Will canon put out a camera comparable to Nikon D700?

foxesamu wrote in post #7947238
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.

No, I would say they're pretty evenly matched.

So are the D4, D400 and D700x...

Hehe, point taken.

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.

foxesamu wrote in post #7947203
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.

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".

tharmsen wrote in post #7947357
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.

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.

foxesamu wrote in post #7947602
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.

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

The 5d2 might be close?

I havent seen the specs for the D700,

~ Josh

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.

Joshua Bowden wrote in post #7957968
I havent seen the specs for the D700,

~ Josh

Don't look! Spare yourself.

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

Joshua Bowden wrote in post #7958108
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

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).

KenjiS wrote in post #7945667
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%.

RyanM wrote in post #7945539
---->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.

Well...

anthony11 wrote in post #7957740
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

anthony11 wrote in post #7957740
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.

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.

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.

condyk wrote in post #7958232
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!