Wow. I just checked the estimated prices on the new Nikon glass. I doubt Canon will need to lower their prices by way of response. Competition should spur lower prices. In light of today's announcement from Nikon and the corresponding price points, roughly 20% higher than the equivalent Canons, I don't see it happening.
I think the same can be said of their new camera bodies. Is Nikon just not able to market their products at the same price that Canon is ? I was hoping, along with many others no doubt, that this activity from Nikon would push Canon prices down. What do ya' think ?
Edited by Jeff on Aug 23, 2007 at 11:33 AM GMT (Reason: MERGED)
The release of the new and greatly improved Nikons should be good for both Nikonians and Canonites. Competition helps in improved products and lower prices.
Win-Win for all of us.
Gil
well done to Nikon, not because the spec of the camera but the timing of announcement (just couple days after canon's announcement) which makes deadlock for Canon. Imagine if Nikon announce before Canon, Canon would have time to change spec (prob with couple months delay), but now....
I've returned my 1D3 and am waiting for an AF fix (mine was terrible).
Just got on the list for the D3 at the local shop. If the AF is hot and the ISO 3200/6400 is good, I'm probably going that way. Canon has a few months to change my mind ...
Very Cool. In a single set of hardware releases, they've caught up to Canon technologically, and eliminated pretty much any disadvantage Nikon shooters had versus their Canon counterparts. Granted, the D3 has only as many pixels as the original 1Ds, but it's still an impressive release, with all of the features common in Canon's cameras. (Live-view, multi-point AF, etc)
I still contend that the whole FX/FF thing is not as important as most people make it out to be, but I do think that a Nikon pro camera with such a large sensor pricing out at under $5000 will make a 1Ds Mark III untenable at Canon's traditional $8000 price point. I'm happy to see that there will be downward pressure on Canon at last, and that FF won't sell for the ridiculous premium it has commanded for so long. I would consider a FF camera if Canon wasn't charging at least $1500 over the cost of a comparable crop camera just to get one.
Bruce Sawle wrote:
the price and features is what really gets me. More for your buck. Shame on you canon.
Standard corporate behavior, it's called maximizing your profits and Nikon would have done it if they had the capability of being the only manufacturer of a full frame sensor. That said, being a Canon owner, I'm glad Nikon is FINALLY putting some pressure on Canon.
FGARVIN wrote:
The good news here is, if you like Nikon (I do) your patience has been rewarded. No reason for sour grapes on either side, we both have some really nice cameras to chose from, I just hope that Canons focus woes don't get repeated by Nikon. D3 and a pop up flash huh? What's next Nikon?
I completely echo your sentiments here, although I won't be able to justify purchasing either camera myself. I am looking forward to the price drops we should see on the D2Xs and the D200 though.
This latest generation releases from both Canon and Nikon give users in both camps some very nice equipment to choose from and make this a very exciting time for all of us.
I picked up my 500mm f/4 IS for 5249.00 from Amazon.com when the prices temporarily dropped this spring, so for me to move to Nikon it would cost $2,650.00 additonal for the lens plus another $500 for the D300 vs. the XXD series.
It's not always easy to swing back and forth between systems every time one company trumps another.
RobertP wrote:
Given the fact that I only care about image quality, and not shooting speed, or the resolution of the little LCD screen, I'll take a Canon CMOS over a Sony full-frame sensor any day of the week.
In 2002, we had something called the Canon 1Ds.
"While it's widely known that Nikon uses sensors designed by Sony in most of its digital SLRs, the D3's sensor is an original Nikon design." -Rob Galbraith
Just so you know, though judging by the tone of your posts, you won't care. Can we get you some cheese?
For me...I love fast primes. I seriously was thinking about the D3 or D300, but then checked out Nikon's lenses (of which I know nothing) and could not find any equivalent to 35/1.4 on FF. Of course one can always get the sigma 30/1.4 but then only for DX.
If you're comparing it to the Ds yes, but I think it's aimed at PJ's who now get more speed, resolution and full frame than they would with a D III. All for an extra $1K. I'd say it was worth it if they still have Nikon glass.
Edited by calvillo on Aug 23, 2007 at 10:44 AM GMT
Whether or not the Nikon cameras beat the equivelent canons on spec or indeed performance, what they actually do is provide far better 'all rounders' than Canon does. Yes the buffer of the D300 more or less cripples it's motordrive period, but for someone looking for a good all rounder, who is not a sports or wildlife only shooter, it's a better deal than the 40D. The D3 only has 12 megapixels but as an all rounder it's far better than the FPS limited 1Ds mkIII or the cropped and lesser megapixeled 1D mkIII. If you want a camera as at home in the studio as on the football field then the D3 looks to be better than either or the Canons.
