Will canon put out a camera comparable to Nikon D700?

[RyanM]

I switched over to canon a bit over a year ago b/c i much prefer canon lenses to nikon, but nikon has a much better camera selection

D700: full frame, 8fps with grip, low noise, 45 point autofocus

closest canon has is 1DMk3 but is cropped sensor

---->Will canon make a full frame 1dmk3 (not 1dsmk3 b/c too low fps)

THIS IS NOT A CANON VS. NIKON THREAD WAR... please only respond with any insight into what would be comparable from Canon

[tkbslc]

I don't think anyone would place the D700 ahead of the 1Dmk3, regardless of 1.3x vs FF. So in answer, yes, Canon has made a camera like the D700, only better, and called it the 1Dmk3.

[foxesamu]

^It's also twice the price. I don't think Canon will make the 5D a sports camera like the D700; it's always been aimed towards wedding and landscape photographers. Their way of thinking is, if you're a pro sports shooter, you need a 1D3.

[KenjiS]

I switched over to canon a bit over a year ago b/c i much prefer canon lenses to nikon, but nikon has a much better camera selection

D700: full frame, 8fps with grip, low noise, 45 point autofocus

closest canon has is 1DMk3 but is cropped sensor

---->Will canon make a full frame 1dmk3 (not 1dsmk3 b/c too low fps)

THIS IS NOT A CANON VS. NIKON THREAD WAR... please only respond with any insight into what would be comparable from Canon

Not going Canon vs Nikon...but the D700 has limitations on that 8fps speed..

Namely its only 12-bit that can manage this, 14-bit slows that 8fps down to about 5-6fps...without the grip thats down in the same neighborhood of a 5D Mark II...the D700 will only go for 20 shots, Not 30 like a 1D as well...

The 5D Mark II is also a lot higher resolution than the D700...

As for noise performance, I honestly cant say I've seen absolute proof Nikon > Canon...I've seen tests go both ways, the way I see it its too close to truely call..with some tests favoring Canon and others Nikon

Think of it this way, the 1DM3 is a specific tool for specific usage, Sports and Wildlife, the crop sensor is actually an advantage for both of those usages, you can hold a burst for 30 frames versus 20 with a D700...

[foxesamu]

Not going Canon vs Nikon...but the D700 has limitations on that 8fps speed..

Namely its only 12-bit that can manage this, 14-bit slows that 8fps down to about 5-6fps...without the grip thats down in the same neighborhood of a 5D Mark II

The 5D Mark II is also a lot higher resolution than the D700...

As for noise performance, I honestly cant say I've seen absolute proof Nikon > Canon...I've seen tests go both ways, the way I see it its too close to truely call..with some tests favoring Canon and others Nikon

Most likley what you're looking for is a 5D Mark III....or a used 1Ds Mark II
Is that true about 14-bit? I know the D300 can only do its full fps in 12-bit mode, but AFAIK the D700 is unrestricted--it's just one of those things that sets it apart. If that is true, there's no point to using the grip in 14-bit because without it it will get 5fps anyway. However, when you're talking about sports, it's more about the AF system than the fps (for me at least). The D700 has insane tracking abilities.

I don't think I've ever seen a test saying the 5D2 has better high ISO performance than the D700. It has superb performance in itself but above 3200 the D700 seems to be better; it doesn't suffer from banding and has less chroma noise. The 5D2's sensor is remarkable but there will always be limitations coming from 21MP vs. 12.

[Dooms_day]

i dunno, at $3000 would be closest to the 5D mk 2 (2700), which definately has way more pixels, and 5fps out of the box is still only a little better than 3.9....

i cant see canon making a similar camera though, the next 1Ds is going to have like 40MP and that wont be able to handle much fps, and the next 1D might have 17fps, but not full frame

[KenjiS]

Is that true about 14-bit? I know the D300 can only do its full fps in 12-bit mode, but AFAIK the D700 is unrestricted--it's just one of those things that sets it apart. If that is true, there's no point to using the grip in 14-bit because without it it will get 5fps anyway. However, when you're talking about sports, it's more about the AF system than the fps (for me at least). The D700 has insane tracking abilities.

I shot a EOS-3 with a older version of the 45-point AF that equips all the 1D series, and honestly? They're both equal...But Canon has more high speed focusing lenses in its lineup than Nikon does..

[qupte]I don't think I've ever seen a test saying the 5D2 has better high ISO performance than the D700. It has superb performance in itself but above 3200 the D700 seems to be better; it doesn't suffer from banding and has less chroma noise. The 5D2's sensor is remarkable but there will always be limitations coming from 21MP vs. 12.[/quote]

True, but I still feel people at that point are perhaps splitting hairs a bit...or maybe im just envious because my poor POOR 30D cant go above 800 with sketchy results :)

[RyanM]

Thanks for the input. I really like the 1Dmk3 but just wish it was full frame... that would be icing on the cake for me....

[KenjiS]

Thanks for the input. I really like the 1Dmk3 but just wish it was full frame... that would be icing on the cake for me....

1DMk4 might be from the current indications.....

About 16mp, 10fps, FF...

[PIXmantra]

D700: full frame, 8fps with grip, low noise, 45 point autofocus

closest canon has is 1DMk3 but is cropped sensor

---->Will canon make a full frame 1dmk3 (not 1dsmk3 b/c too low fps)

THIS IS NOT A CANON VS. NIKON THREAD WAR... please only respond with any insight into what would be comparable from Canon


...Nikon's true direct competitor to the 1DMarkIII is the D3 (not the D700). Furthermore, and once you are on the field, everything gets longer/heavier/bulkier optically-speaking (and not IQ-better though) with a FF sensor, whereas with Canon's APS-H 1.28x sensor you cream the best of your lenses, you can user shorter (and more state of the art ones) or simply get even further ahead without changing your 300mm or 400mm, and all this with same (or better IQ).

