I am like the most of you thrilled by the new Nikons. Now I'm thinking - can Canon build a FF, 12 MP, 9 FPS body, let alone top the specs on this one ? At least on paper and some reviews I've read by RG and others, it really seems that the high ISO and the TFT is fantastic.
I need an upgrade for my MKII and a backup body - but I'm left waiting. The MKIII is in my opinion, a blunder - At this level and pro segment one shouldn't be hoping for a cam that maybe works as it should - I need a cam I can trust and that delivers - 100%. A lot of my colleagues, like myself, are hanging on to the MKII till this gets sorted out - but the damage is done, I can assure you. Sure, some say there is no problem - I have yet to hear that statement from CPS or Canon. I have personally shot with 2 bodies that couldn't servo, that's 2 bodies too many - and no way am I going to risk working with a cam that may or may not work. And this is the position a lot of my working colleagues are taking.
When one sees what Nikon delivered, a tiny company compared to a global player, I think it is time to ask where Canon's philosophy is going. The concept is what bugs me, or rather the lack of it. If Nikon had the time and resources to produce this, where was Canons R&D ? Do they even have the know-how? I mean, the TFT alone is a glaring example of top-edge design. Not that it's absolutely needed, but if the technology was there why not bring it in ? Did they see all this coming at all?
When one stands back and sees what Nikon packed in the Dxx series at that price and what Canon held back or can't do in the 1Dx series - one has to ask what the strategy was and will be in the future.
Canon can only react to this on the 5D upgrade. And a reality check on the prices rather than the so called EU same-price strategy in January which resulted in almost a 10-15% price increase across the board - overnight. At the end of the day, not much for a real lot of photographers in my field of work, sports and documentary work. There seems to be (at least on paper, but most likely) a two generation gap between Nikons and Canons (using Canon's upgrade time-line) and a very, very questionable company philosophy.
Interesting to see how Canon reacts. Actually, it thinks it doesn't even have to - A lot of the pros won't be switching because we still get our shots as it is, the Nikons are still paper models and although not really an issue, a switch is expensive. Others and myself WILL be switching if A) The bodies prove themselves in focus and servo B) The high ISO's are usable C) If Canon doesn't provide a solution or alternative. I've shot Nikons in the past and might be doing it again although I've had Canon DSLRs since the 10D days.
Personally and a lot of others are waiting how Canon reacts here. If it is with the same arrogance and even more muscle-flexing - we will be seeing fewer white lenses on the sidelines and pits at the next Olympics.
Good times for all Nikon users and hopefully a readjusting of Canon's philosophy.
Thanks for reading.
I need an upgrade for my MKII and a backup body - but I'm left waiting. The MKIII is in my opinion, a blunder - At this level and pro segment one shouldn't be hoping for a cam that maybe works as it should - I need a cam I can trust and that delivers - 100%. A lot of my colleagues, like myself, are hanging on to the MKII till this gets sorted out - but the damage is done, I can assure you. Sure, some say there is no problem - I have yet to hear that statement from CPS or Canon. I have personally shot with 2 bodies that couldn't servo, that's 2 bodies too many - and no way am I going to risk working with a cam that may or may not work. And this is the position a lot of my working colleagues are taking.
When one sees what Nikon delivered, a tiny company compared to a global player, I think it is time to ask where Canon's philosophy is going. The concept is what bugs me, or rather the lack of it. If Nikon had the time and resources to produce this, where was Canons R&D ? Do they even have the know-how? I mean, the TFT alone is a glaring example of top-edge design. Not that it's absolutely needed, but if the technology was there why not bring it in ? Did they see all this coming at all?
When one stands back and sees what Nikon packed in the Dxx series at that price and what Canon held back or can't do in the 1Dx series - one has to ask what the strategy was and will be in the future.
Canon can only react to this on the 5D upgrade. And a reality check on the prices rather than the so called EU same-price strategy in January which resulted in almost a 10-15% price increase across the board - overnight. At the end of the day, not much for a real lot of photographers in my field of work, sports and documentary work. There seems to be (at least on paper, but most likely) a two generation gap between Nikons and Canons (using Canon's upgrade time-line) and a very, very questionable company philosophy.
Interesting to see how Canon reacts. Actually, it thinks it doesn't even have to - A lot of the pros won't be switching because we still get our shots as it is, the Nikons are still paper models and although not really an issue, a switch is expensive. Others and myself WILL be switching if A) The bodies prove themselves in focus and servo B) The high ISO's are usable C) If Canon doesn't provide a solution or alternative. I've shot Nikons in the past and might be doing it again although I've had Canon DSLRs since the 10D days.
Personally and a lot of others are waiting how Canon reacts here. If it is with the same arrogance and even more muscle-flexing - we will be seeing fewer white lenses on the sidelines and pits at the next Olympics.
Good times for all Nikon users and hopefully a readjusting of Canon's philosophy.
Thanks for reading.
