I feel that Canon may well have learned something from their difficulties over the 1DsMk3. I recently bought a Canon 5D2 which had the "black dots" artifacts next to point highlights problem. What did Canon do? They announced that the phenomenon was real and promised a fix. The resulting firmware fix was quickly announced, and completely sorted the problem out.
They acted totally responsibly, and competently cured the issue. That's the kind of customer support we need.
panos.v wrote:
The fact is that Nikon's superteles got VR quite some time after Canon had IS in theirs. There is still no 300/4VR. There is no 17-55VR, like Canon's. There is no 24-105VR and there is none of the numerous 70-200 IS versions and so on. I'm not saying that these lenses are necessarily "professional" or that they are needed at all, but Canon gives you the choice of making up your mind at that. [...]
The facts are the facts.
Yes, those are facts. But do remember that they are not "the" facts, and that there are also other facts. Like the copy-to-copy variations and the markedly lower level of quality control in Canon lenses. Like the 200/2 and 200-400/4 Kerry mentioned. Like CLS and the vastly superior flash system overall. Like the inferior build quality of recent (say, last 5 years) Canon bodies that are "non-pro". Lots of other facts, some favoring one side and some favoring the other.
Also note, that "more" is not necessarily "better". GM makes 26 different brackets to attach car seats in various models to the car's steel frame, while Toyota has only 2. Wanna take a guess at which company makes more money selling products which are more reliable, last longer, have visibly better quality and performance, and sometimes even cost less? While theoretically it would be nice to have four 70-200 choices, it also raises the specter of design resources squandered, lower volume of each produced leading to higher unit costs and lower unit reliability, reduced ability to do effective quality control, and a slew of other possible issues even down the line like availability of parts and the length of the product's supported lifetime. No one has infinite resources.
To use just one of the examples you mentioned, I'll take the better build, greater sharpness, and superior image quality of the Nikon 17-55 over the Canon any day, even though the Canon has IS. Canon has some great lenses in the arsenal, and the 17-55 is pretty good. But the Nikon 17-55 is, IMHO, way better, and though I absolutely love VR I have not missed it at all on this lens. The new 24-70 does not have VR either, and yet that doesn't really seem to bother any of the people swarming after one.
Choice is a good thing. I agree with you there. But there are so many other things involved in the evaluation of a camera company, that "they give me more lens choices" is just one pixel in the image.
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
Like the copy-to-copy variations and the markedly lower level of quality control in Canon lenses. Like the 200/2 and 200-400/4 Kerry mentioned. Like CLS and the vastly superior flash system overall. Like the inferior build quality of recent (say, last 5 years) Canon bodies that are "non-pro". Lots of other facts, some favoring one side and some favoring the other.
One thing I did not mention is how many agencies, newspapers etc were moving over to Canon from Nikon. That seems to have stopped over the last few years.
The decision by Nikon to produce cameras such as the D200, and then the D300 was a master stroke. They were/are more expensive than 'similar' Canon bodies, and people were/are prepared to pay for the better build. Personally I would rather a Nikon equivalent to the 40D, but it seems most people disagree with me. I am sure most amateurs do not need the photo equivalent of the T34 tank. I bet Nikon's accountants aren't complaining though.
The number of Canon cameras that were dying like flies on the Michael Reichmann Antarctic trip (second time too) is astonishing.
I'm a Canon shooter. I think Nikon have come back and are doing really well with their bodies. It took Nikon some time but that should help keep Canon on their toes. Good, because I can't afford to swap brands with the ebs and tides of each product cycle. Competition is a good thing and Nikon is uping the anti.