For the above reason, the 1D3 proposal is inherently more efficient and better engineered for the core tasks... unless, of course, you most likely need to go wider, still with poor light, and that is an area where a FF sensor would excel.

Don't be surprised if the next 1D4 comes with a FF sensor but a crop-mode that offers same resolution/density than current 1D3, though.

PIX

[jacobsen1]

if you look at both lines, canon and nikon rarely make cameras that line up head to head perfectly....

you want FPS on the canon side you either settle with 6.5 with a 40D or 50D or you go 8 with a 1Dii or 10 with a 1Diii. Yes the x0Ds are cropped, but that's not always a bad thing. The 1 series (non 'S') is the happy medium crop most people will say works for anyone. Wide enough for wide guys, it had the ISO performance, and adds a bit to teles for the people who need reach. if you NEED FF and FPS then you're out, but there's FF with MP on a budget which Nikon DOES NOT offer.

This is all very much intentional, they don't offer heads up choices so you have to pick what you want. Same with the lenses (no f4 zooms on the other side etc). So you want FPS and speed, you need a nikon. Case closed (which is a bit funny since Nikon themselves bashed FF for a long long time). But do you really need FF -vs- 1.3? Will you really see the difference?

That said, Nikon has done A LOT of great things with the D700. Had canon made it I'd at least have one as my second body, but probably my primary. I'm just hooked on wide fast primes. The rest of canon's lenses are better for what I do as well (100-400 is rad, not that the 200-400 f4 isn't, it's just Texa$ and heavy).

[basroil]

if you look at both lines, canon and nikon rarely make cameras that line up head to head perfectly....


So true... too bad nobody pays attention to this fact.

Is that true about 14-bit? I know the D300 can only do its full fps in 12-bit mode, but AFAIK the D700 is unrestricted--it's just one of those things that sets it apart. If that is true, there's no point to using the grip in 14-bit because without it it will get 5fps anyway. However, when you're talking about sports, it's more about the AF system than the fps (for me at least). The D700 has insane tracking abilities.

I don't think I've ever seen a test saying the 5D2 has better high ISO performance than the D700. It has superb performance in itself but above 3200 the D700 seems to be better; it doesn't suffer from banding and has less chroma noise. The 5D2's sensor is remarkable but there will always be limitations coming from 21MP vs. 12.

Even if it isn't true, you're stuck using a special battery and grip to get the 8fps, so that 2700 price is over 3k only 700 less than 1dmkiii, nowhere near half the price. Better yet, you could get two 5ds and get 6fps at no cost over a single d700;).

Even if those tests don't say it, I can assure you that 5dmkii is much better. Simply coming close enough to the d700 so that nobody can say one is better than the other means that when you reduce the 5dmkii to a d700 size, 5dmkii wins hands down.

[Colorblinded]

So true... too bad nobody pays attention to this fact.Indeed, they very rarely overlap each other, especially with the bodies. They do seem to come closer with lenses but even there you can find plenty of examples of them avoiding stepping on each other's toes.

[anthony11]

i dunno, at $3000 would be closest to the 5D mk 2 (2700), which definately has way more pixels, and 5fps out of the box is still only a little better than 3.9....
It's 30% better, more than "a little" in my book.

[versedmb]

1DMk4 might be from the current indications.....

About 16mp, 10fps, FF...

Yea, its going to be interesting to see whether Canon sticks with the 1.3X crop or goes FF with the 1DMk4.

[Stickman]

if you look at both lines, canon and nikon rarely make cameras that line up head to head perfectly....


I would guess that is intentional. If they spend time trying to mirror specs, they may as well just form one company. Going after what each company feels is best allows consumers to pick what they like.

[tharmsen]

I don't think I've ever seen a test saying the 5D2 has better high ISO performance than the D700. It has superb performance in itself but above 3200 the D700 seems to be better; it doesn't suffer from banding and has less chroma noise. The 5D2's sensor is remarkable but there will always be limitations coming from 21MP vs. 12.
First, it is true that the D700 achieves its 8fps speed by lowering the bits from 14 to 12.

Personally, I don't care for that little trick and a good number of Nikon people don't even know about it. It's kind of a gimmick if you ask me.

This is also true of Nikons "superior" high ISO noise performance. They're trying to impress people with a parlor trick. They get one stop of higher ISO performance by raising their base ISO from 100 to 200. Again, that's useless to me. I shoot a lot in the studio and I would much rather have ISO 100 as my base than 200. Obviously your best IQ is at your native or base ISO.

As for the AF tracking, I would put a 1DM3 against the D700 any day. The D700 is nice, but it doesn't kick the 1DM3's butt as so many Nikonians would love to believe. There's a reason the 1DM3 is so popular with photo journalists and action sports shooters.

I'm glad Nikon finally pulled its head out a couple of years ago and decided to compete with Canon. Now the 1DMk4 is just around the corner. I suspect that puppy will dazzle the photog community when it finally hits the streets and the ball will be squarely back in Canon's court. Then the cycle continues.

[tharmsen]

I would guess that is intentional. If they spend time trying to mirror specs, they may as well just form one company. Going after what each company feels is best allows consumers to pick what they like.
Yup.

And I feel the 5DMk2 is the best studio/portrait camera made right now. It's nothing short of amazing. You don't need a 45 point AF system for that purpose. You don't need 8fps at 12 bits if you're going for super high quality in a studio.

If you want to shoot action, there's nothing better on the market than the 1DMk3 right now.

I think Canon has a great thing going, I know they've more than met my needs.

[westernminnguy]

There are times I think it would be good if Nikon built the bodies and Canon built the lenses....call it Nikonanen...or Cannikon.....

