The only thing they might be lacking compared to a 1ds3 is a bit of detail. Together with the recent Nanocoating lenses they have released, I believe that a 24 MP D3x would offer significant value for those people printing large.
--
--
What "new adopters?" First, IIRC film SLR penetration was somewhere around 40% of households, and that represents a lot of legacy lenses. Every day I get "I've got an F3 with X lenses, if I buy a DSLR can I use those lenses" emails. Second, we're talking mostly about pro cameras here. Is there some program that just graduated hundreds of thousands of new photographers who don't already have a camera that I don't know about?
Without revealing names I'll say this: there was a period where Nikon almost lost EVERY name photographer they had. I spent a lot of time on the phone with a number of them revealing what I was pretty sure was coming and sent them to key contacts at Nikon where they learned more. Many of those pros were getting "beat" in the market because their Canon compatriots were getting the image sales. Think about what it might have been like trying to compete with a D2h. It was NOT a good time for Nikon.
Absolutely. And it wasn't even a close match. Those who stayed with Nikon during that period suffered because of that. At least one kept shooting film.
Not quite the same thing, actually, and Nikon's AF isn't exactly trustworthy, either. There's that pesky "low battery syndrome" which has been seen on D200, D300, D2x, and D3 models (but mostly D300). Not being able to shoot at all is a lot worse than getting slightly off focus for some images in a sequence.
I get slightly conflicting reports. Last prototype in that body I heard of was either 16mp or 18mp. But remember, mp numbers are reported in different ways ("effective megapixels" for example). The thing to take away was that it was somewhere between the D3 and D3x in pixel count.
I spent much of the past nine years documenting Nikon bodies against Canon and dealing with the "loyalists" versus the "switchers." I think I have a pretty good idea of the relative differences.
Perhaps. I am Nikon centric, after all ;
Don't confuse "success" with "successful strategy." I've watched lots of companies make that mistake.
As D3 users carrying D300 backups have discovered, that "simply change roles" means that you end up carrying an extra lens (or lenses).
Well, if Canon is aiming a 3D against a D300, Canon is fighting the wrong battle.
I think you think of the 1DIII too narrowly. It is (was) a common press camera. Wide is important for them.
The leaked pixel counts are exactly the way Nikon would use the Sony sensor. If find it difficult to believe that Nikon would design a D3-derived sensor with the same pixel count as the Sony.
Good point. Guess I meant 'new adopters' as in 'new to Nikon' - i.e. switchers. Ebay has reduced the cost of switching considerably, for individuals.
Fair enough, you're certainly in a better position than me to gather information.
That all sounds reasonable
I suspect people reach a kind of 'steady state'. They accumulate equipment, and the older stuff gradually gets used less and less as it becomes obsolescent. Once you're in that state, it becomes hard to judge what subset of your total kit you'd need to replace to work with the new system.
You mean, Canon's success was accidental? I think it had to do with clean-sheet designs to address clearly identified markets. And not being too dogmatic about sensor size was one of those clean sheet issues.
Yes, the strategy was to be tactical.
A bit better than 'quite', it gave them virtually complete domination of the PJ market.
But the complexity also gives them opportunities. For the amateur market, perceived 'pro-ness' is important. That's one place where the D300 wins big time over the 40D. It's clearly a D3 lite, whereas the 40D is a completely different animal from a 1DIII. On the other hand, a 1.3x sensor 3D could be even more a 1DIII lite than the Nikon is (if you see what I mean) - one step off the 'amateur' size sensor without the full cost penalty of a FF sensor.
If you carry a mixed system, true. But, see below.
It's one of the battles they have to fight. The D300 has been phenomenally successful. I'd guess it's put a fair size dent in 1DIII sales by itself, let alone the D3. It hasn't done the 40D much good either. If really successful, a 3D could pull part of the pro market down to a price where FF could not follow - a decent market spoiler, and stop a whole load of system switching (see the discussion above).
And some reasonable wides, even on 1.3x are available. 16-35 f/2.8L gets you to 21mm equivalent. and the 24 f/1.4L give a very fast 31mm equivalent. There's no equivalent for that in the Nikon lineup, even at FF. Until the 12-24 f/2.8, Canon was cclearly beatin Nikon all-up at the wide end, even at 1.3 crop.
I find it more credible that they would do that, rather than use the Sony column ADC architecture in what is their flagship model. Let's take what we know about the Sony sensor:
I'd say "has reduced the perceived cost..." I'm not convinced that it has actually reduced the real cost and would want to see some real numbers that show that.
Yep. They reach one of three states:
No. I think the real problem is inability to correctly assess residual value. If you know you've spent US$5000 on equipment, most people have a real hard time pulling the plug on that if they only get the actual current value of it, which may be US$500. People mistake cameras as "investments." They're not. A DSLR has X value today, .85X within a year, and as little as .06X within nine years (to use a D1 purchased in 1999 as an example). Lenses hold residual value longer, and a few even go up (the 58mm NOCT is an example), but most also lose value as new versions make the older ones less useful. But people think the value of something is what they paid for it, not what they can get for it today.