That said Canon has a lot of those white lenses out there, they are going to hold a large portion of its client base through apathy, cost and familiarity with the EOS system. Nikon could be smart and do a 'Canon in the '90's' , top end pro support at big events, giving away lenses, etc.
Personally I need CPS (far too often, I should be more careful!), I know ETTL II subconsciously by now, my two 5D's cannot be replaced by either camera for cost/size/noise. I don't believe that the D300 will have better noise than the 40D which I doubt will do much more than match the 30D given that they squeezed more pixels in and that wasn't good enough for me as a high iso wedding shooter anyway. Two D3's might do the job at a huge cost so why should I bother?
One thing that the Nikonites are going to come against is that cost barrier for backup. The D300 can't backup a D3, it will need different lenses so you might as well buy two D3's especially given the buffer of the D300 for a sports shooter, that will start getting expensive for those who used a D200 as backup for their D2X. I get a lesser camera than the D3 with my 5D but I can afford to shoot 2 FF cameras at the same time and that makes a difference.
rwalls3 wrote:
For me...I love fast primes. I seriously was thinking about the D3 or D300, but then checked out Nikon's lenses (of which I know nothing) and could not find any equivalent to 35/1.4 on FF. Of course one can always get the sigma 30/1.4 but then only for DX.
I also really love my 90 ts-e.
Hummm.... decisions.
I use the Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 AIS (manual focus lens) on all of my digital bodies. The build quality is great and the image quality is great stopped down from f/2 to f/5.6. They're expensive in good used condition (about $500). Of course, the drawback is that it's not an autofocus lens.
Bjorn Rorslett, a highly respected Nikonian, rates it at 5/5 on D2x, D2H, F4, F5, and D200 bodies.
Quote, "Nikon has offered this superspeed lens for two decades now, so must believe the design is good. This is an excellent lens for low-light and general photography, although the results are not stunning when it is used wide open. Partly this stems from the tendency to internal flare that needs stopping down to f/2-f/2.8 in order to disappear. Its imaging capacity quickly increases when the aperture is set to f/2.8 and peak performance is reached between f/4 and f/5.6. In this quite narrow range it produces tremendously sharp images.
To illustrate its imaging potential: In the peak range it is possible to discern objects that actually measure <1 mm within a recorded area of 5 by 8 m. You'll need at least 40X magnification to observe these tiny details on the film, but they certainly are there . This shows the unbelievable level of detail that can be resolved on film by this lens! At f/8, however, performance starts to decline and by f/16 it's just another ordinary lens. Flare isn't usually a problem with it and ghosting is well controlled, too."
carstenw wrote:
One of Canon's problems is that they always seem to hold something back, to make the more expensive models look better. For example, the D200/D300 have 9-exposure bracketing, and the 5D has only 3. I find this attitude very disappointing. Nikon, on the other hand, seems to give everything they can, and the lenses are traditionally better at the wide end.
I have the same feeling. To me, I will never be paying the extra to go to 1 series since this is just my hobby, so this type of holding back will probably just drive me to other brand if they provide more feature and enhancement on the same level of cameras as the 20D/30/40D.
EOS20 wrote:
What makes the 1D3 better then the D3??
*Sensor: APS-H vs Full framed with 3 selectable crop modes
*AF points: 45 vs 51
*Mega Pixels: 10.7 vs 12.1
*Frame rate - 10fps vs 9 fps at FX and 11 fps at 9mp DX mode
*ISO - 50-3200 vs 100-25600
*Shutter life: 300,000 cycles for both models
*The D3 has a faster flash sync speed
*The LCD in the D3 is better then what's on offer by Canon
*Price $4999 for the 1D3 vs $4999.95 for the D3
I'm sure there are even more then that!
I see a price cut for the 1D III, or very slow sales after the D3 hits the market.
luant16 wrote:
well done to Nikon, not because the spec of the camera but the timing of announcement (just couple days after canon's announcement) which makes deadlock for Canon. Imagine if Nikon announce before Canon, Canon would have time to change spec (prob with couple months delay), but now....
Canon wouldn't change their specs if their announcement was after Nikons because they've likely already have tens of thousands nearly ready for shippment. The Canon cameras are already in some reps hands.
RobertP wrote:
Given the fact that I only care about image quality, and not shooting speed, or the resolution of the little LCD screen, I'll take a Canon CMOS over a Sony full-frame sensor any day of the week.
In 2002, we had something called the Canon 1Ds.
It's not a Sony sensor - it is one designed by Nikon, which they won't tell us who manufactures it, just like that in the D2H - which is perhaps a little worrying!
Regards,
DaveMart