My guess is; it won't happen.

Reason?

Too many $$$ to be made off of us photofanatics....by both Nikon and Canon.

:)

[toxic]

There's the 1D. I doubt Canon will put a 45-point AF system in a 5D anytime soon...but they could at least give it cross-type sensors all around :confused:

[KenjiS]

There are times I think it would be good if Nikon built the bodies and Canon built the lenses....call it Nikonanen...or Cannikon.....

My guess is; it won't happen.

Reason?

Too many $$$ to be made off of us photofanatics....by both Nikon and Canon.

:)

You mean the opposite of the beginning? When Canon made bodies and Nikon made optics? :)

As for going from 1.3x to full frame..I'm torn, in some ways 1.3x is kinda gimmicky, its between 1.6x and FF in Canon's lineup and thus missing out on the exclusive wides for the first, and true wides from the second...

But then again, 1.3x is better to me than FF for sports and wildlife...

We might just have to wait and see.....After all cropping is simple and with 16mp at your disposal, very possibly with VERY low noise levels...well it could win over a lot of photogs...

Also the other rumor I heard was the next xxD gets 8fps shooting.....it would make a lot of sense if the 1D goes FF that the highest level of prosumer SLR gets quicker :)

[Derrel]

I'm one of the people who shoots both Nikon and Canon cameras,and I wish Canon would make a camera comparable to the D700. My 5D has image quality that's basically equal to that of the D3 and D700 up to ISO 1600, where the Nikons seem to pull ahead. it took Nikon almost 3 years to come up with a full-frame, 12-MP body that could compete with the original 5D on image quality.

As I see it, the 51-point AF system Nikon puts in its pro bodies AND its semi-pro/lightweight-pro capable D300 is an area where Nikon is ahead of Canon's 9-point + invisible AF point array the 5D and 5D Mark II are fitted with; personally, I find the 5D's AF system quite a bit behind what the Nikons can do, esp. when using off-center AF points. And the speed of the D700 in terms of shutter lag time, and mirror blackout time is pretty fast and responsive--the 5D feels quite slow by comparison. What the 5D and D700 share is the half-height body configuration, but the D700 has a pop-up and the 5D does not. Both have grip options, but the Nikon's grip + High Output battery Nikon combo elevates the D700 so equipped into the pro-level firing rate for fast action and faster AF response; the AF system only works when the mirror is down,and in viewing position--the faster the firing rate, the more times per second the AF system can collect data and send focus commands. With a camera that shoots at 8 fps, it's possible to get two usable frames on many sports action sequences; with a camera shooting at 3.9 fps, you get ONE CHANCE,only. The frame "before" and the frame "after" with a 3.9 FPS camera is usually totally out of consideration. Firing rate brings with it better,more-responsive autofocus capabilities,and also gives you a very slight cushion on peak action. Shooting at 8 fps is not for machine-gunning long sequences with the shutter release mashed down--it's a way to make the camera simply more-responsive when shooting critical sequences,where the lens is long, the DOF is shallow,and the action is happening fast. The difference between say the D2x's 5 fps and 8.2 fps is/was very,very significant. Basically,the 3.9 FPS of the 5D presents a problem for action work in that there's a full quarter second between frames,and the AF is very centrally-weighted,and no offense, but the 5D's AF system is simply not up to the task for sports photography uses. The 5D series is meant for people/wedding/landscape/general assignment work, while the D700 is designed as an affordable general assignment/sports/PJ machine where SPEED of operation (speed of focus,firing rate,shutter lag time,mirror blackout/latency) is a very high priority. "Horses for courses"as the British say.

As far as 1.28x on the 1D-series and the FF on the D700: the wider angle of the FF sensor makes indoor photography easier with many legacy lenses, like 24,50,85,105,135,180,200,300,and 400mm. For much sports/PJ use, the need is not for more reach, because you are already very close to the action. A crop-body camera makes your 300 TOO narrow-angle a lens for many events if you're shooting with credentials from a spot along the sidelines or court; a FF body widens out the angle of view,making your 300 and 400 much more-useful for many sports/PJ assignments. Now that sensors are exceedingly good, it's better to have a wider lens coverage,since cropping in post is now Sooooooo much easier than when we were shooting 2.7 and 4.2 MP bodies.

Canon really does not have a pro-capable half-height body priced under $3k; the 5D Mark II does not have the same specs or the same orientation as the D700. Canon *could* try to compete in the D700 space if it desired. Maybe they will soon? Who knows...

[PIXmantra]

However, when you're talking about sports, it's more about the AF system than the fps (for me at least). The D700 has insane tracking abilities.

...That IS NOT what professionals asked for. On the contrary, frame-speed, AF-speed, and everything-speed is desired/highly preferred. That's what makes a camera true PRO camera in such applications of photography.


I don't think I've ever seen a test saying the 5D2 has better high ISO performance than the D700. It has superb performance in itself but above 3200 the D700 seems to be better; it doesn't suffer from banding and has less chroma noise.

Just go to DPReview and search the D3/D700 banding threads, and watch the epileptic reactions of our dear Nikonians. Nikon uses BOAT LOADS of Noise Reduction (in .JPG) and they also crook their .NEF files, too, which (unfortunately) is the path Canon is following with DigicIV implementations.

PIX

[tharmsen]

Canon really does not have a pro-capable half-height body priced under $3k; the 5D Mark II does not have the same specs or the same orientation as the D700. Canon *could* try to compete in the D700 space if it desired. Maybe they will soon? Who knows...
I don't think Canon wants to compete in that space. I think Canon is quite content watching Nikon gut the D3 market with the D700. Reports are that D3 sales are falling while everyone flocks to the D700. If Nikons strategy is to get out of the Pro market with the D3, then I would say their D700 is a smashing success.