That's not what I said and not even implied by what I wrote.
You make short term and long term decisions when you're a company like Canon or Nikon. The multiple sensor size bit seems much more like a short term decision than a long term one. You may also remember that the genesis of the 1.3x was actually not a Canon designed sensor, but two smaller third-party sensors stitched on the stepper. This, too, tends to suggest to me that the decision was made in haste for a specific reason, not a strategic long term plan.
You have goals. You develop strategies to support goals. You develop tactics to support strategies. Just as with computer programming, you can attack the problem bottom-up or top-down. Nikon attacked it top down. Canon appears to have attacked it bottom up. The difference is meaningful long term. A top down approach tends to have more clarity and is easier to tune and market. Out of control bottom up approaches become unwieldy and unmanageable, and are difficult to market.
So you're contending that today Canon completely dominates the PJ market? The clear trend in PJ purchases today is the D3 over the 1DIII. That's my point. Tactics can give you short term wins, but if not supported by strategy and clear goals above that, such wins tend to be short term.
...and vulnerabilities ;
True, but 1.3x has nothing to do with that. The 40D could have been to the 1D series what the D300 is to the D3 with a 1.6x sensor. Note that Canon DID change the sensor size with one attempt: the 5D. That body was still perceived as "not professional enough." So it's not the sensor size that Canon goofed on.
And I'm not sure that you or Canon understand the battle that would need to be fought. The 5D is currently US$1899 at B&H. If a larger sensor, prosumer camera at a D300-type price is all that's needed, the 5D should be flying off shelves at the level of D300 sales. It isn't. Thus, it isn't sensor size that's the problem. So 1.3x isn't going to fix things, either. Canon needs to spend more time figuring out the camera, not the sensor. There's nothing wrong with Canon's sensors.
I'll grant you the 24mm f/1.4 (at least at the moment ;
I doubt that Nikon is overly concerned about competing with the 1DsIII. They're more concerned about meeting demands of their user base and rounding out their lineup.
Now you're getting close. I've said it before and I'll say it again: it appears to me that Sony and Nikon are cooperating in ways that they believe will eventually dislodge Canon's dominance in the camera market. There is no doubt very close collaboration and sharing of IP between Sony Semiconductor and Nikon Precision Instruments.
That's an interesting perspective. It's a bit like the previous discussion. I'd guess that anyone who really needed a high res camera went out and bought a 1Ds (II or III) a long time ago. I wouldn't think the pent up demand is that high. So, of course the D3x will be directly compared with the 1DsIII. As it pans out, Nikon have to opportunity to trump it on every important specification. Unless they goof and use the Sony sensor. I don't expect them to do that. The D3 seems to me to denote a move to a policy of meeting Canon head on where there's an opportunity, and beating them, rather than the 'bracketing' policy of avoiding direct model for model competition. The D3x will compete for exactly the same market as the 1DsIII, and I wouldn't expect any major spec to be left unturned.
This almost goes without saying. Nikon is Sony semiconductor's largest customer for DSLR sensors, and will have a huge influence on Sony sensor specifications, if not the actual designs. Nikon sponsored Sony's move to CMOS technology, and as their major supplier of photolithography equipment will have been closely involved in the process development. IP sharing is a complex matter these days.
I think the D3 and Sony sensors are different down to the sensel architecture. We know the Sony uses a 3-T architecture, and column based CDS. From its measured characteristics, I'm pretty sure that the D3 sensor is 4-T per-pixel CDS, just like the Canons. If they need to make any changes at all to the Sony sensor, it would be as easy to modify the D3 sensor. As I say, changing the pixel pitch and number of pixels is not a big job, and as I argued, the D3 sensor will give better results an several important ways, as well as being Nikon's own, important for a flagship. The only reason for using a Sony sensor would be production capacity, and since the D3x is likely to be lower volume than the D3, I don't see that as an issue.
You obviously have better inside information than me, but that seems to be old Nikon thinking, which they abandoned with the D3. They cannot afford the D3x to be deficient against the 1DsIII in any major way, and that would be a major way. There is a perception common amongst photographers that 14 bit is 'better' than 12 bit (and, against my stated opinion, this turns out to be the case practically in both the D3 and the D300). To have a compromised 14-bit mode would be seen to be a major shortcoming in the market. I can't see Nikon letting that go.
That was the reason I asked if he just wrote it the wrong way, or if he knows that it will be an sony sensor.
Sorry, not an intentional misinterpretation. It seemed to me that a strategy that brings success is a successful strategy, and therefore if Canon has achieved success without a successful strategy, then it must have been by accident. If that wasn't your meaning, I apologise for misinterpretation.
No, it's a consequence of a long term decision. The long term decision was not to adopt a rigid sensor size policy as Nikon did, instead design to meet the problem in hand.
I didn't know that. However, it seems to me to be part of the long term strategy of development to have a special size sensor produced rather than buying off the shelf.
