Reading mode: Light Dark

August: the Canon vs Nikon war will heat up

Go to last post
John_A_G said:
Andy - simple: It has 8fps, best servo tracking of any camera in
the industry and weather sealed and good high iso noise performance.
Click to expand...
Precisely. There are more important things than "reach" to the typical professional sports photographer. I'm pretty sure that Canon isn't going to just pull the specification for new professional level cameras from the sleeve of its corporate kimono. Instead they will almost certainly be asking their important customers how they think the current model can be improved upon. If all of that was wanted on a 1.6x crop sensor, even as an alternative body to the 1DmkII, then I'm sure Canon would have provided it if there was sufficient interest to justify the R&D costs.

Having a 1.3x crop sensor makes sense when you have to pay a large premium for the extra elements needed to make things up to FF at the same level of image detail. Especially so if you are most likely going to crop those extra pixels anyway because of the nature of the subject matter you are working with. Technology moves on however, and the 5D pretty much shows that FF is much more viable, so without some other technical reason to stick with 1.3x crop over FF for a given element pitch, I don't see it surviving in the top end bodies much longer. Maybe it'll find a home on an oft rumoured "3D" body aimed at serious amateur market and as a lightweight backup for the real pros, but even that may well be a short term measure.

Andy
 
Now that camera bodies have been merely another electronic device for some period of years the out of date design and manufacuring technology of all of the camera manufacturers is a problem.

In the computer industry it is essential that the design to production period be shorter than the two years you state. If you do not keep up with the competition.... The problem here is that they are all out of date.

18 months is an eternity in the electronics industry. Whenever there are improvements to be had they should be incorporated into the product line. Specifically, process improvements in the manufacture of computer chips now allows a much more powerful processor to be put on the same size piece of silicon. The camera makers are, by and large, well behind the computer manufactures in terms of keeping up to date chip processes in the cameras. Better chips can equate to better autofocus, better image stabilization, and even better exposure metering.

I know that the volume of chips being used in the entire camera industry simply does not compare with the volume in the computer industry, but it is going to be useful to the camera industry to keep up as best they can. I can see where Sony may have an edge in this regard because of their other technology products. That does not necessarily translate to superior products though.
 
I remember that interview. Yes, they did say they wanted to merge the 2 lines but said NOTHING about getiing rid of 1.3x
 
Najib said:
The thing I've always loved about Nikon is their ergonomics. Their
cameras look less cluttered, and the lines look amazing.

The best thing Canon could do at this point, is spend some R&D
money and greatly improvise their ergonomics. If Canon cameras had
those lines, then I'm sure Nikon would be less tempting to some.

I also have quite a bit invested in Canon glass, so I don't plan on
switching. Come on Canon..improve the ergonomics and make your
cameras as nice looking as the Nikons.
Click to expand...
No, the best thing Canon can do is continue to make great cameras that work great in any condition. This ergonomics arguement just kills me. I'd much rather have a camera produce outstanding results than feel a little better in my hands.
 
PerL said:
Hellashot said:
You can crop a FF image to make it look like it was shot on a small
sensor too :)
Click to expand...
But you get a low res image.
Click to expand...
You'll need a whopping 23MP to get D200 resolution, if you crop from FF.
A somewhat expensive "solution", if you ask me.
And -- for the time being -- impossible, since no such sensor is available...

--
Take care,
Jorgen

Probere necesse est.....
 
Mark Tuccillo said:
Using the date of Phil's reviews, there was 67 months between the
review of the D30 and the 30D. Divide this by 5 ( the MP increase )
and you get 13.4 months / MP. I was originally ( and quickly )
looking at the D60 to 20D which is about 17 months / MP.
Click to expand...
Ok, so the D60 and D100 were both companies 1st 6mp ofering and they both werer introduced in Nov. 2002. Canon upgrading to 8mp first in the 20D in Aug. 2004- a mere 22 months later. While Nikon on the other hand continued to work with 6mp until the D200 in Nov 2005-36 months later.
Mark Tuccillo said:
There is 42 months between the D100 and the D200 ( not the 4 years
you like to claim ) which is 10.5 months / MP.

As for the pro models, odds are good that we will see this year a
10MP 10FPS replacement for the D2h.
Click to expand...
and that will already be superceded by Canon's 22MP 10FPS supercam. I didn't know that we were counting cameras that don't exist yet.
 
My apologies. It wasn't directed at you. I had you and someone else mixed up.
thw said:
thw said:
Well, you were the one that said my thread was one of the dumbest,
so who is the one that begun this by being harsh?
Click to expand...
Look through the entire thread and tell me when I said that????

-------------------------------------------
See the colors of my world in:
thw.smugmug.com
-------------------------------------------
Click to expand...
 
T3 said:
So what you get are smaller improvements but
in much shorter intervals. Other companies might bring "bigger"
improvements, but they also do it in much larger intervals between
these improvements. For example, the D70 is already well over two
years old.............
Click to expand...
If the D70 upgrade to D70s had taken place in Canonland, the D70s would've been named D80 -- and there you have your shorter interval. There was almost exactly 15 months between the two.

