Something surprised me about Nikon....

Glenn NK wrote in post #2362506
This new D40 will be snapped up by these newcomers. How much do you think they know about high ISO noise?

What's wrong with the camera? It's got the sensor of the D70, which is a very capable camera. Remarks like this shows that you don't seem to understand what photography is all about. In the 'old days' they didn't even have focus points and all those gizmos. The D40 is a bare bones camera, but with the sensor of the D70, a very capable camera. It's a no-nonsense machine, meant to take pictures and nothing more - but also nothing less.

It's the man behind the camera who takes the pictures, not the anti-dust thing or the 9 AF points. Nobody will ever see with what camera the pictures are taken.

Glenn NK wrote in post #2362506
How much do you think they know about high ISO noise?

Just out of curiousity, how many old film users shot ISO 1600 on film and found it to be LESS grainy than digital?

Its about market share. Nikon won't care if these P&S wannabe DSLR user know the difference between telephoto lens from a zoom lens. Most of these people who will be buying the D40 will be parents or grandparent who is looking for a DSLR for there child or grandchild and in their haydays Nikon was the name they know and trust. Whether the camera is any good or not doesn't matter because they trust the name and they satisfy the kids need. Next time you walk into the store and listen to some of these parents, aunts, uncles and grandparents looking for presents for the kids and listen to how clueless these people are and you'll understand what I'm talking about. Its all about the market share. You hear the sales rep telling them how simple this camera is to use just point and shoot!!!

Mike Philippens wrote in post #2363553
What's wrong with the camera? It's got the sensor of the D70, which is a very capable camera. Remarks like this shows that you don't seem to understand what photography is all about. In the 'old days' they didn't even have focus points and all those gizmos. The D40 is a bare bones camera, but with the sensor of the D70, a very capable camera. It's a no-nonsense machine, meant to take pictures and nothing more - but also nothing less.

It's the man behind the camera who takes the pictures, not the anti-dust thing or the 9 AF points. Nobody will ever see with what camera the pictures are taken.

Did I say something was wrong with the camera? Yes, I suppose after 44 years, I'm still clueless. Oh well. C'est la guerre.

"Felt" the same today...while waiting for my 10d to arrive wasted time in CC comparing the D50 to the 30D and it's no contest...guess the D1xx/D2xx series is the better match, but I've not touched either of them...
Got home to a waiting 10d...it's MUUUUUCH nicer than the Nikon D50 with the same size res...for sure...

kitacanon wrote in post #2365227
"Felt" the same today...while waiting for my 10d to arrive wasted time in CC comparing the D50 to the 30D and it's no contest...guess the D1xx/D2xx series is the better match, but I've not touched either of them...
Got home to a waiting 10d...it's MUUUUUCH nicer than the Nikon D50 with the same size res...for sure...

Yep.

The 400D(specs match closer with D80) fits between the D40 and the D80 price wise.
The 30D fits with the D200(with 30D being better price deal).

Who wins? the consummer since there are so many good options out there.

grego wrote in post #2365285
Yep.

The 400D(specs match closer with D80) fits between the D40 and the D80 price wise.
The 30D fits with the D200(with 30D being better price deal).

Who wins? the consummer since there are so many good options out there.

When manufacturers keep coming up with newer models it makes it better for us over on the rear of the curve in the state of the art...

Someone made a comment that Nikon bodies feel sturdier. I don't agree. I always pick up a Canon and a Nikon when I visit electronic stores and there is no remarkable difference in the consumer DSLR's, IMO. The consumer just has to decide which is for him/her. I know some Nikon photographers who would never consider a Canon just because that's their preference and vis versa. I have always been the one to say that there should be a market for rich people to hire a pro photographer as travel companions to set their expensive DSLR's to the proper exposures so they can say they took the shot. That's what I did for my husband and sons this summer. I think the new Nikon is for people who want some control, but want the camera to do most of the work. For us, the fun is doing the adjustments.

kitacanon wrote in post #2365933
When manufacturers keep coming up with newer models it makes it better for us over on the rear of the curve in the state of the art...

It depends how you think about what it can do. If you are a capable photographer, a 30D will last you for a while, for instance. And if you go higher up, a 5D or 1DMKII will too.

Heck technology has gone newer than the original 1D and its still a very popular camera.

I'm new in the Canon world, coming from Nikon. My last camera was the d80, a very well made machine that have nothing to do and can't compared to the XTI except the 10mp. Canon are renowed for image quality and low noise, but are far away behind Nikon regarding control, menu, wireless flash, etc... Canon lens less expensive? I think it's close to equal, but with nikon no separate lens hood to buy at an outrageous price and the 18-70mm kit lens are better than the 17-85 IS. AF-S it's as fast as Canon one. Nikon intention for the D40 are to take the lead in the low price market for affordable Dslr. it gonna only accept AF-s lens so for people who buy the 17-55 and 55-200 lens kit and never upgrade (maybe for a 70-300). Nikon make some questionnable choice lastly regarding especialy the lens, he make is effort essentialy in the low range and nothing in the middle range (Is high end dreamable only, it's very good). It's a shame to have the excellent 80-400mm this day with such a slow AF for exemple. This and not the picture quality push me to Canon.
Just hope this not seem too aggressive for my first post.

30D, 50mm f1.8, 17-85 IS USM, 400mm f 5.6

Glenn NK wrote in post #2364227
Did I say something was wrong with the camera?

Not with so many words, but this says all:

What you're implying there is that clueless people would buy a Nikon, not realizing that Canon is the major player (= better?). You're practically saying that Nikon is no good.

Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but it sure sounds like it. Man, I absolutely hate the X vs Y battles and all the stupid remarks that comes from that. Like I said earlier: if you take pictures with all available dSLR's including Pentax, Samsung, Sony, Nikon and Canon (from 400D to 1Ds MkII) and print them, nobody could ever point out which picture belongs to what camera. It's impossible. Some camera's are better at this, others are better at that. But they all take pictures. The rest is just pure personal.

avan wrote in post #2367026
but are far away behind Nikon regarding control, menu, wireless flash, etc...
[cut]
Just hope this not seem too aggressive for my first post.

The wireless flash was also a bit of a disapointment for me. You're forced to buy a 580EX or the wireless commander to play with remote flash. My old Minolta had a better system where the cheaper flashes too were wireless capabel (it was controlled from the camera anyway). But there are some 3rd party solutions for that.

You're not too agressive. Being critical at one brand or another is absolutely no problem if you can explain what your considerantions are. These things are mostly personal since everybody uses the camera in a different way. What's important to you may be totally indifferent to another person. See the remarks about the handling of the camera. I'd prefer the D70/80 over the 400D for example, but anoter person wouldn't. My personal preference as far as camera control and handling goes leads me to the 1D series. I didn't even considered Canon before, the 1D just happen to cross my path at a very good price. I originally was in the market for a Minolta Dynax 7D.

Mike Philippens wrote in post #2368118
Not with so many words, but this says all:

What you're implying there is that clueless people would buy a Nikon, not realizing that Canon is the major player (= better?). You're practically saying that Nikon is no good.

I really didn't get that at all.

He isn't "implying" anything. He's stating, that some people who have been out of the loop regarding camera technology will think Nikon still makes the best cameras no ifs ands or buts.

He's also saying, that these people likely don't know anything about sensor noise, which is one of the major selling points of Canon cameras.

And that's about it.