Canon has targeted the wedding / studio photographer with their 5DMk2 and in this space it's kicking serious ass. After the 5D2's release you couldn't get your hands on one for months. Even now they're still moving like crazy and trying to find a spare battery is nearly impossible. You don't need a 51 point AF system for this application as you need to specifically target your focus point. So if you're going to turn all those AF points off to get crisp focus on the eyes, what's the point of having them? You don't need 8fps at 12 bits and 12mp in a wedding, 14 bits at 3.9fps at 21mp is far more practical to most photogs.

The 1DMk3 is targeted towards photo journalists and action/sports photogs. In this space it dominates. The last report I read was that 1D3 sales are still on the incline even though rumors abound about the new 1D4.

Canon is wise to keep these product lines separate for the time being I think. I can't fault their marketing strategy, unlike Nikon which is cannibalizing its flagship model for some reason.

[johnboy00]

I saw a rumor on canonrumors.com that the 60D will likely be announced late summer/early fall and that it will have a new AF system. I wonder if the 1D4 will get a brand-new AF system (surely) and the 60D will get the 1D's current 45-pt AF.

[wilvoeka]

First, it is true that the D700 achieves its 8fps speed by lowering the bits from 14 to 12.

Actually it is only the D300 that slows down in 14 Bit mode. Both the D3 and D700 can sustain their FPS in 14 bit mode.

D300
6.1 fps / 37 large/fine JPEG or 17 (12-bit) RAW fames,
slows to 2.66 fps in 14-bit RAW (measured);
up to 8 fps with optional MB-D10 battery pack

D700

5 fps / 100 JPEG or 23 12-bit RAW or 20 14-bit RAW frames, no slow-down for 14-bit;
up to 8 fps with optional MB-D10 battery pack

[RyanM]

thanks again for all the info.... cant wait to see what the 1dmk4 specs are...

[foxesamu]

Even if it isn't true, you're stuck using a special battery and grip to get the 8fps, so that 2700 price is over 3k only 700 less than 1dmkiii, nowhere near half the price. Better yet, you could get two 5ds and get 6fps at no cost over a single d700;).
I would guess that most people buy the grip anyway, because they like using the portrait orientation; they'd buy it with the 5D2 also. One more thing--the D700 is $2400, not $2700. It shows up as $2700 on B&H but add it to your cart and see what happens! :p

I didn't realize the ID3 was under $4K. I thought it was the same price as the D3. That's an excellent price; the 1D3 is the ultimate sports camera and I'd be thrilled to own one. The D700 is just a bit more skewed towards portraits so I prefer it ever so slightly; I shoot both portraits and sports.

Even if those tests don't say it, I can assure you that 5dmkii is much better. Simply coming close enough to the d700 so that nobody can say one is better than the other means that when you reduce the 5dmkii to a d700 size, 5dmkii wins hands down.
That is absolutely true. Like I said, remarkable sensor. When cropped down it will have less noise. However, something that's so lovely about the D700/D3 is that they really only produce luminance noise from 200-6400 (unless you severely underexpose of course). The 5D2 isn't as forgiving in this respect.

[KenjiS]

I saw a rumor on canonrumors.com that the 60D will likely be announced late summer/early fall and that it will have a new AF system. I wonder if the 1D4 will get a brand-new AF system (surely) and the 60D will get the 1D's current 45-pt AF.

No this was denied by an interview with a Canon guy they had on there

He said we wont see 45-point, We will see a system derived from the 1D and somewhere it was hinted at being 13-points which is fine by me...

[foxesamu]

This is also true of Nikons "superior" high ISO noise performance. They're trying to impress people with a parlor trick. They get one stop of higher ISO performance by raising their base ISO from 100 to 200. Again, that's useless to me. I shoot a lot in the studio and I would much rather have ISO 100 as my base than 200. Obviously your best IQ is at your native or base ISO.
Huh? Yes, 200 has the best IQ on the D700. There is a 100 ISO extension but it is known to blow out highlights. What are you trying to say here? The D700 at 200 is just as good as anything Canon makes at 100...

As for the AF tracking, I would put a 1DM3 against the D700 any day. The D700 is nice, but it doesn't kick the 1DM3's butt as so many Nikonians would love to believe. There's a reason the 1DM3 is so popular with photo journalists and action sports shooters.
Absolutely. I never said the D700 is better than the 1D3 at sports. The D3 isn't either.

I'm glad Nikon finally pulled its head out a couple of years ago and decided to compete with Canon. Now the 1DMk4 is just around the corner.
So are the D4, D400 and D700x... :cool:

I suspect that puppy will dazzle the photog community when it finally hits the streets and the ball will be squarely back in Canon's court. Then the cycle continues.
I don't think it's that simple any more. The whole reason some Canon shooters switched to Nikon was because of problems with the 1D3's AF system. Now that they're at Nikon (and presumably happy with Nikon), they aren't going to just switch back. We bench racers (well, maybe not "us" but the online community in general) may think Canon is ahead but it doesn't really affect the pro photographer community.

[tharmsen]

Huh? Yes, 200 has the best IQ on the D700. There is a 100 ISO extension but it is known to blow out highlights. What are you trying to say here? The D700 at 200 is just as good as anything Canon makes at 100...

I think you missed the point. Yes, Nikon is great at ISO 200 at the expense of ISO 100 and ISO 50. You see, wherever you set your native ISO, anything above and below that loses IQ - albeit subtly until you start pushing things. In essence, Nikon has traded high ISO performance for low ISO performance. Many studio photogs prefer low ISO performance. It's splitting hairs of course, but that's my point.

Absolutely. I never said the D700 is better than the 1D3 at sports. The D3 isn't either.
No, I would say they're pretty evenly matched.

So are the D4, D400 and D700x... :cool:
Hehe, point taken.

