-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Nikon really scared of Canon
- Thread starter mmmmmmmm
- Start date
Thom Hogan
Forum Pro
First, borrowing is exactly the opposite of what both companies are interested in doing right now. Both are trying to retire short and long term debt, as well they should. Both have very healthy cash flows out of their digital offerings from which to invest in R&D. The last numbers I saw had Canon outspending Nikon 4 to 1 in digital imaging R&D, though both were spending far more than any of the other companies.
But after nearly 30 years in high tech development, I have a different view than it seems you do. Past a certain point, additional R&D investment tends to be a drag on innovative and timely product development, IMHO. The great products, and the great product companies, tend to have very tightly run and smallish R&D groups that are very highly focused and have one or two insightful and commanding individuals directing the work. When you start spending 100's of millions of dollars in R&D what happens is that you get unfocused R&D that starts spreading into any and all things related to your core product, and you develop fights over which development projects to actually bring to market.
Put another way, give me 2/3rds of what Nikon is currently spending on R&D and full authority over it, and I'll bet you that I could accelerate Nikon's camera growth. Double the R&D and spread it amongst even more groups and individuals, and you'll do the opposite.
Well, it does if you want increased pixel counts ;
--
Thom Hogan
editor, Nikon DSLR Report
author, Complete Guides: D50, D70s, D80, D100, D200, D1 series, D2 series
http://www.bythom.com
Bernard Languillier
Veteran Member
Things, as often, are more sutble than that. What I am telling you is that it is easier to keep resonnably short shutter speeds with a DX body while keeping enough DoF. Those shooting panos know that success often depends on the time lag between 2 succesive frames.
Going more into details, I'll be able to use f11 4s with my D2x with enough DoF and accceptable sharpness, while you'll have to use f18 and 10s on a 1ds2 to get the same results. The clouds will be gone in 10 seconds.
From what I have seen, image uniformity is a lot less of an issue with DX. It is probably possible to get acceptable image uniformity with some Zeiss lenses on a 1ds2, but even stopped down to f11, I was not convinced by the sharpness of the old 16-35 on a 1ds2. Our level of acceptance might be different, I only settle for perfection and don't see why I should compromise with a 1ds2 when I get perfection with my D2x.
The new 16-35II is probably better.
OK on the 5D, but the 5D just doesn't meet my criterias in terms of robustness. I was speaking about the 1ds2, that really IS a lot heavier.
The 5D is a great camera, but I wouldn't trust it to take the kind of beating my d2x has gone through.
No, I am speaking about pano spherical heads, not ball heads. I do own a RRS BH-55 and am fully aware of its capabilities.
And I would agree with them, but I would think that ball head manufactuers would have understood my initial point.
Cheers,
Bernard
Thom Hogan
Forum Pro
Right. The CCD in the F5 metering system was just some "electronic system in the camera." The truth is that dating back to the Nikon F4 (I don't know the Canon equivalent, someone else can provide that), film cameras became mostly electronic, with some legacy mechanical systems mostly centered around moving film and shutter. Nikon invested heavily in that, starting with the pro cameras and rolling that down to consumer products (more on that in a bit). Back in 1994 I was given a huge stack of code that was integral to the Nikon film products. Some of it dated back into the previous decade, so Nikon has been doing the software/electronic thing a lot longer and lot more intensively than most people seem to realize.
Since I see no support for that statement, I don't know how to respond to it other than to say I see nothing in Nikon's history, approach, or products, that shows that they have a disadvantage at designing software, electronic circuitry, or even custom ASICs. If anything, I'd tend to say the opposite. Their patents in these areas run deep.
Okay, let's run some facts by that one before people start believing you. First, Nikon historically has done new technology research with the pro models and deployed to the consumer models. That was true of the F4 (N90), F5 (N80), D1 (D100), D2 (most of the existing consumer digitals). To "guess" that it'll be different with a D3 would be to guess against history. Without any support for the guess.
Second, let's actually run the numbers for a moment (that 1% of revenue). I'm not 100% sure what you mean by "revenue" so I'll try to be more precise. This past year, Nikon will have sold about 2m bodies. Of those, 1.5m+ were
consumer...1,125,000,000...375,000,000
prosumer......600,000,000...200,000,000
pro..............400,000,000...133,000,000
TOTAL........2,125,000,000...708,000,000
Now, please show me where your "1% of revenue" from pro sales comes from. Even if you add in Coolpix you're not going to get there. And I'm making the assumption here that the pro bodies have the same GPM as the consumer ones, which is probably wrong. Done right, it should be more.
