Competition heating up. Canon, get off your duff.

Croasdail wrote in post #4188570
I was talking with a pro shooter last weekend about this very same issue. He was trading in his whole Canon kit to go Nikon in November - he picks up his new D2 November 23rd - and challenged him on lens price difference. His comeback was basically even if the Nikon stuff is 15-20% more expensive, if as a pro that is what it takes to have the best tools available, no worries - it's a done deal. I was specifically talking to him about his 600/f4. I was hoping to nab it when he traded in. He basically said that if the price difference of $6999 for the canon vs up to $7999 for the Nikon made a huge difference to you, you needed to go back to the shallow end of the pool. You spend what you need to spend to get then best end product. If he can shoot at ISO 6400 or higher and get the same or better results then Canon at 3200... no issues. He also said the $3000 price difference between the Canon and the Nikon would more then make up for the lens price difference.

I was all set to go Nikon too until Canon re-announced the 200 f2.0.

I do think Canon got fat dumb and complacent - at our expense. They had a business model where they were going to slowly milk us for small improvements... small hops like the 20/30/40d, hoping the same crowd will do the same upgrade to the 50d in 12 months. I don't think Canon has any great things they are holding back. They played their trump card - the 1Ds MkIII, and it didn't rock the world. And they increased the price by $1000. Nikon has held their prices with each generation. Canon is slowly introducing price creep into the mix. As someone who has shot Canon since 1986, I am feeling a little used and let down. I am not a brand loyalist.... don't really care it its a ford, chevy, or dodge. I just want value. It that is Canon or Nikon (or even Sony\Minolta), so be it.

Oh snap.... did you see that the sony menus rotate when the camera is rotated.... dang. Someone was thinking.

Very well said and sadly true

madhatter04 wrote in post #4187662
I think many people have lost sight of the fact that most success in photography is because of the person behind the tool, not the tool in front of the person.

Cameras do matter, and the matter A LOT. Just like in sports, the best golfers in the world would no sooner use a persimmon any more than a pro tennis player would use a rocket from the 70's. Equipment is a huge factor in getting the best out of the best. A medicare photog will still get better pics from a fantastic camera than he/she would out of a crappy camera in the long term.

As for the above poster saying now is not the time to berrett Canon. Maybe not for their technology, but certainly for their lack of customer service. They suck! The issue with the M3 indicates Canon is unwilling to communicate with their customers. If it were not for a few folks like Galbraith, we all just have to live with the M3's AF problem as Canon would continue to tell people to adjust their custom functions. Canon's strategic management style towards its customers is about the worst of any company I have ever dealt with in a quality product. They will have lost customers in the long run and their dominance is certainly in question. There are just too many people who will now avoid Canon when they enter the market the first time as salesman will inform their customers how crappy Canon is with any problem. If I had it all to do over again, I'd go with Nikon. As a former Nikon user of point and shoot, prior to finding this site, my opinion was that Nikon was the gold standard in cameras. I was wrong of course, but maybe not now with their current releases. All Nikon has to do is get more pros on the sidelines, and maybe redesign their new lenses in a way that stands out, like Canon's white ones. Let's face it, that was a brilliant move by Canon and if I were at Union, I'd have some kind of stand out lens as it is as good as advertising, actually better (well, it is advertising, and advertising for free.) Why they haven't doe so yet is way beyond my comprehension. Maybe because it would have shown how few are on the sidelines. Soon maybe there will be a change. Canon owes us all an apology and explanation, yeah, yeah, I won't be holding my breath!

Moppie wrote in post #4187819
The average Joe. As individuals they will spend the lest on a camera, but are potentially the largest market as the currently make up the bulk of the camera market, although they tend to shy away from DSLR's because of the cost and complexity.

As a Joe, I take personal offense to this comment. I am not average. With much improvement, I hope to move up to that lofty position! Until then, I can only work to improve.

Jim G wrote in post #4186459
.... maybe Canon will surprise us with some awesome in-body IS in the 50D

I believe Sony and Nikon have significantly up the ante. Luckily the 50D is early enough in the development cycle and I expect it will be a significant improvement over today’s bodies.

