brainiac wrote:
Here's another way of looking at it: Nikon got caught napping and its haemorrhage of users towards Canon has forced it to develop its own CMOS full-frame sensor or get out of the game.
Or you could call it surfacing just long enough to draw breath before being pulled under again by the current. Canon will be releasing a 21 megapixel camera at the same time as Nikon releases a 12. Nikon's D3 competes directly with 2 Canon bodies which are cheaper and have been available for some time: 5D and 1D3. Time will tell.
Quite the pessimistic view... It doesn't explain how existing Nikon users continue to make a living with their "inferior" gear. Nor does it explain those that in the resent past have, (and even now continue to), switch from Canon to Nikon. And this predates the D3 and D300 announcements.
If what you are stating is personal opinion based on what worked for you, fine. But I don't see it as an accurate generalization of what is happening overall.
I doubt if you will see a lens mount change from either company anytime soon. Executives from both companies are old enough to remember Canon switching from the FD mount. At the time, Nikon had the better camera, and the best lenses. This became the perfect time for Canon shooters to jump ship; and many did. I'm sure Canon believes it was better then than later, but the company gave up a lot with that move. Some have come back due to Canon's lead in digital, but not all.
I hate to sound like a broken record; but switching brands is not so much about brand loyalty, or a temporary lead in IQ. It is a business decision clear and simple.
I was talking to a camera dealer today and he pointed out the obvious to me - Nikon has never had a full-frame DSLR and so all Nikon digital users who upgrade to the D3 will need to upgrade their lenses too. That puts them in the same boat as any converts from Canon There must be a lot of disappointed Nikon pros out there even though the new cameras do look to be very good.
It'll be interesting to see detailed test shots of the same subject at different ISO to see whether or at what ISO the fine details start getting lost in order to preserve the low noise appearance. If the Nikons keep the detail and also get rid of the noise then they will certainly have trumped Canon in a big way.
AJ Nadershahi wrote:
Oh lighten up Shane. That's what the smiley was for. And as if some of the "grown up" comments have not been filled with fanboy comments.
Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees...
As long as it stays somewhat intelligent I’m good....but the stupid and baseless mine is better than yours discussions are best left at home.
Tell me, what would we benefit from a new mount? Personally, I'd be pissed if Nikon released a new mount. I don't think you understand how fantastic it that I can grab a Nikon from the 70s and stick a brand new state of the art lens on it, and vice versa. What is so amazing about the ESO mount that betters it from any other mount?
A newer mount could implement the improvements that most newer mounts, like EOS, Contax N, Minolta have: a wider throat which helps with very bright apertures (f1.0-f1.2) and stands firmer against physical torque, and a shorter lens-to-film path which allows more symmetrical wide-angle designs. A newer Nikon mount, if it incorporated these sound principles, would almost certainly allow use of old Nikon glass with adaptors, and possibly other adapted lenses too.
It doesn't seem to make sense to argue that full or partial compatibility with old lenses is good in the case of the F mount, but bad in the case of EOS.
I have enjoyed using excellent Nikon glass on my 5D's. But it's impossible to use my Canon glass on a D3, since the D3's body is so deep.
What it boils down to is that you can use these lens mounts with EOS:
Nikon
Canon
Leica R
Zeiss N
Zeiss C/Y
Pentax K
Olympus OM
M42
Here are the lens mounts you can use with Nikon F
Nikon
Canon is reaping the reward of having the balls to fix their mount when they did.
Just saw those myself. It's pretty impressive, Nikon has definitely caught up to Canon in this aspect. That's good--now Canon has to get off its laurels and come up with something amazing for the next generation. We as consumers will end up winning in the the end.
Glad I have neither a Nikon or Canon system at this point. The choice is obvious...Nikon D300 or D3. I only have three primes for my 4x5 so Nikon's supposed lack of lens choices is laughable to me.
Edited by Edward Kelsey on Sep 13, 2007 at 06:31 PM GMT
brainiac wrote:
A newer mount could implement the improvements that most newer mounts, like EOS, Contax N, Minolta have: a wider throat which helps with very bright apertures (f1.0-f1.2) and stands firmer against physical torque, and a shorter lens-to-film path which allows more symmetrical wide-angle designs.
Canon's FD mount throat diameter of 48mm was already wider than Nikon's 44 mm. If Nikon can produce very good quality wide angle lenses, (most recently a 14-24 2.8 full frame zoom), bright f1.2 lenses, in-camera as well as in-lens auto-focus using ultrasonic motor technology, in-lens image stablization, tilt-shift lenses, full frame digital, it makes one wonder the real reason for Canon to switch to a radically different design that killed their existing line.
And the flange distance of FD mount was 42mm, whereas the EOS is measured at 44mm. So they actually increased the distance rather than reduce it. (technically the EOS mount is still 2mm shorter to film plane due to differences in how FD and EOS mounts place rear elements). So it seems they intentionally killed the ability to easily use FD lenses with the new mount.
I've never come across a situation with physical torque being an issue on a well engineered lens mount from either Canon or Nikon (or other) systems. I'd love to see some examples of where this was proven to be necessary.
If the intent was to allow for symmetrical wide angle designs, then why has Canon not produced outstanding wide angle lenses to take advantage of the new mount?
In any case, it is what it is and Canon certainly did rebound from it. Question is, would it hurt or help Nikon to do the same? And is it really necessary?
Ariel Bravy wrote:
That ISO 6400 trumpeteer shot is incredible
There must be a lot of disappointed Nikon pros out there even though the new cameras do look to be very good.
As long as it stays somewhat intelligent I’m good....but the stupid and baseless mine is better than yours discussions are best left at home.