That leaves us with the 80% of R&D claim you make. Care to justify that one, too?
Nikon has a long history of "pro then consumer, refresh pro then consumer," and on and on. You're betting against that history. I'll be ON that history repeating. So much so that I'd put money on it. Will you?
--
Thom Hogan
editor, Nikon DSLR Report
author, Complete Guides: D50, D70s, D80, D100, D200, D1 series, D2 series
http://www.bythom.com
Thom Hogan
Forum Pro
Uh, no. Canon started dominating that market back in the early 1990's with film cameras and silent wave lenses with a better-than-Nikon AF system. I'd also point out that the 1D didn't dominate the D1h--sales figures seem to indicate otherwise. Nikon's D1 and subsequent D1h/D1x temporarily grabbed back a bit of what they had lost to Canon in the pro end. Canon won it back with the 1DII and 1Ds.
--
Thom Hogan
editor, Nikon DSLR Report
author, Complete Guides: D50, D70s, D80, D100, D200, D1 series, D2 series
http://www.bythom.com
yes I know AF systems were computer controled. they all where. Geez, do you have to try to baffle with BS on a point which was correct? Do you think that touting off anything someone can get off of google makes you sound like an expert? the point is the medium was film. film is not electronic. the aspect of putting an image onto film was mechanical and elctromechanical. Was film electronic? was film computers was the storage of the film computers? was the winding of the film from shot to spot entirely electronic?
I mean really..you nikon pj wearers are stil going on about how you can take a nikon F4 and run it without batteries - if that be the case, then how is it all computerized and electronic?
Versus believing you? you seem to have this really interesting set of ideas, call it fact, call up supporting statistics, when it's really "guesswork" however you pass it off as fact. do that in the nikon forum and have your pj wearing crowd enjoy it, but the reality is different. what new technology? have we seen a FF non-pro model? a non-pro "sports" model? a non-pro model that does anything that a pro model doesn't do now? Low noise by agressive in camera software? yeah, that's a winner. let me jump on the nikon ship for that!
"precise" however there's alot of "could be" "should be" "probably" in there and no mention of where those fabled #'s came from. whatever thom. no one can argue with your invented statistics. it was a conversationalist point to mean diminising rewards, but it's good you caught that or is ESL required?
Perhaps you shouldnt troll and stick to your own forums if you can't conversationally discuss something without such obvious bias.
Geesh!
I see you point, however, you reach a point of infinity focus on both regards .. I'm not sure you need f18 to reach infinity - on any camera.
but you know your setup, lenses, and how far away you were better than I do
.. it was a great shot, and if the tool you use does it ..all the power to you.
D
David Martin
Guest
..You have made no specific arguments - spell-checking would also help your readers.
Regards,
DaveMart
'Just a wildebeest on the plain of life'
Please see profile for equipment
--
Regards,
DaveMart
'Just a wildebeest on the plain of life'
Please see profile for equipment
Jim Attfield
Veteran Member
and did I have to? I'm sorry I got ticked off, but you can't have an intelligent convo in the nikon forum with anything that disagrees with their own masses without the pack mentality taking over in there, and accusations, personal attacks and insults flying - then so be it, but don't come in here with a holier than thou attitude.
I'm sure it didn't sell as well as what canon originally hoped - or it might have, who knows what the original goal was with the camera as far as it's lifetime sales. Personally I can see the idea of rebates, it's a way to lower the price to the consumer without impacting the reseller that may have existing stock.
So it allows canon to at it's own discretion and timing, lower the price regionally. what's bad, is resellers upping their price when they know that canon is coming out with a rebate...that defeats the purpose.
Tim in upstate NY
Veteran Member
...PS3 is supposed to take the place of PS2 which was once the market leader. PS3 looks like it's getting clobbered by Wii though. Teenagers and college age gamers are what drives the gaming marketplace and most of the kids are trying to buy Wii but Nintendo is struggling to meet the demand. The ones that have a Wii are often seeing large numbers of their friends spending a lot of time at their house. I'm the parent of one of those kids who has one. At least I know where my kid is and who he's with.
Frank Benvenuto
Leading Member
This is a dumb statement.. It's a Blue Ray DVD player at $400 less then the next closest priced one.. and you get a game console to boot..
--
Frank
Frank Benvenuto
Leading Member
So do you think I should sell my D2x and nikkor lens now.. Fact of the matter is I'm sorry I sold my D1x.. For what I do, web content, literally any decent camera can produce an 800 X 600 formated JPG..