Riff Raff wrote in post #4186570
Didn't Nikon buy their latest sensors from Sony? Or am I misremembering?

I believe one was from Sony and the other in house.

Dragos Jianu wrote in post #4186889
In the silicone world ...

Um.. The silicone world would be Hollywood. I believe you meant the silicon world. The “e” really makes a huge difference.

Croasdail wrote in post #4188570
....Oh snap.... did you see that the sony menus rotate when the camera is rotated.... dang. Someone was thinking.

Little things like that really show that someone was on the ball and thinking about usability.

Croasdail wrote in post #4188570
I do think Canon got fat dumb and complacent - at our expense. They had a business model where they were going to slowly milk us for small improvements... small hops like the 20/30/40d, hoping the same crowd will do the same upgrade to the 50d in 12 months. I don't think Canon has any great things they are holding back. They played their trump card - the 1Ds MkIII, and it didn't rock the world. And they increased the price by $1000. Nikon has held their prices with each generation. Canon is slowly introducing price creep into the mix. As someone who has shot Canon since 1986, I am feeling a little used and let down. I am not a brand loyalist.... don't really care it its a ford, chevy, or dodge. I just want value. It that is Canon or Nikon (or even Sony\Minolta), so be it.

I do agree with you, to some extent. Canon could try a little harder, and the competition will force that. However I don't think Canon expects people to move from the 20d to the 30d to the 40d to the 50d, etc. I know of very very few people who have done this. I've gone from the 20d to the 40d, my friends have often gone from the 10d/xt to the 30d/40d. From that point of view the upgrades are fine. There are no features on the A700 or D300 that I'm desperate for, so they're are no reasons for me to change and plenty of reasons not to... I'm also not a canon loyalist, but if Sony/Pentax/Nikon/Olym​pus/bob-the-camera-builder want my cash, they're going to have to do better than that to justify the cost of switching systems. I don't want a minor feature upgrade, or a couple more megapixels, or tilting menus, I want real features and real benefits and I don't want to pay much more than I would for the Canon equivelant.

For the pro's priorities are different, and the kit will either pay for itself and prosper or it it won't and fade away.

Cheers

Matt

Croasdail, I almost completely agree with you, but let's not lose track of facts however minor while making a point.

Croasdail wrote in post #4188570
I was talking with a pro shooter last weekend about this very same issue. He was trading in his whole Canon kit to go Nikon in November - he picks up his new D3s November 23rd - and challenged him on lens price difference. His comeback was basically even if the Nikon stuff is 15-20% more expensive, if as a pro that is what it takes to have the best tools available, no worries - it's a done deal. I was specifically talking to him about his 600/f4. I was hoping to nab it when he traded in. He basically said that if the price difference of $6999 for the canon vs up to $7999 for the Nikon made a huge difference to you, you needed to go back to the shallow end of the pool. You spend what you need to spend to get then best end product. If he can shoot at ISO 6400 or higher and get the same or better results then Canon at 3200... no issues. He also said the $3000 price difference between the Canon and the Nikon would more then make up for the lens price difference.

Absolutely. For many working pros the price difference won't matter a lick. It's not like Nikon is twice as expensive. But well-to-do amateurs are contributing an increasingly larger portion of the high-end market, and many of them care more about price despite being able to afford both, and I imagine quite a few pros are self-sustaining and more price-conscious than your friend, and would draw the price-performance ratio line somewhere different than he does.

And the $3000 price difference he referred to, I assume he means between the D3 and 1Ds Mark III? If so, then he's comparing the wrong 2 cameras. The D3 is closest in specs and price to the 1D Mark III, which is $500 cheaper than the D3.

Agreed, except that there's no price creep in the 1Ds Mark III. The 1Ds Mark II was $8000 at introduction, as will the 1Ds Mark III be. The 1D Mark III did creep up higher than its predecessor at launch, but the 40D is lower than its predecessor.