I don't think it's that simple any more. The whole reason some Canon shooters switched to Nikon was because of problems with the 1D3's AF system. Now that they're at Nikon (and presumably happy with Nikon), they aren't going to just switch back. We bench racers (well, maybe not "us" but the online community in general) may think Canon is ahead but it doesn't really affect the pro photographer community.
According to Canon, they haven't lost all that many shooters to Nikon at all. Their sales numbers are growing as usual, and actually the sales of the 5DMk2 blew all projections. So they're not losing as many shooters as Nikonian boards would have you believe.

I haven't seen an official poll or anything, but it is pretty much a common belief that Canon still has a tight grasp on the pro market space. Their CPS services, if nothing else, keep pros around. Nikon still hasn't caught up in this department. Canon kisses its CPS members asses, I know - I'm a member and I wouldn't trade their service for anything. I can get my camera serviced and back in my hands within days. They also give out tons of free swag and you can always find their guys hovering around major events.

Nikon seems to still be dabbling in the pro market space. Sure, they have great cameras but that's only part of the package many pros are looking for. Nikon needs to create a service system like Canon's to cater to pros if they really want to dominate.

Every event I've been to I've seen nothing but a sea of white lenses. Sure, there are plenty of Nikons out in the sea of white, but Canon certainly appears to still hold the upper hand.

In the consumer and pro-sumer market space... they've always been fierce competitors.

[basroil]

I would guess that most people buy the grip anyway, because they like using the portrait orientation; they'd buy it with the 5D2 also. One more thing--the D700 is $2400, not $2700. It shows up as $2700 on B&H but add it to your cart and see what happens! :p

I didn't realize the ID3 was under $4K. I thought it was the same price as the D3. That's an excellent price; the 1D3 is the ultimate sports camera and I'd be thrilled to own one. The D700 is just a bit more skewed towards portraits so I prefer it ever so slightly; I shoot both portraits and sports.


That is absolutely true. Like I said, remarkable sensor. When cropped down it will have less noise. However, something that's so lovely about the D700/D3 is that they really only produce luminance noise from 200-6400 (unless you severely underexpose of course). The 5D2 isn't as forgiving in this respect.

I used average prices, so sue me;)
But the 1dmkiii has always been cheaper than d3. mkiii started at 4500 and d3 at 5000, now mkiii is 3700, d3 is 4300. Then again, nikons have always commanded a larger premium over the canon "equivalents".

[foxesamu]

I think you missed the point. Yes, Nikon is great at ISO 200 at the expense of ISO 100 and ISO 50. You see, wherever you set your native ISO, anything above and below that loses IQ - albeit subtly until you start pushing things. In essence, Nikon has traded high ISO performance for low ISO performance. Many studio photogs prefer low ISO performance. It's splitting hairs of course, but that's my point.
I think I'm missing something else--is 100 ISO on X Canon camera better than 200 ISO on X Nikon camera? Wouldn't Nikon make it so that isn't the case? I was here thinking base 200 ISO wasn't a fluke, that it was a real advantage.

According to Canon, they haven't lost all that many shooters to Nikon at all. Their sales numbers are growing as usual, and actually the sales of the 5DMk2 blew all projections. So they're not losing as many shooters as Nikonian boards would have you believe.
Oh, absolutely, I know. Not many pros would switch on a dime. But Nikon attained a presence they hadn't had since the '80s with the introduction of the D3 and D300. Now there are many more first-timers picking Nikon; the 450D (last time I checked) is still the best-selling DSLR in the world but the D90 and D60 were very close behind.

As for the rest of your post... I've had a very hard time deciding what to do next. I still have a very basic Nikon kit. I'm still in high school and, as you can imagine, live with my parents. Buying even my initial D40 kit was a big step for them. They don't quite understand the way DSLRs move forward so quickly. I have considered switching to Canon for the stellar prime lineup (and semi-pro zooms, as you mentioned) but I think they would have heart attacks. I'm truly at a loss at this point.

[anthony11]

I think I'm missing something else--is 100 ISO on X Canon camera better than 200 ISO on X Nikon camera? Wouldn't Nikon make it so that isn't the case? I was here thinking base 200 ISO wasn't a fluke, that it was a real advantage.
As far as I can tell the performance is a factor of the sensor, and the "base" ISO of a given camera is fairly arbitrary, so I don't understand how the D700 would gain high-ISO performance via an arbitrary "base" choice.

If one believes dxomark's measurements, the D700's 100/200 is really 162 and the 5DmkII's 100 is really 72.

but the D90 and D60 were very close behind.

Even if I were considering a D90, though, the Ashton Kutcher ads would dissuade me.

[Joshua14321]

The 5d2 might be close?

I havent seen the specs for the D700,

~ Josh ;)

[anthony11]

The D700 is 12ish mpel, 51 AF points, 5fps (8 with grip), auto-iso that behaves in a way that some feel is better than Canon's.

[bacchanal]

I havent seen the specs for the D700,

~ Josh ;)

Don't look! Spare yourself. ;)

[Joshua14321]

You need a grip for more FPS?

Is this a dedicated FPS grip or just a battery grip?

I don't think I like that Idea, there are some situations where you can't use a grip but need FPS IMO,

~Although if canon deployed this system you could have a 40FPS 1DMKIII :D:D:D

[bacchanal]

You need a grip for more FPS?

Is this a dedicated FPS grip or just a battery grip?

I don't think I like that Idea, there are some situations where you can't use a grip but need FPS IMO,

~Although if canon deployed this system you could have a 40FPS 1DMKIII :D:D:D

It's a battery grip...apparently more FPS requires more power or something like that.