I think these arguments forget one very important point.. What is the tool needed for? I sell Snap on tools. We have 17,000 tools in our catalog.. There is a proper tool for every job..
This argument that Canon produces a cleaner high ISO image then Nikon means nothing if you are shooting in full studio lighting.. Conversely the same goes for a high ISO requirement and Nikon.. You might choose the Canon for that.. Again, in my world it would be Deep socket or short..
Why Nikon for me? i guess it boils down to the body feel and look of the images. I like em better.. I like the color better..
That being said I would say that any top line DSLR today produces beautiful results.. In fact I bet that if a series of photos were taken for comparisons one would be hard pressed to distingish which camera was what brand.. I have 4 mega pixel 2' X 3' poster prints from a concert I shot, you would be amazed at the quality..
--
Frank
I think these arguments forget one very important point.. What is the tool needed for? I sell Snap on tools. We have 17,000 tools in our catalog.. There is a proper tool for every job..
This argument that Canon produces a cleaner high ISO image then Nikon means nothing if you are shooting in full studio lighting.. Conversely the same goes for a high ISO requirement and Nikon.. You might choose the Canon for that.. Again, in my world it would be Deep socket or short..
Why Nikon for me? i guess it boils down to the body feel and look of the images. I like em better.. I like the color better..
That being said I would say that any top line DSLR today produces beautiful results.. In fact I bet that if a series of photos were taken for comparisons one would be hard pressed to distingish which camera was what brand.. I have 4 mega pixel 2' X 3' poster prints from a concert I shot, you would be amazed at the quality..
--
Frank
Your 4MP poster print might look good without comparison, but if you were to compare it to a 8MP poster let alone a 13MP poster your 4MP would look noticeably lacking in detail.
yeah but until GTXXXX comes out it's collecting dust like my xbox360 is since wii came out. I already have another blu-ray player so the fact that ps3 had one is mute for me. I'm heavily invested into Sony..blu-ray,desktops,laptops,game console,HDR camcorders...fact is ps3 is nothing special.. I'll probably sell it off soon.
--
Johnny
tony field
Forum Pro
Hopefully, this sub-thread has finally completed and I can add a comment without impacting the discussion....
A Canonite's assumption that the PJ competition is presently between the D2hs and the 1D-IIn. If this is true, the Canon (sometimes) wins because of the better noise control at high ISO (1250 and above) when high ISO is needed. One of the disadvantages of the 1D-IIn is "too many pixels". Many times I have seen Canon pro PJ photographers bitching about the unnecessarily large images - this was a common complaint when Canon converted from 4 to 8 mpix and still is occasionally heard if the PJ has access only to low speed communication systems.
However, in the versatility sense, the 8MP 1D-IIn results in the ability to shoot subject material that requires higher resolution. This makes the camera a better jack-of-all-trades than the 4MP d2x.
If the Canonite really wishes to compare similar cameras, the 1D-IIn and the D2xs are a much better peer set. Both function extremely well for most PJ work and are very fine general purpose cameras (with the difficulty of "too many pixels" for PJ work). However, the excess pixels and other operating characteristics make the D2x a more flexible camera. IMHO, the better face to face comparison will be the (not yet available) 1D-III compared to the (now long in the tooth and soon to be replaced) D2xs
No - Nikon does NOT have a FF option. This may, for some photographers, be a significant consideration. Some folks truly do need the DOF control offered by the larger sensor. Very rarely, a photographer will NEED the ability to use ultra-wide lenses that do not have a DX equivalent. How may viewers can "see" the difference in images shot with a DX or FF camera?
I fully support Bernard's position about stitched pano images - his position is gained from actually working with the camera. The D2x and 1D-IIn results in better images with less work than the 5D (I cannot comment about the 1Ds-II since I do not normally shoot with one). For example, it is easier to use autostitch with D2x images than with 5D images. With the lenses commonly available from Nikon and Canon at present, the D2x is definitely a somewhat better choice.
The weight choice between the D2 and 1D series patently obvious - If T3 wants to make a weight differential comparison that works, he should choose the Canon Rebel with a 50mm F1.8 and compare that with the D2x with WI-FI attached and a normal zoom
If you want to contrast final image quality, excellent arguments can be made for Canon uber Nikon or Nikon uber Canon - although I will admit that overall, Canon has the somewhat better image system. None the less, when a viewer sees prints by expert printers, it is virtually impossible to identify the system that created the image from "similar" cameras (i.e. don't compare a 4mp 1D image with a 12+ MP Nikon, and, of course, I grant the high ISO superiority of Canon).