Canon's milking strategy backfired with the 30D that didn't exactly light up the market, and the 40D although a good camera doesn't really offer anything that we haven't already seen from the other manufacturers (and even trails in some areas). The 1D Mark III was a market leader that superficially looked a lot like its predecessor but contained a lot of redesigned elements that made it a significant improvement over the Mark II, but with the D3 coming out its reign was short lived if the early D3 samples are to be believed and if the D3 doesn't turn out to have any major issues like the 1D Mark III does. The 1Ds Mark III is still without competition, but that could soon change with a lot of noise coming from the Nikon camp that Nikon will have a high-res fullframe coming out soon--a D3x if you will.

I'd be surprised if Canon aren't finally fully awake to the current market climate, that they have genuine competitors in terms of image quality (which used to be their trump card) and are lagging behind in terms of features. If not, then they truly suffer from the IBM syndrome--big, lumbering, immobile company that is slow to change. But I feel it's too late for them to do anything about it in the short term. The rumored 5DII will almost certainly be a 40D with a fullframe sensor and lower framerate, which means that once again its feature set as a $2000-$3000 camera will look really weak compared to the $1800 Nikon D300 that, albeit not fullframe, has pro AF, 100% viewfinder, and weather sealing. It will be embarrassing to put its features side-by-side with the D300 if Canon debut it in the high $2k to low $3k range (only the fullframe zealots would consider it a good bargain at that price), but it could still be reasonably successful in the low to mid $2k range.

Lots of innovation shown by the other companies in terms of usability. I think Canon clearly trails in this area. The little nubby joystick is probably their biggest UI innovation, but even it is poorly implemented as you can't use it if you're holding the camera's vertical grip without taking your hand off the grip due to its placement.

Canon's got too much momentum built up from existing lens and system sales to really fall way down the pecking order, but I hope they look at their slumping market share and realize where it all went wrong and attack the market with a new approach that starts with a commitment to maximum quality for the price instead of crippling features to save a buck. In my world, that would ideally start with a fullframe camera with some of the major pro features--pro AF, 100% viewfinder, weather sealing (a nice bonus)--in a smaller form factor than the 1-series, and a reasonable price. Basically a 5D with the 3 pro features I mentioned. In other words, not any time soon.

Actually the D3 trumps the 1Ds3 in every aspect except for MP...big time. Think of the High ISO, add FPS to that and top it with a huge load of small features that add up. Overall it makes the 1Ds3 look like a dinosaur. As for the MP difference that
1) Limited to lens capabilities
2) The difference accounts for to little in terms of print size. Most pros would do great with the D3 and those who wouldn't are probably in the market for a Hassy. In a way the 1Ds3 is just a bridge camera to medium format, with a VERY limited audience. A lot more limited then the D3. I would go as far as to say that the total audience the D3 would appeal to is larger then both 1D bodies combined. And working pros WILL switch if something doesn't change soon..within the next 2 years.

Dragos Jianu wrote in post #4190495
Actually the D3 trumps the 1Ds3 in every aspect except for MP...big time. Think of the High ISO, add FPS to that and top it with a huge load of small features that add up. Overall it makes the 1Ds3 look like a dinosaur. As for the MP difference that
1) Limited to lens capabilities
2) The difference accounts for to little in terms of print size. Most pros would do great with the D3 and those who wouldn't are probably in the market for a Hassy. In a way the 1Ds3 is just a bridge camera to medium format, with a VERY limited audience. A lot more limited then the D3. I would go as far as to say that the total audience the D3 would appeal to is larger then both 1D bodies combined. And working pros WILL switch if something doesn't change soon..within the next 2 years.

The difference in price between a hasselblad and the 1ds is vast, we're talking between 3 and 4 times the price... now the D3 seems to be a very nice camera but it is in a different class the 1ds. Would I like a D3? Hell yes. Would I be willing to pay for one? Unlikely, it's not that nice. Now if I was a pro and the D3 plus glass could pay for itself in a couple of months I'd be tempted... but then again, if I could raise that kind of money, I'd get both a 1d and a 1ds *grin*

Dragos Jianu wrote in post #4187624
And i think that shows in the survey.