It's actually kind of surprising that Nikon enables this camera to go so fast, as it has the potential to cut into the D3 market (and it sort of ruffled the feathers of some D3 owners when it was released, kind of like the whole 5DII/1DsIII resolution overlap).

[condyk]

Not going Canon vs Nikon...but the D700 has limitations on that 8fps speed..

Namely its only 12-bit that can manage this ...

That's actually quite wrong! It shoots 14 bit at 8fps and with normal AA batteries in the grip. I know this because I actually own the D700 and the grip and the AA batteries and shoot 14 bit 100%.



---->Will canon make a full frame 1dmk3 (not 1dsmk3 b/c too low fps)

THIS IS NOT A CANON VS. NIKON THREAD WAR... please only respond with any insight into what would be comparable from Canon

My only insight is it's all hot air. You'll have to wait and see. ;)

[PIXmantra]

If one believes dxomark's measurements, the D700's 100/200 is really 162 and the 5DmkII's 100 is really 72.

Well, they are about the most useless you can find around, with all due respect, though.

PIX

[toxic]

If one believes dxomark's measurements, the D700's 100/200 is really 162 and the 5DmkII's 100 is really 72.

DxOMark is full of crap. Apparently medium format isn't any better (and can be worse) than 35mm, and everyone but them measures Canon's "true" ISO100 to be 125.

[r1ch]

If Canon put out a 5dmk2 that had a similar AF to the D700, I would buy one. My perspective is that only so many people need FPS, and they are usually shooting sports, which is a smaller percentage of non pro shooters, and the 5d2 is a non pro camera. I think a much larger percentage of people use a good AF system that more focus points, focus better in low light and is faster which the D700. I personally don't need video and if I take my camera into a stadium, they would exlude the 5d2 because it takes video, which they do check for in the events I go to.

For me I need faster better AF and I think more non pro shooters want this. ....D700

I need FF (I already have crop sensor cameras)

I need good construction and weather sealing...... D700

I need high ISO... d700

I want onboard flash that controls other flashes..... D700

I want 21mp..... 5d2

I have some desire for video..... 5d2

I want 8 fps.... D700

I do not need or want a camera that is over 3k dollars

If I strip away what I want and go only with what I need, the D700 is the best choice.

The other option is for Canon to make competition for the D700, if they do, I will buy one, if not, by the time I find out they will not compete with it, I will have the choice between a lowered price or even used D700 or a new D700x

Canon will decide which FF camera I will choose in the future.

If you need video or 21mp, then Canon is the way to go, otherwise the D700 is a better camera as far as features and capabilities. Lenses are another issue to decide. If you are buying a FF camera to do wide angle, the Nikon 14-24 2.8 smokes anything Canon has. Nikons new lenses are generally better as well. But Canon has more good lenses (including the F4 lenses )in its arsenal.

If I had to do it all over again right this second considering my budget, my non pro status. I would own Nikon D700 and lenses.

If Canon produces a 5d2 with an upgraded AF and more FPS. I would own Canon. My feeling and answer to your question is Canon will not be able to compete with the D700 or the D700x without cutting into the 1D3 market shar. Nikon seems to be more willing to cut into the higher end market share in an effort to gain market share in the prosumer area. My opinion is Canon will not. Lets hope I am wrong.

[thrash_273]

i dnt think so, canon and nikon are evolving every year. one has a specific function that the other dnt have.(marketing strategy and keepng the economy balance) no manufacture will make the ultimate all in one body, but then again its all upto the consumer, depending on what you need. i myself will never be apart w/ canon(no bias) its because it my personal choice, i love the vast selection of lense canon has to offer and with all respect on its bodies.

[foxesamu]

That's actually quite wrong! It shoots 14 bit at 8fps and with normal AA batteries in the grip. I know this because I actually own the D700 and the grip and the AA batteries and shoot 14 bit 100%.
Thank you! I knew something felt fishy. The D300 has that limitation but I had never read that the D700 did; quite the contrary!

[Bob_A]

Not going Canon vs Nikon...but the D700 has limitations on that 8fps speed..

Namely its only 12-bit that can manage this, 14-bit slows that 8fps down to about 5-6fps...without the grip thats down in the same neighborhood of a 5D Mark II...

This is not correct. The D700 frame rate does not decrease at 14 bit. I just tested it several times at 14 bit and got exactly 5 fps w/o grip which is bang on the stated spec. I've also seen various reviews that clearly state that 14 bits has no impact on frame rate for the D700, agreeing with my test.

[KenjiS]

Thank you! I knew something felt fishy. The D300 has that limitation but I had never read that the D700 did; quite the contrary!

I was wrong, sorry, I had swore i read it somewhere though

The D300 goes to 2.5 fps with 14-bit..wow!

[Bob_A]

That's actually quite wrong! It shoots 14 bit at 8fps and with normal AA batteries in the grip. I know this because I actually own the D700 and the grip and the AA batteries and shoot 14 bit 100%.



My only insight is it's all hot air. You'll have to wait and see. ;)

Doh! Didn't see that you already addressed the fps myth Dave.

[Bob_A]

I was wrong, sorry, I had swore i read it somewhere though

The D300 goes to 2.5 fps with 14-bit..wow!

Yup, I've seen it stated a few times also, which just goes to show it's pretty easy to start a myth on the internet :)

[Derrel]

I had to laugh when I red this comment a few posts back, "According to Canon, they haven't lost all that many shooters to Nikon at all."

Ha ha ha,that's simply hilarious. The 2008 Bejing Olympics showed that Canon has totally lost their former dominant position in sports photography: Nikon has re-earned a substantial portion of the market. The Nikon D3's immense capability combined with the 1D Mark III's infamous autofocusing difficulties combined to cause a substantial shift where Canon's former 9 out of 10 position was more like 50-50 at many Olympic venues where top sports shooters from around the world were brought together. In 2004 Canon's white lenses were dominant...in 2008, "not so much".