I don't agree at all. I think over the long term, Canon's goals have been quite clear. They adopted a three sensor size policy, to provide optimum solutions for distinct markets. Nikon adopted a strategy driven by a rigid one size rule which led to them addressing the high end markets much less well than Canon. It's only now that they've made a tactical switch from that rigid policy that has allowed them to gain some headway. The proof of the policy is in the eating. At the time of the 1D Nikon was in the lead in the pro markets. Canon's so-called bottom up strategy has led to them gaining and dominating that market. They would still be in with a chance of staying there if they hadn't fouled up with the 1DIII AF.
Up until last November, yes.
Nikon's opportunity has been made by stealing many of Canon's clothes, and going hell for leather to outspec Canon wherever possible. Under the old strategy, 11 point AF was plenty, now it appears we need 51 (which just happens to be more than Canon). Under the old strategy DX was fine for all applications, now it appears that we need FX (which just happens to be bigger than APS-H). Under the old strategy, 4.5MPix was fine for a sports cam, now it appears we need 12 (which just happens to be more than 10). Nikon has achieved this new found success by playing a clever tactical game. The old 'top down' rigid strategy almost killed them.
Like football clubs, if you get your employer used to success, and have a hiccough, you're vulnerable. He got fired for not keeping up the previous success.
The 5D was 'not professional enough' for a host of reasons, like having a mirror that falls off, but not to do with the sensor. I don't think Canon ever conceived it as a professional camera - it was always for enthusiasts, and not their best bit of product positioning. Still stands up quite well against a blooper like the D2h, though. I think 'pro-ness' is quite intangible, and to do with a number of features, including styling. The EOS 3 and F100 were clearly perceived as low end pro models, in a way that, say the F80 and EOS 5, which occupied the same position in the line, weren't. If Canon got those intangibles right, as Nikon has with the D300, the 3D would be a success. And, in the Canon line-up, sensor size is one of the intangibles associated with 'pro-ness'.
Oh, I'm sure Canon (and Nikon too) understand these things much better than me. Or you, for that matter.
I never said it was all that was needed. The 5D clearly doesn't compete with the D300 on frame rate, AF performance, build quality and a whole load of other intangibles.
No, there isn't, and fitting a 1.3x sensor by itself wouldn't make a success. But, if Canon came up with a compact body, D300 level build quality, the 1DII AF and the 1DIII sensor (or a 12MPix upgrade), 6-8fps at $1899 it would fly off the shelves, and not many Canon users would be buying D300's. If they put a FF 16MPix sensor in the same body (at 5 FPS) that D10 would need to be very good to better it. They probably won't do that. It's new Nikon thinking.
Yes, any wider you need to go Sigma, or a Nikkor on an adaptor. Very wide is a hole in the Canon lineup.
Clearly, from his reply to me, he doesn't know. He's speculating, like the rest of us. I think he's ignoring quite a lot of counter evidence, too. We'll see in a few weeks.
The press release for Sony's sensor says it does 'windowed capture' = 'crop mode'. On the other hand, I'd guess that if Pentax ever make a FF body, the sensor's coming from Samsung (who have already said they're doing an FF sensor). On the third hand, since Samsung have at least one strategic joint venture with Sony, who knows whether Sony has given them a hand with sensor technology.
The question I was asking was how important is that market to Canon - it's not that large. If it looks like getting competitive, they might just abandon it. Don't think it's the most likely possibility, but it's a possibility.
As I said about the D3x sensor, it's no great problem to produce different pixel pitch versions of the same sensor. The D10, if it occurs, will almost certainly have a Sony sensor. Although 24.6 it possible, if the camera spec's not too close to the D3, more likely is that it will have a 'special' for Nikon. Thom's speculation of 18MPix sounds quite likely, as it's a bit more than Canon will put in the new 5D, if they make one.
If they get reactive, yes. But they have a problem. The majority of the world's PJ's have lens kits to work with APS-H. As I said, all changing the sensor size means is that lenses change roles, however, as Thom pointed out to me, there's a limit to that. 1.3x has been phenomenally successful for Canon, and has a large user base. They phase it out at their peril. If they get imaginative, the 1DIV might be FF with an APS-H crop mode.
I think it's unlikely that Canon will abandon APS-C. After all, they're the leaders, why should they change to conform with the rest? If all possibilities are open, there is one more. Measurements indicate that it would be possible to design a 1.3x mirror system which would work with EF-S lenses (tight, but possible). So they could move their low end to 1.3x. This would give a real performance advantage over the competition, without the cost penalty of a FF sensor.
At the moment, and it seems to be what most in the Canon forum appears to miss is the timing cycle for replacements. The arguments are, if the 5D isn't pro, it should have been updated after 18 months, but if it is defined as pro, it would be on the 3 year cycle, which I believe is up later this year. However, many canon users have difficulty with the 5D being called Pro because it is too lacking in the body features.
As far as I know, Canon don't make APS-H specific lenses, they all use the FF lenses (correct me if I am wrong). As such, dumping the 1.3x crop for FF wouldn't affect anyone with lenses as they are already FF lenses. Hence no problem, not even for the world's PJ's. If you are referring to actual lens focal length and effective focal length, I doubt it would be that much of an issue.
--
