nikt wrote:
Thats antiquated thinking. Nikons product deilvery for the D40, D40x, D80 has broken much of the shakles of the 'not deilvering ontime' thing. The D200 didn't because Nikon completely missed how popular the camera was going to be. Theyunderestimated and never recovered in the production runs.
If Nikon manages to produce and sell 60,000 D300's per month I think they'll be pretty happy.
The Canons are selling well because 1) there were so many waiting for it that were let down by the 30D (which they shouldn't have been). 2) this is the usual sales cycle of a new product.
The Sony Alpha 100 took approx 22% of the sales for the first two months, then died in the a$$. Its just part of the hype and sales after announcement.
People are also forgetting that the D200 will run alongside the D300, the two cameras buffering themselves either side of the 40D (for at least 6 moths anyway). Canon isn't going to be aiming at the upgraders with Canon glass, they'll buy the 40D anyway. They are going to want to aim fair and square at the newcombers (including switchers) and they're going to want to do as much damage in the next couple of months as possible.
Nikons announcement of the D300 was terrible for Canon. I think it was Canons timing that was supposed to interupt the Nikon launch which failed.
We'll see what happens. I didn't say my senario is going to happen, but put it out there as a possibility if Nikon does not deliver on time and in volume. It is all speculation at this point. The 5D II could end up trumping Nikon and be terrible for Nikon. We don't know about any of this, because none of these cameras have actually been released.
It's absolutely laughable to say that Canons announcement was supposed to interupt the Nikon Launch. This Canon release was part of the standard release schedule for the XXD series. Canon was ready with product at announcment. The Nikon announcement with no product within 3 months of availabilty was an obvious attempt to steal thunder from the 40D.
One thing that has always been Canon's strength has been the sheer numbers of lenses they offer over competitors like Nikon. While I am very pleased with Nikon's glass and it does what I need (within what I can afford) Canon simply offers more choices. That can make a big difference to someone starting out or to the pro that needs what Canon offers and Nikon doesn't.
I doubt the differences would really make that much difference to me as a photographer, so switching isn't something I would consider. I mean, for the price of a 5D (or its replacement) and a few awesome lenses (35 f/1.4, 50 f/1.2, and 85 f/1.2) I would have more than paid for a D3, so what is the point? (I'm speaking of my case only here,) Granted, the D3 isn't proven yet and the 5D is, but it should offer a great camera for Nikon users with the benefits of full frame. That killed any thoughts I had of picking up a 5D for it's respective benefits. Maybe someday Nikon will release a similar camera to the 5D and then it would be irrevlevat.
For now, the D300 offers what I wanted in an upgrade to the D200, so I'm stoked. (An FX sensor would have been nice, but for $1800 that would have been absurd at this point.) I think it will compare favorably to the 40D, with a few extras thrown in to justify the cost difference. If the AF works as advertised, the CMOS chip provides results as expected, and the noise is better than what I have already, I'll be a happy camper. I think this round of releases on both sides is great for all of us photographers. Each offered something a little bit different that will serve different users well. I'm excited with the new releases, and judging by all the buzz in both camps for this, I'd say just about everyone else is too.
tarpon6 wrote:
It's absolutely laughable to say that Canons announcement was supposed to interupt the Nikon Launch. This Canon release was part of the standard release schedule for the XXD series. Canon was ready with product at announcment. The Nikon announcement with no product within 3 months of availabilty was an obvious attempt to steal thunder from the 40D.
Actually , its not laughable. Nikon announced the sponsorship to the Asian Games back in July. They always intended to release these camera on the 23rd Aug, 2 days before the start of the games on the 25th. Invitations to the event were sent out to press agencies and reviewers two weeks beforehand.
So whether or not it was coincidence the announcements fell two days apart, is one thing, but Nikon did not decide to make the decision to announce the new cameras the day after Canon did.
What I was getting at was the timing of the Canon announcement. It could have happened any day but it did two days before (a very well planned) Nikon annocunement. Either way, its just speculation. I just don't think that Canon wanted to announce it AFTER Nikon, in this case.
Oh, and you might be right. Maybe Nikon knew of the Canon announcement a few months ago and thought they would interupt it. Who in Nikon land would have wanted to hear how "Canon was the best and Nikon is crap, and I'm switching" for the next three months!
Frankly, I'm glad they both were announced when they were.
dcmiller wrote:
So there is a meaningful difference in price with regard to forum behavior, but the 40D's price isn't an advantage over the D300. Got it.
The 40D is a very competitive with the D300 for photographers, apparently less so with technophiles
Damn, I wish I'd said that. I've been trying to articulate it for days but you nailed it.
J.D. wrote:
Damn, I wish I'd said that. I've been trying to articulate it for days but you nailed it.
If the IQ stacks up to what initial indications are, then I would say the D300 stacks up quite well against the MKIIN. If the autofocus in the D300 is that same as the new flagship D3, then it's basically a cropped version of the D3 at a very agressive price point.
Brooke Clyde wrote:
Would they put the same AF in bodies at those very different price points? I know it appears so, but it makes no marketing sense to me ...
Uh, maybe because we asked them too? If you were to read the wish list Nikon owners had on the D200 for an upgrade, what you would get would be the D300. Nikon had to be listening, or they would not have released this camera. Apparently they think there is a market for it, and I think they are right.
Considering how many D200's were sold verses the D2X/D2Xs, maybe the economy of scale will make the pro versions cheaper. Is it possible that the D3 is priced lower than it might otherwise be as they expect the D300 to help make up for some of the cost? Maybe not, but it is a possibility.
David
And by the way, I'm not bashing the 40D. I think that one sounds like a great camera too, and it saves Canon owners about $400 over what Nikon owners will be paying for the D300. Not a bad deal for either house.
I shot a bunch of MKIII ISO 6400 Saturday night similar light, and the D3 shots are certainly cleaner with respect to color noise. A stop better minimum is a good rough estimate, but the files are substantially different.
I'm wondering about the fine detail in the ISO 400 shot. It seems that where there's an edge the detail is exaggerated. It seems that where there isn't a clear edge (facial pores) there is no detail.
What is going to be very interesting is direct comparison of the same subject between cameras. I have a hard time feeling certain about anything without that.
dcmiller wrote:
What is going to be very interesting is direct comparison of the same subject between cameras. I have a hard time feeling certain about anything without that.
agreed.
but i disagree with your assessment of the detail in the images. take a peek at the one with the young model in the office building? at ISO400 she has gloves with a lot of detail , the hair is very detailed too
i am encouraged for the first time , it is good to have nice pictures to look at from the new camera
dcmiller wrote:
I'm wondering about the fine detail in the ISO 400 shot. It seems that where there's an edge the detail is exaggerated. It seems that where there isn't a clear edge (facial pores) there is no detail.
but i disagree with your assessment of the detail in the images. take a peek at the one with the young model in the office building? at ISO400 she has gloves with a lot of detail , the hair is very detailed too
i am encouraged for the first time , it is good to have nice pictures to look at from the new camera
J
Looking at it again, the hair that bothers me may be a synthetic wig. What's with the Japanese and pasty blond models.
I don't know. Or is it the almost complete lack of noise. The camera definitely has different characteristics than Canon. But that's something for many future arguments.
It certainly seems certain that the ISO performance will be a competitive advantage in some professional areas.
We still need to see really low EV / high ISO performance.