That graph you show is a nikon created graph that shows their estimates going forward, the dotted lines. Hard to imagine that happening without nikon releasing a new camera. It's most likely gone the opposite way with Canon users buying lots of 40D's and 5D's and nikon users not buying anything because they announced the d300 a couple months before they can ship it.

Dragos Jianu wrote in post #4190495
Actually the D3 trumps the 1Ds3 in every aspect except for MP...big time. Think of the High ISO, add FPS to that and top it with a huge load of small features that add up. Overall it makes the 1Ds3 look like a dinosaur.

The 1Ds3 and d3 are in different categories. The 1Ds3 is a landscape/studio camera that doesn't need high iso because of its intended uses, i.e. low iso, tripod landscape and studio lighting for studio use.

The d3 as stated by nikon is targeted towards sports and PJ shooters. The d3 is in the same class as the 1D3, but the d3 costs $500 more and the 1D3 being 1.3x gives a better advantage for sports shooters compared to the d3 where the d3 cropped to the 1D3 sensor size would be 8 instead of 10MP. We've all seen the d3 shots above iso6400 are good only for resized web images.

RedHot wrote in post #4190812
The d3 as stated by nikon is targeted towards sports and PJ shooters. The d3 is in the same class as the 1D3, but the d3 costs $500 more and the 1D3 being 1.3x gives a better advantage for sports shooters compared to the d3 where the d3 cropped to the 1D3 sensor size would be 8 instead of 10MP.

And conversely the D3 is a better all-around camera with 2 more MP and wide angle lenses that aren't limited by a crop factor. There might be a lot of sports-only photogs out there, but they aren't the only ones using these cameras.

Have we? I'd like to see those if you have the link. The low-light high-ISO shots I've seen from the D3 look like they have up to a 2-stop advantage over my 1DII, so the D3 at 12800 looks like my 1DII at 3200, and I hardly consider the 1DII at 3200 "good only for resized web images." Then again that's not a scientific comparison under controlled situations and it's just me eyeballing them. Still, I'd really like to see these super-noisy photos you mentioned.

Yohan Pamudji wrote in post #4190902
And conversely the D3 is a better all-around camera with 2 more MP and wide angle lenses that aren't limited by a crop factor. There might be a lot of sports-only photogs out there, but they aren't the only ones using these cameras.

Have we? I'd like to see those if you have the link.

Again, you won't notice a difference from 10 to 12 MP. "Better all around camera" is quite a subjective statement. From what I've seen, just about the only advantage the d3 has is an internal level bubble and gridlines that show up in the viewfinder for difference ratio crops. The difference in sensor size is small and their noise levels are very similar - so similar it won't be a point of contention. There is much less difference from 1.3x sensors to FF sensors compared to 1.6x to FF.

Too many very high iso noisey d3 images to have kept track of.

I'm with dragos and croasdail on this one.

I also beleive sony will give the world a full frame SLR soon too and the prices will fall.

I can't say I got bad value from canon though. Refurb 300D, kit lens, 50/1.8 and 35/2 is all I have... the grip too.

RedHot wrote in post #4193375
Again, you won't notice a difference from 10 to 12 MP. "Better all around camera" is quite a subjective statement.

I agree that you won't notice the difference, but I was just using your line of reasoning when you compared the 1.3x crop of the 1DIII at 10MP vs. the FF of the D3 cropped to 1.3x producing 8MP. I dare say that you wouldn't notice the difference from 8MP to 10MP either, so where does the 1D3's crop really provide an advantage here?

Bubble level and gridlines, that's it? I won't even get into the much better resolution LCD, bigger exposure and flash compensation range, AF with LiveView, dual Compact Flash, etc., because those are on the same level as a bubble level and gridlines--nice to have but not essential. But those advantages are there. As non-essential as they may be, let's not trivialize and ignore them either.

Of course the difference from 1.3x to FF is less than 1.6x to FF. Is that even under question? But there is a difference between 1.3x and FF--how much depends highly on relative pixel pitch, microlens technology used, noise reduction algorithms and processing power, etc. Comparing based only on sensor size might typically work for products from a single manufacturer, but it's not so applicable when comparing different manufacturer's products. That's why the D3 cannot be crowned king simply based on specs alone. The proof is in the pudding, so I want to see as many samples as I can in all sorts of shooting conditions.

Too bad then. I was really hoping to see proof of this. Oh well. Then perhaps I can show you some counter examples instead?

Some studio shots at various ISOs
Football at high ISO

In the studio link, ISO 3200 looks cleaner than I've seen on any camera. Above ISO 3200 noise starts to become more obvious, but it's luma and not chroma noise, and detail is nicely maintained. I'm just guessing that there is probably some strong chroma noise reduction going on, but I'm amazed that they managed to retain so much detail while suppressing the chroma noise.

For the football link, look at the 100% crop of #7 in the black uniform, 3rd row down, 2nd photo from left. This is an ISO 6400 shot. It's completely chroma noise free while maintaining a lot of detail. The 1DIII would be a blotchy chroma mess in this shot at ISO 6400. And the very last shot in the series is at ISO 25600 and is an utter wreck. But come on--it's at freakin' ISO 25600!!! Considering that ISO 12800 on the D3 compares very favorably to ISO 6400 on the 1DIII (even looks like less chroma noise to me), a noisy ISO 25600 is nothing to complain about.

It's samples like these that make me incredulous of claims that put down the high ISO performance of the D3 without proof. Whether it's significant enough for any given user is a subjective call, just like whether 8MP to 10MP makes any difference, or 10MP to 12MP. But from what I've seen at least, there's no reason to dismiss the D3 as "only" being as good as the 1DIII, especially with sample shots out there demonstrating that it's noticeably better in high ISO situations.

Usability? Judgment call. And reliability could make or break it. If they don't have any 1DIII type catastrophic failures with core functionality like AF, AE, etc., I can see the D3 really being an attractive option even for shooters heavily entrenched in the Canon camp. If Canon had made the D3, it would definitely make my last-camera-I'd-ever-buy list, which we all know is an ever-changing thing, but you get my point. It's a heck of a camera, and assuming all else falls into place (AF speed, reliability, etc.) is worth $500 more than the 1DIII in my opinion.

This is such a useless debate, BOTH manufactures produce great cameras, if you want to take the time to sell all your gear, and reinvest in another company, than by all means, do so. You cant tell me that nobody from the Nikon camp sold all their equipment and invested in Canon gear when the mk3 came out. As to everyone comparing the D3 to the 1ds MkIII....they are completely different machines. Like it has been stated, the D3 (Like the 1dmk3) is geared towards sports photographers, and photojournalists. Now, the people complaining about the incremental releases of Canon camers (as in the 20d 30d 40d) Nikon does the same thing. So once agian, if you feel you are being limited by the features in your Canon camera, if you feel you are being impaired by an "obsolete" tool, if you feel you have been wronged by Canon, if you feel, that there is no other way to produce great images than with a Nikon camera, here you go:

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …=6222&shs=&at=B​rand_Nikon
http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …ble_Lenses_for_​Nikon.html
http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …=2609&shs=&at=B​rand_Nikon

Otherwise, QUIT WHINING ABOUT YOUR GEAR AND BE HAPPY YOU CAN AFFORD WHAT YOU HAVE.

Yohan Pamudji wrote in post #4193806
Bubble level and gridlines, that's it? I won't even get into the much better resolution LCD, bigger exposure and flash compensation range, AF with LiveView, dual Compact Flash, etc., because those are on the same level as a bubble level and gridlines--nice to have but not essential. But those advantages are there. As non-essential as they may be, let's not trivialize and ignore them either.

Lol, it's like comparing whether the BMW or Mercedes is the better car by compring the LCD on the cd player, the number of cup holders, the colour of the speedo dials, and angle of the brake peddle...

At the end of the day, get the camera thats feels the best in your hands, the bells and whistles make little real difference.