On the whole, I do not understand the bellicose Canonite position regarding their choice of religion.
--
tony
http://www.tphoto.ca
A Canonite's assumption that the PJ competition is presently between the D2hs and the 1D-IIn. If this is true, the Canon (sometimes) wins because of the better noise control at high ISO (1250 and above) when high ISO is needed. One of the disadvantages of the 1D-IIn is "too many pixels". Many times I have seen Canon pro PJ photographers bitching about the unnecessarily large images - this was a common complaint when Canon converted from 4 to 8 mpix and still is occasionally heard if the PJ has access only to low speed communication systems.
However, in the versatility sense, the 8MP 1D-IIn results in the ability to shoot subject material that requires higher resolution. This makes the camera a better jack-of-all-trades than the 4MP d2x.
If the Canonite really wishes to compare similar cameras, the 1D-IIn and the D2xs are a much better peer set. Both function extremely well for most PJ work and are very fine general purpose cameras (with the difficulty of "too many pixels" for PJ work). However, the excess pixels and other operating characteristics make the D2x a more flexible camera. IMHO, the better face to face comparison will be the (not yet available) 1D-III compared to the (now long in the tooth and soon to be replaced) D2xs
No - Nikon does NOT have a FF option. This may, for some photographers, be a significant consideration. Some folks truly do need the DOF control offered by the larger sensor. Very rarely, a photographer will NEED the ability to use ultra-wide lenses that do not have a DX equivalent. How may viewers can "see" the difference in images shot with a DX or FF camera?
I fully support Bernard's position about stitched pano images - his position is gained from actually working with the camera. The D2x and 1D-IIn results in better images with less work than the 5D (I cannot comment about the 1Ds-II since I do not normally shoot with one). For example, it is easier to use autostitch with D2x images than with 5D images. With the lenses commonly available from Nikon and Canon at present, the D2x is definitely a somewhat better choice.
The weight choice between the D2 and 1D series patently obvious - If T3 wants to make a weight differential comparison that works, he should choose the Canon Rebel with a 50mm F1.8 and compare that with the D2x with WI-FI attached and a normal zoom
If you want to contrast final image quality, excellent arguments can be made for Canon uber Nikon or Nikon uber Canon - although I will admit that overall, Canon has the somewhat better image system. None the less, when a viewer sees prints by expert printers, it is virtually impossible to identify the system that created the image from "similar" cameras (i.e. don't compare a 4mp 1D image with a 12+ MP Nikon, and, of course, I grant the high ISO superiority of Canon).
On the whole, I do not understand the bellicose Canonite position regarding their choice of religion.
--
tony
http://www.tphoto.ca
All I know is that Sports Illustrated pretty much made the switch to digital en masse with the Canon 1D, not the D1H ( http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6453-6821 ). And most other photographers and agencies followed suit. And it wasn't difficult to understand. Given the choice between the 2.7mp, 5fps D1H versus the 4mp, 8fps 1D, most chose the 1D. Then, when given the choice between the 4mp D2H versus the 8mp, 8.5mp 1D MKII, most chose the 1D MKII. Combine this with the fact that Canon first began dominating the sports/pj market back in the 90's, giving them not only momentum but also established usership, and you can easily understand why and how they dominated. To imply that it wasn't until the 1D MKII, in 2004, that they "won it back" isn't quite accurate, and isn't quite supported by visual observation of major sports and news events At the 2004 Athens Olympics, it was being reported that 70% of photographers were using Canon EOS, which seems to be fairly true based on what one could see: http://www.pbase.com/vthian/athens_olympics_2004 . Frankly, to achieve that kind of majority, I don't think they had ever lost the lead. If, indeed, they had lost the lead to the slower, lower-rez D1H, then suddenly showed up with the 1D MKII in April 2004, causing all those D1H photographers to suddenly switch in time to show up for the Athens Olympics with them, then that would have been quite a massive accomplishment in the marketplace. But I don't think that's what happened. It seems that Canon started gaining majority marketshare back in the 90's, then captured more of it and solidified it in the digital age with the 1D, which Sports Illustrated's Deputy Photo Editor says was the first DSLR with the right "combination of framing rate and image resolution necessary for the magazine's day-in, day-out demands", and they haven't let go of their lead ever since. No, Canon's dominance in the digital age didn't suddenly happen with the 1D MKII. I think it started much earlier when the 1D was beating out the D1H.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum