You can say it either way. Nikon entered the market with D1, a heavy
machine with flagship F5 level focusing and body. Canon followed with
D30 (as opposed to 30D), lowest possible cost for maximum
"approachability". Blow for blow, they've never really tried to
parallel each other. I'd call this different "philosophies", rather
than any "aversion".
Actually, it's your ROI point. For Nikon, who at the time had only a
small pro share, the D1 was the right call for shaking up the market
again and getting a good ROI while doing so. For Canon, who did have
a strong film pro share still active, the 30D was the right call for
getting into the digital game and generating good ROI on top of what
they already were doing. Both companies simply made the right initial
call for ROI from their current position.
Quite possibly. Although, with things like the Fujix, Nikon may have been already used to playing in the $15,000 game, so the whole "cut the price in half, improve the performance, and improve the handling" thing also worked pretty well.
That's also part of what makes me think Nikon could deal a pretty solid blow to the existing MF back adn body companies, if they chose. They remind me so much of the way things were in 1998, Kodak with backs on Nikon and Canon bodies, Fuji with Nikon, Agfa with Minolta. D1 simply ended that market, and took 100% of the business from the 35mm back vendors.
Once it became clear to
Canon that the D1 had changed the pro PJ game, the 1D was the correct
response.
Yup.
In this long cat and mouse game, the only really bad play was the D2h.
I still consider 5D to be a pretty poor move.
If Nikon simply put an Alpha sensor in a D700 class body, it would be
"clearly a better camera" than A900, in two important ways.
It would have liveview.
Actually, do we know that the 24mp sensor supports live view? You
really don't want to frame grab all 24mp, so you need some
sub-sampling method built in.
It looks like it does. I wish the data sheets I had were in English...
I'd like to see Nikon leapfrog Canon (as Canon did to Nikon) in the
performance of the movie mode.
I'm not exactly sure how you do that. Once you get to 1080P the only
other real logical move to make would be to offer 24/30/60 fps and
some sort of real time compressor.
You're not tackling the problem from the right direction...
Not resolution and video rate: for resolution and low light ability, the new movie mode DSLRs eat even high end pro video gear for lunch. But they still handle like DSRs with a movie mode "tacked on".
First, and most obvious, improve the CD AF (heck, D90 can't even do AF during movie mode).
Then, don't change anything on the DSLR controls, but do make it easier to supplement those controls. How much effort would it take to add protocol so that you could run a lot of the camera's functions easily through the USB port, so that they could hook up a grip that would make it handle more like a serious video camera.
I'd really hate to see still
camera engineers put cycles into those things, though.
It only uses cycles if you actually engage those modes. I can't see anything on D90 or 5D II that appears to have been in any way
(which seems a reasonable possibility)then MX is the only reasonable
route to a next generation 1Ds type camera. A Nikon lineup including
the D800 and the MX camera would differentiate them sufficiently from
Canon and others.
Definitely.
I still say that if MF is on Nikon's plate, they must also have a
D800 AND a D3x body.
Agreed.
A play at the top says that you intend to cover
the full range of cameras (since Nikon already makes things at about
the lowest possible level in the low-end Coolpix models). Doing so
makes you vulnerable if you have gaps.
Agreed?
Right now Nikon has two gaps
and several weak spots. The gaps are in performance compact and high
resolution DSLR. And Nikon now has competitors targeting both of
those gaps.
Yup.
Can even a game-changing camera generate that kind of sales
at that price?
Really, really good question.
Yep, even if I say so myself ;
). This is, of course, the ROI
question again. Nikon's now in a tricky spot. As growth comes off the
camera market in all areas, everyone needs to find something that
will generate growth, and that points to something new (micro 4/3, MF
DSLR, etc.). Yet at the same time, the companies must be careful to
protect what they've gained. Nikon just upped their R&D budget again,
so it will be interesting to see where it comes to fruition. But I'd
say an 8% compact share, a missing high-end compact,
long-in-the-tooth consumer DSLRs, and a missing high-resolution DSLR
should be the first targets. In terms of ROI: #1 high-resolution
DSLR, #2 high-end compact, #3 consumer DSLRs, #4 better compacts. In
my opinion, a MF camera would slot between #3 and #4.
Not disputing any of that. Well, maybe that I'm not even sure the MF goes between #3 and #4. It might be #5
--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.
Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.
Ciao! Joseph
http://www.swissarmyfork.com 
