brunobarolo
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.25 #18 · •Nikons Announced: D3, D300, lenses | |
To add just one point to Jeffs very accurate statement: From all the 40D samples and early user reports available today it seems clear that Canon have withheld their new sensor technology (which improved the Mark III high ISO capabilities so remarkably) from the 40D.
I did not expect the 40D to match the 1D3 image quality. But they should have used that technology to improve the 20D sensor. Instead they chose a somewhat modified 400D sensor, keeping high ISO noise on 20D level, just with 2 more megapixels. Ok, not bad, but not great either.
Meanwhile (on paper!) the Nikon D300 looks like the mystic 3D Canon photographers have been longing for for years. It looks like 90% of a 1D3, in a compact package, for less than half the price. Unfortunately it will not fit to my lenses 
Rainer Raffalski
Message to Canon: And even so I will not buy a 1D3!
Jeff wrote:
Unbeknownst to many of you, I don't possess a Canon card.  I don't think I'm here because I happen to shoot Canon, just as once upon a time when there was a moderator in the Nikon forum, he didn't shoot Nikon (unbeknownst to many of them). I'm not here to tout Canon's wares, nor to support their business endeavors. The fact remains, in my humble opinion, that if Canon doesn't change their development outlook, they will be caught with their shorts down, flapping in the wind. The D2x and D200 should have been writing on the wall, and now as a result of the D3/D300 announcements we're all repeating the same 'market pressure' arguments that were originally posed when the '2-Series' cameras were released. Nikon's development cycle is now much more timely than it once was, and that bodes very well for Nikon users; Canon's development cycle is slowing, if anything.
[opinion]
Don't get me wrong, Canon has done some fantastic things, especially with sensor development. However, it now truly seems like Canon is introducing new technology/features at a rate that would appear to reflect a strategy of 'planned obsolescence'. The fact remains that Canon has the capacity to do better, to be more innovative, to get back well in front of the 8-ball, instead of skipping around just ahead of it. One or two more iterations of what is now Canon's 'typical' development cycle, and Nikon could be firmly planted as a technological equal, although I readily admit that the sensor side of things remains to be seen.
The 1D MkIII is a great camera, and currently has no equal. I'm certain that the 1Ds MkIII will similarly have no equal, and its suggested price obviously reflects that. The problem is that most people don't truly require that much camera. Once upon a time in 2003 spending $8000 to eclipse the performance of 35mm film made some amount of sense. Today, the Ds-Series cameras are impinging further and further upon what was formerly the MF film market, and the further it does so, the smaller its market gets. There is no way for Canon to 'grow' the number of photographers that are financially capable of spending $8k on a camera; that is beyond their control. At some point that market will effectively 'dry up' as the lower-end cameras become more capable, that is, if the price points aren't decreased.
Stating that Nikon's prices are artificially low in order to stimulate growth is no more or less valid than stating that Canon has been keeping prices artificially high to recoup development investments. There was no excuse for the 1D MkIII pricing fiasco, simply no excuse. The way technology inherently makes things cheaper over time, there are few reasons that the relative price points of the two flagship dSLRs should not have trickled downward with each new announcement. Add to that some pretty marginal updates (witness the 30D, or as I call it, my 20D MkII), and a distinct lack of new cameras that target given market segments (i.e. the infamously-awaited Eos 3D, competition for the D200/300), and you really have to wonder. Speaking of wondering, what the heck ever happened to the Eos Anniversary super-duper special camera of tomorrow? What was that about? It certainly wasn't the MkIII products!
The 40D really should have been released as the 30D; I'm not sure what snafu in the development cycle caused that aberration, but clearly they had the technology at the time, and chose not to produce it. Despite its advances, the 40D is a day late and a dollar short; it should have been in our hands for more than a year now, which would have paved the way for a truly professional-build compact dSLR in the near future. Professionals would buy one in a heartbeat as a backup, and enthusiasts/hobbyists would fall all over themselves for one. As it sits now, unless they drop a bombshell with the update to the 5D, the compact pro dSLR that they could sell hordes of doesn't exist, and there's really no conceivable excuse for it. Not producing a '3D-like' camera won't ensure we keep buying $8000 cameras, though it may ensure that some of us start buying $5000 cameras.
[/soapbox]
Can you tell that the 30D (or 40D, for that matter) just doesn't do it for me as a backup? 
Regards,
Jeff...Show more →
Edited by brunobarolo on Aug 30, 2007 at 11:03 PM GMT
Edited by Jeff on Aug 30, 2007 at 04:36 PM GMT (Reason: quote tags for clarity)
|
