Will canon put out a camera comparable to Nikon D700?

jacobsen1 wrote in post #7946089
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.

foxesamu wrote in post #7945689
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.

Stickman wrote in post #7946280
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.

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.

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

westernminnguy wrote in post #7946360
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

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/landsca​pe/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 24,50,85,105,135,180,2​00,300,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...

Nikon employs MASSIVE levels of Noise Reduction...

foxesamu wrote in post #7945689
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.

foxesamu wrote in post #7945689
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

Derrel wrote in post #7946487
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.

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.

tharmsen wrote in post #7946282
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

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

basroil wrote in post #7946143
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!

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.

johnboy00 wrote in post #7946843
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...

tharmsen wrote in post #7946282
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...

Absolutely. I never said the D700 is better than the 1D3 at sports. The D3 isn't either.

So are the D4, D400 and D700x...

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.