying though.
prof_fate wrote:
Mostly what Canon has lost is bragging rights in being the only FF digial camera maker, having the fastest dSLR in frame rates, etc.
In other words, Canon has lost its perceived leadership position in the market. Nikon's D3 is now:
- fastest FF ever
- cheapest pro FF ever
- the camera with highest ISO ever
To the tech savvy it's not a big deal, but it will give Nikon a nice marketing edge that will most definitely hurt Canon long term if there is no response.
akovacsi wrote:
Oh damn... the release of D300 is very, very tempting... I was just thinking of upgrading my 350D (Rebel XT) to the 40D... and now Nikon D300 shows up its face...
Will the DX lenses that Nikon made for their 1.5x crop work on the FF or will the users have to buy new lenses? if its latter, that would probably prevent a few users from switching over and buying lenses...
dcmiller wrote:
5) 11 fps without AF? wtf, marketing must have taken over Nikon. They couldn't stand to say that it's a 9 fps camera.
11fps without atufocus following, not without autofocus. In other words, for panning, or for fast-moving but stationary subjects (bullets through lightbulbs, falling drops of water, singers on stages...), you could use the 11fps. It will focus once, and then shoot very rapidly.
Personally, I think it is a silly feature for a small improvement, but maybe it'll end up being important for someone.