I would also absolutely love to see any reference to any statement printed in any medium where "Canon says" they have not lost shooters to Nikon. As far as I know, "Canon" does not discuss the erosion of their market share with any media outlets. I know Canon has lost many large news/sports organizations to Nikon in the last two years. But then I'm not a fanboy--I shoot Nikon and Canon about equally.

[PIXmantra]

I had to laugh when I red this comment a few posts back, "According to Canon, they haven't lost all that many shooters to Nikon at all."

Ha ha ha,that's simply hilarious. The 2008 Bejing Olympics showed that Canon has totally lost their former dominant position in sports photography: Nikon has re-earned a substantial portion of the market. The Nikon D3's immense capability combined with the 1D Mark III's infamous autofocusing difficulties combined to cause a substantial shift where Canon's former 9 out of 10 position was more like 50-50 at many Olympic venues where top sports shooters from around the world were brought together. In 2004 Canon's white lenses were dominant...in 2008, "not so much".


...Let us images speak (and this is with PEAK attendance, at what I believe was the 100m race, which is THE event in the Olympics, THE most sought after moment, when EVERY HUMAN BEING that can snap a picture joins the same place) :D:

http://www.karikuukka.com/peking2008/100m/

Feel free to count, including the at the track level.

The rest is pure gibberish, bamboozling, and desperate wishes.

Love,

PIX

[KenjiS]

...Let us images speak (and this is with PEAK attendance, at what I believe was the 100m race, which is THE event in the Olympics, THE most sought after moment, when EVERY HUMAN BEING that can snap a picture joins the same place) :D:

http://www.karikuukka.com/peking2008/100m/

Feel free to count, including the at the track level.

The rest is pure gibberish, bamboozling, and desperate wishes.

Love,

PIX

Still quite a few Nikons, but Canon is still the dominant player

[Rafal_BC]

To address the original question: no, Canon will not make a D700-like body.

Should they? Yes!

I shoot weddings, conferences, trade shows and other large events full-time. I need a camera that can do low-ISO portraits to high-ISO action shots. High FPS and tracking for some shots, one shot accurate AF for others. Everything from ultra-wide to super-tele.

For this, I don't mind the size and weight of my 1's. They fit my hand like a glove, are solidly built and feel exactly the same in horizontal or vertical orientation.

But, I also do landscape and wildlife in my spare time. I would love to be able to detach a part of my 1's so that when I go hiking I can save some weight. I'll give up the flexibility and ease of use for some weight savings. But, I will not give up the same interface as my work gear. For me, the biggest deterrent from the 5D and xxD series is the user interface and ergonomics - they just plain suck.

If Canon made a D700-like body that would share the same ergonomics, AF and major functions as the 1's, I would buy two just to serve as my backpacking / hiking cameras. Would it impact the sales of the 1-series? In my operation, no. There is no substitute for a full-size body's solidity and operation so I'd buy, and use, three in my day-to-day work anyway. But I'd also keep two of the smaller bodies around for those times I head into the mountains under my own power and every gram counts.

For anyone that says I could just attach a grip to the D700-clone, here's the answer: it's not really an option. My gear gets pretty rough treatment - I care about it, but don't baby it - so the chance of having twice the items fail is one I would not take. I've also yet to find a body+grip combo that feels and works as well as a full-size camera.

[J_TULLAR]

...Let us images speak (and this is with PEAK attendance, at what I believe was the 100m race, which is THE event in the Olympics, THE most sought after moment, when EVERY HUMAN BEING that can snap a picture joins the same place) :D:

http://www.karikuukka.com/peking2008/100m/

Feel free to count, including the at the track level.

The rest is pure gibberish, bamboozling, and desperate wishes.

Love,

PIX

I counted twice as many canons than nikons...however it holds true that nikon is indeed eating canons pro market :p

[anthony11]

Now, do we know that all of those black lenses are Nikons for sure?

[Yohan Pamudji]

Canon has targeted the wedding / studio photographer with their 5DMk2 and in this space it's kicking serious ass.

...

The 1DMk3 is targeted towards photo journalists and action/sports photogs. In this space it dominates.

Some of us want more of a "goldilocks" camera that is better suited to do it all. Not as good as the best in any given area, but good-to-very-good in all areas. The D700 is that camera. Why do I have to buy 2 different cameras for different applications? Because Canon decided it shall be so. There's nothing in the laws of photography that say that a camera has to be so specialized as to be labeled a "wedding/studio" camera or an "action/sports" camera. I just want a camera, period.

Unfortunately I don't think Canon have room for such a camera with their current products. They'd have to reshuffle a lot to do so. As has been stated already, a FF 1DIV would probably be as close to a D700 type camera as Canon would produce, but it would still be overkill in some areas (framerate) and not as good in others (portability/size, price).

I don't think we'll see a D700 type camera until the 1Ds line is forced down to the $5000 price point or so, which would compress the 1D price down to the point where it would make sense to combine the 1Ds + 1D and step up the 5D to almost pro specs. Still, it'll be interesting to see if Canon continue to design the 5D line to be a big, beautiful sensor with a feature set worse than an XXD (50D, etc.).

[customactionphotos]

Owning the 70-200, 300 and the 400mm and knowing how much these lenses cost. It's wondrous to me how these Pro shooters can switch over to Nikon and buy all new equipment. You know that there is no way Canon would let the AF problems of the 1diii go without them fixing it. Is Nikon that much better or do these Pros make that much money? I personally would stick with my 1diin until Canon resolves the issues than spend that kind of money on new Nikon gear.
I'm sure these guys will jump of the Nikon band wagon and go back to Canon as soon as there is an issue with a Nikon camera. The good thing about all this is, it keeps both companies from slacking off.