This is the difference between the Canon and the Nikon way of naming their products. Canon is a much more marketing driven company than the engineering driven Nikon. If 20D was a Nikon, the 30D would've been called 20Ds -- which in my eyes is much more honest towards the customers. But being the marketing driven company that Canon is...

--
Take care,
Jorgen

Probere necesse est.....
 
where was the pressure from Nikon on that one. There was absolutely no outside competition forcing them to make a cheap FF (which everyone said was impossible)
 
would think like that. I take 200-400 pictures during any one sporting event. I don't want to have to crop each one individually in post. A full frame camera with crop mode might be ok, if it were priced around $4000, but who wants to pay $7000 for a FF camera when you don't want or need full frame.

Canon's development and marketing strategy in this category will be determined by the guys you see on TV at pro sporting events, not by what the experts here at DP Review think is best for everyone.
 
LOL! That is the worst logic I've ever heard of. By your own logic, a Nikon owner would have to wait 42 months between updates. 42 months between the D100 and the D200! No wonder so many D100 owners are now Canon owners. They got so sick of waiting. Not to mention waiting for the D200's banding issues to subside. And besides, while you started the Canon MP timeline with the 3.3MP D30, you would have just as easily started the Nikon MP timeline with the 2.7MP D1. But frankly, that kind of non-sense math is totally pointless because no one actually is thinking like that. People mainly look at the very long lag times between sensor progression that Nikon has been exhibiting-- like 42 months between the D100 and the D200!

As for your claims of a 10mp 10fps D2H replacement this year, I have no idea if that will happen. But Nikon has to do something to salvage at least some marketshare in the pro sports photography market. Nikon's last attempt at a high-speed sports camera, the D2H/D2Hs, was too little too late. Its resolution level was practically outdated the very day it was released.
Mark Tuccillo said:
Using the date of Phil's reviews, there was 67 months between the
review of the D30 and the 30D. Divide this by 5 ( the MP increase )
and you get 13.4 months / MP. I was originally ( and quickly )
looking at the D60 to 20D which is about 17 months / MP.

There is 42 months between the D100 and the D200 ( not the 4 years
you like to claim ) which is 10.5 months / MP.

As for the pro models, odds are good that we will see this year a
10MP 10FPS replacement for the D2h.
Click to expand...
 
Jorgen E said:
PerL said:
Hellashot said:
You can crop a FF image to make it look like it was shot on a small
sensor too :)
Click to expand...
But you get a low res image.
Click to expand...
You'll need a whopping 23MP to get D200 resolution, if you crop
from FF.
A somewhat expensive "solution", if you ask me.
And -- for the time being -- impossible, since no such sensor is
available...
Click to expand...
And tough to pull off 8 fps at 20+MP. If 1.3 disappears it will be in favor of a tighter crop in line with D200 pixel density but with wired iso 6400.

And that is all from the mountain top.

;^)
Mark
 
Dave Chrismer said:
Canon's development and marketing strategy in this category will be
determined by the guys you see on TV at pro sporting events, not by
what the experts here at DP Review think is best for everyone.
Click to expand...
Nobody here is determining what Canon will do, or like you "what is best for everyone", this is only a game of predictions that some people take too personally.

As for Canon, just because they merge the 1series does not mean the 1d 1.3x cameras would cease to be sold. You make a strange contention; of course they wouldn't prematurely drop their 1.3 cash cow for a $7/$8/$9/$10k FF replacement... however, if the 22MP FF drops down to (or is released at) 1Dmk2n prices, then the 1D will have to drop in price, or vanish from the lineup. I like your contention that sports pro's would reject a higher pixel-density FF camera because they don't crop photos, I guess SI just publishes straight from the camera ;-) Maybe Canon could be so nice as to include a Nikon-derived crop mode (without the high-speed benfit) for those who hate to crop manually...

--
-CW
 
Nature photographers who are trying to use Canon's present cameras are resorting to TC's, which degrade the images, make AF difficult or impossible, and make subject framing unneccessarily difficult. There is big need for a camera that has much improved AF performance (accuracy and ability to function with smaller apertures) and a lot more pixels - at least 12.6 Mp. Such a camera would not displace the 30D, which would continue to be a good choice for general photography, or the 5D for applications like wedding photography. It would fit a niche of its own, and solve a problem that is important to a lot of current Canon owners.
--
Ron Tolmie
 
Yep. This is the one I as a bird photographer will spend $2500 for, to upgrade from my 20D. This is the Nikon D2X with Canon-level noise performance, and lower weight (Li-ion battery, detachable vertical grip). Or the sport/wildlife equivalent of the 5D (the 3D?)

Question is, how big a hole is it? How many of us are there? And can they achieve adequately low noise on a 12mp 1.6x sensor? (Actually, give me top quality AF at 10 mp and I'll spring for that.)

--
Tom G
http://www.pbase.com/tgrey
http://www.geocities.com/tgrey41/index.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top