Tony

[Tee Why]

For me, the D700 is what the 5D Mark II should have been.
I don't want 21MP's. Twelve MP is fine enough for me. I would have preferred better ergonomics, the little pop up flash, more responsiveness, better/faster AF, and higher ISO performance.

I think Canon does offer a better lens lineup as well.

Unfortunately, I don't think Canon and Nikon directly compete, so unfortunately, I don't think will see a fast AF''ing, 12MP full frame with low noise body from Canon. I think they have rekindled the MP race and I think they want to one up Nikon on the MP race. Perhaps at the cost of other things.

I personally was hoping that the 5D MII would be something along the lines of a 5D sensor with Digic IV processing with 12MP's for lower noise, faster fps, and stuck in a 1DMII like body with it's AF system minus the vertical grip.

[condyk]

I counted twice as many canons than nikons...however it holds true that nikon is indeed eating canons pro market :p

I think the key statistic is how many Nikons and Canons there would have been two years ago compared to now ... not that it matters anymore :rolleyes: Anyone who thinks either brand can't do the job in hand, personal preferences aside, probably spends too much time cruising photography forums listening to other people who do the same.

[J_TULLAR]

I think the key statistic is how many Nikons and Canons there would have been two years ago compared to now ... not that it matters anymore :rolleyes: Anyone who thinks either brand can't do the job in hand, personal preferences aside, probably spends too much time cruising photography forums listening to other people who do the same.

rofl good point. Go take pics nuff said.

[Bob_A]

Now, do we know that all of those black lenses are Nikons for sure?

True. And some of the white lenses may be Nikons.

[anthony11]

Hm, hadn't thought of that, using the mount adapters. I was thinking in terms of some of the black ones being Sigmas.

[Bob_A]

Hm, hadn't thought of that, using the mount adapters. I was thinking in terms of some of the black ones being Sigmas.

Not with adapters. Nikon also makes some white lenses.

[Stump556]

That's actually quite wrong! It shoots 14 bit at 8fps and with normal AA batteries in the grip. I know this because I actually own the D700 and the grip and the AA batteries and shoot 14 bit 100%.




Are you positive that your D700 runs 8fps with AA batteies? It was my understanding that in order to truly run 8fps it took the buying the MB-D10 grip ($260), a higher output EN-EL4 battery ($125).
And..., unfortunately, the EN-EL4 battery doesn't fit in the standard recharger that comes with the D700's EN-EL3 battery, so that means also needing an MH-21 charger ($135). Also note, the AA carrier doesn't come with the MB-D10 grip, it's $30 extra.

This is what I was told by a Nikon rep when I bought my D700 a few months ago, and I've read the same thing elsewhere.




Now, I owned and used the D700 for two months before finally ending up with a 5D2. ( I never bought the grip though) The D700 is absolutely wonderful, no doubt about it. It is a little bit heavier and bulkier than the 5d2, and that matters to some, and doesn't for others.

I loved all the bells and whistles that Nikon is including these days, and the camera felt and worked great! But, in the end, it's the lens gaps for what I want is what stopped me from selling off my Canon lenses and switching. I soooooooo wish the 5d2 had many of the D700's features (flash control through pop up, exp bracketing button and more frames, focus assist lamp, 5fps, 51 points to select your focus on-great for tripod use, MUCH better auto iso functionng, etc...), but alas, the lenses are worth more for ME for now. The features are nice little things, but they don't make or break a picture in my uses. I am however, looking forward to finding out the 1D4 final specs, maybe someday will be able to afford one ;)

[condyk]

Are you positive that your D700 runs 8fps with AA batteies? It was my understanding that in order to truly run 8fps it took the buying the MB-D10 grip ($260), a higher output EN-EL4 battery ($125).
And..., unfortunately, the EN-EL4 battery doesn't fit in the standard recharger that comes with the D700's EN-EL3 battery, so that means also needing an MH-21 charger ($135). Also note, the AA carrier doesn't come with the MB-D10 grip, it's $30 extra.

This is what I was told by a Nikon rep when I bought my D700 a few months ago, and I've read the same thing elsewhere.



From Nikon UK specification for D700:

Continuous Shooting Speed:


- With Rechargeable Li-ion Battery EN-EL3e: 1-5 frames per second in [CL] mode, 5 fps in [CH] mode
- With Multi-Power Battery Pack MB-D10 with batteries other than Rechargeable Li-ion Battery EN-EL3e or AC Adapter EH-5a/EH-5:1-7 frames per second in [CL] mode, 8 fps in [CH] mode

I got my battery pack with the grip so dunno if it's suppose to be supplied separate. Works really well and I can use on a D300 too for same boost, but at 12 bit.

[gmcd2200]

Hi

Actually if you are somebody like myself.
I put Priority on the lenses before I even considered a camera.

So I purchased the best lens I needed for the job.
The camera always comes second.. In this case for my needs. I ended up with a Canon.

my 2c

[Stump556]

From Nikon UK specification for D700:

Continuous Shooting Speed:


- With Rechargeable Li-ion Battery EN-EL3e: 1-5 frames per second in [CL] mode, 5 fps in [CH] mode
- With Multi-Power Battery Pack MB-D10 with batteries other than Rechargeable Li-ion Battery EN-EL3e or AC Adapter EH-5a/EH-5:1-7 frames per second in [CL] mode, 8 fps in [CH] mode

I got my battery pack with the grip so dunno if it's suppose to be supplied separate. Works really well and I can use on a D300 too for same boost, but at 12 bit.


Thanks, I didn't know that. I wish I would have known that though before when I had and was testing the D700. I had access to borrow a grip, but I didn't have an EN-EL4 battery and charger, so I thought 8fps was out of the question until I bought those. hmmmm, well crud. :oops: