Canon and innovation

'Yes, it's called 7D' and it was announced what, more than a year later after the D300? The D7000 isn't a response to the D7, the D7 is is in response to the D300.

Trust me, when D400 or whatever that's coming out after the D300, it will rock the Canon forums like the D7000 is rocking it now (and even if it's not a D7 competitor get that?) and just like the D300 did for a long time when it came out first.

Daniel Lee Taylor said:

It's called the 7D, and it was out one year ago. The only thing Nikon did was get close in spec then undercut the price by $300. Very competitive, but not terribly innovative.

Click to expand...

I think I agree if you're saying that the two major players are just reacting to one another...rather than blazing new trails like Canon did in with it's totally revolutionary introduction of the Dreb and 10d at the price points they were at back when. Other companies like Olympus and Sigma although minor players, seem to now be much less timid, (Sigma with the Foveon) and of course not always correct (like iOlympus introducing the E-p1 without an eye level finder of some sort)..but innovative.
--
http://www.pbase.com/madlights
http://barriolson.aminus3.com/

Like the Joker said: Why so serious?

maxpayne said:

'Yes, it's called 7D' and it was announced what, more than a year later after the D300?

Click to expand...

The D300 was a great body but it didn't possess any technology or innovations Canon didn't have. Canon just dragged their feet on filling out that market segment. By contrast, it has taken Nikon over a year to break 12 MP in APS-C sensors.

maxpayne said:

Trust me, when D400 or whatever that's coming out after the D300, it will rock the Canon forums like the D7000 is rocking it now (and even if it's not a D7 competitor get that?) and just like the D300 did for a long time when it came out first.

Click to expand...

OK fanboy...

Wasn't the topic innovation? How long did it take Nikon to get in lens sonic focusing motors? Image stabilization? 35mm digital sensors? Decent high ISO performance? Equivalents to Canon's L super telephotos? Broadcast quality HD video?

They've narrowed the gap, but for most of the past two decades Canon has clobbered them on innovative technology. And Canon still has a broader lens library.

Nikon has some of their own innovations. And they clearly make excellent equipment. But Canon has been one of the most innovative companies in small format photography for the past two decades. Anyone claiming otherwise, especially on the basis of one body release in one market segment, is simply clueless.

Keith Reeder said:

SDF said:

Boring. If you want innovation, check Nikon D7000.

Click to expand...

Please feel free to point out this supposed "innovation" in the D7000.

I don't deny that they've put quite a lot of options in for a camera at its price point, but that's always the Nikon way: no real innovation, lots of bells and whistles - shiny trinkets to attract camera magpies who are easy to fool into believing that "more" equals "better", despite there being no evidence whatsoever - not in the past, not now - of the truth of that...

Click to expand...

haha so you praise 7D for MP and bash D7000 for MP
and totally forget to mention MFA, more fps, better AF, etc.!
hah

the method of phase detect in liveview cannot be applied to video because the video cannot be interrupted .

they are some alternatives (see sony) but the viewfinder quality will suffer from that.

RedFox88 said:

RedFox88 wrote:
Phase Detect Auto Focus, I think.
I believe Canon has that in liveview but not in movie mode yet.

Click to expand...

Nikon still has only two cameras over 12.1 MP - D3S and D7000.
How many does Canon have, a dozen?
Canon took the big leap to video early too.

But it is always a horse race between Nikon and Canon, one jumps a bit ahead and the other counters with something different.

I think since the megapixel race is coming to an end high ISO, low noise and lighter bodies are the next frontier.
--
see my profile/plan for more info
http://lisaostaphoto.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/losta

Daniel Lee Taylor said:

maxpayne said:

'Yes, it's called 7D' and it was announced what, more than a year later after the D300?

Click to expand...

The D300 was a great body but it didn't possess any technology or innovations Canon didn't have. Canon just dragged their feet on filling out that market segment.

Click to expand...

That's cool... so your justifying Canon's policy of withholding features from higher end bodies to mid/lower bodies... Funny that you call me a fanboy, but your defence of this silly policy makes me think who's the real fanboy There's no point of possessing any technology if it's not available and Canon's APS-C line up suffered from this till Nikon D300 came along and changed the game and forced Canon to re-think their strategy.

I also find it rather disheartening when you downplay the D300, saying that it didn't have anything Canon didn't posses. Here's just a list of things the D300 had (and the list isn't even complete, just the stuff that popped into my mind)

1. Built-in chromatic aberration reduction
2. A high-res LCD
3. 1005 pixel RGB metering sensor
4. AF tracking by colour, scene recognition system

How may of the above did a Canon APS-C body have at that time?

photog7320 said:

By contrast, it has taken Nikon over a year to break 12 MP in APS-C sensors.

Click to expand...

Huh? I could also say that for a company that's been leading the ISO game for a decade in digital photography, Canon still doesn't have an answer for the D3/D3s. It's been what, two years already? And when will Canon give it's users a full frame sports camera?

photog7320 said:

photog7320 said:

Trust me, when D400 or whatever that's coming out after the D300, it will rock the Canon forums like the D7000 is rocking it now (and even if it's not a D7 competitor get that?) and just like the D300 did for a long time when it came out first.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

photog7320 said:

OK fanboy...

Wasn't the topic innovation? How long did it take Nikon to get in lens sonic focusing motors? Image stabilization? 35mm digital sensors? Decent high ISO performance? Equivalents to Canon's L super telephotos? Broadcast quality HD video?

They've narrowed the gap, but for most of the past two decades Canon has clobbered them on innovative technology. And Canon still has a broader lens library.

Nikon has some of their own innovations. And they clearly make excellent equipment. But Canon has been one of the most innovative companies in small format photography for the past two decades. Anyone claiming otherwise, especially on the basis of one body release in one market segment, is simply clueless.

Click to expand...

Chill out, will you? I think you misread my post

I very well know Canon's background as an innovative camera/lens manufacturer (USM/CMOS/IS etc. to name a few). My original post had noting to do with Canon's innovation, it was a response to D7000 and D7 being compared.

Cheers,
T

This is really a what came first thing. You say the D300 came along and forced Canon to change their strategy but I say the D200 and D2x were so subpar cameras in IQ by comparison to Canon's offerings that it was Canon's superior IQ that forced Nikon to load up the D300 with features to compete. Let's be honest and admit that Nikon lost a huge amount of their professional market share until they came out with the D3/300 bodies. Those bodies had to be as good as Nikon could offer holding nothing back in order to stop the bleeding. So who's offerings forced what and when?

There's two sides to every story.

Bob

maxpayne said:

Daniel Lee Taylor said:

maxpayne said:

'Yes, it's called 7D' and it was announced what, more than a year later after the D300?

Click to expand...

The D300 was a great body but it didn't possess any technology or innovations Canon didn't have. Canon just dragged their feet on filling out that market segment.

Click to expand...

That's cool... so your justifying Canon's policy of withholding features from higher end bodies to mid/lower bodies... Funny that you call me a fanboy, but your defence of this silly policy makes me think who's the real fanboy There's no point of possessing any technology if it's not available and Canon's APS-C line up suffered from this till Nikon D300 came along and changed the game and forced Canon to re-think their strategy.

I also find it rather disheartening when you downplay the D300, saying that it didn't have anything Canon didn't posses. Here's just a list of things the D300 had (and the list isn't even complete, just the stuff that popped into my mind)

1. Built-in chromatic aberration reduction
2. A high-res LCD
3. 1005 pixel RGB metering sensor
4. AF tracking by colour, scene recognition system

How may of the above did a Canon APS-C body have at that time?

maxpayne said:

By contrast, it has taken Nikon over a year to break 12 MP in APS-C sensors.

Click to expand...

Huh? I could also say that for a company that's been leading the ISO game for a decade in digital photography, Canon still doesn't have an answer for the D3/D3s. It's been what, two years already? And when will Canon give it's users a full frame sports camera?

maxpayne said:

maxpayne said:

Trust me, when D400 or whatever that's coming out after the D300, it will rock the Canon forums like the D7000 is rocking it now (and even if it's not a D7 competitor get that?) and just like the D300 did for a long time when it came out first.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

maxpayne said:

OK fanboy...

Wasn't the topic innovation? How long did it take Nikon to get in lens sonic focusing motors? Image stabilization? 35mm digital sensors? Decent high ISO performance? Equivalents to Canon's L super telephotos? Broadcast quality HD video?

They've narrowed the gap, but for most of the past two decades Canon has clobbered them on innovative technology. And Canon still has a broader lens library.

Nikon has some of their own innovations. And they clearly make excellent equipment. But Canon has been one of the most innovative companies in small format photography for the past two decades. Anyone claiming otherwise, especially on the basis of one body release in one market segment, is simply clueless.

Click to expand...

Chill out, will you? I think you misread my post

I very well know Canon's background as an innovative camera/lens manufacturer (USM/CMOS/IS etc. to name a few). My original post had noting to do with Canon's innovation, it was a response to D7000 and D7 being compared.

Cheers,
T

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron

Lisa O said:

If you haven't bought a new body since 2006 you are behind the curve.
What do you want the camera to do that todays' don't?
The Nikon D7000 is it's answer to the 7D about 10 months behind in release.
--

Click to expand...

gotta compare apples to apples... Canon 60d was trumped.. make that blasted by Nikon d7000... the 7d came a long time after d300 and d300s .. same class.. that's the only way to compare them

Canon has not been the leaser or innovator in recent years... Nikon has been ... and I've always been with Canon... that may soon change...

in last that should have read 'leader'

maxpayne said:

Daniel Lee Taylor said:

maxpayne said:

'Yes, it's called 7D' and it was announced what, more than a year later after the D300?

Click to expand...

The D300 was a great body but it didn't possess any technology or innovations Canon didn't have. Canon just dragged their feet on filling out that market segment.

Click to expand...

That's cool... so your justifying Canon's policy of withholding features from higher end bodies to mid/lower bodies...

Click to expand...

What does that mean exactly? Nikon failed to put a 25 MP FF sensor, 51 point AF, and full weather sealing in the D90. Was that "withholding features from higher end bodies to mid/lower bodies...?"

No company has one model at entry level pricing with all the features of a top end model. They all differentiate on features and price. Nikon read the market better when they planned and introduced the D300, and I'm sure their sales reflected that. But it didn't introduce any truly new or unique technology, for them or anyone else. (Few bodies do outside of the sensors.)

maxpayne said:

Funny that you call me a fanboy,

Click to expand...

You deserved it for your practically orgasmic declaration that new Nikon releases would "rock the Canon forums."

maxpayne said:

There's no point of possessing any technology if it's not available and Canon's APS-C line up suffered from this till Nikon D300 came along and changed the game and forced Canon to re-think their strategy.

Click to expand...

So why was Nikon "withholding features" up until that point?

maxpayne said:

Here's just a list of things the D300 had (and the list isn't even complete, just the stuff that popped into my mind)

1. Built-in chromatic aberration reduction

Click to expand...

That's not a particularly ground shaking photographic innovation. Any RAW converter does the same.

maxpayne said:

2. A high-res LCD

Click to expand...

Not a Nikon invention. Companies leap frog each other on display quality based on their release schedules, which determine what's available to them from LCD manufacturers.

maxpayne said:

3. 1005 pixel RGB metering sensor
4. AF tracking by colour, scene recognition system

Click to expand...

I'll give Nikon the innovation of linking a color sensitive meter to the AF sensor. But Nikon's primary innovation here is not the technology, but the marketing. "Scene recognition" is what every multi-segment meter does. It's the whole point of multi-segment metering. And "3D tracking" is also basically what everyone else has been doing for years, only sensitivity might have been a little better in some situations thanks to the color data. I imagine it took Canon this long to do iFCL due to some patent that ran out.

Yes, Nikon innovated with color metering and with flash distance computation. But not in the D300 (they came out earlier).

maxpayne said:

maxpayne said:

By contrast, it has taken Nikon over a year to break 12 MP in APS-C sensors.

Click to expand...

Huh? I could also say that for a company that's been leading the ISO game for a decade in digital photography, Canon still doesn't have an answer for the D3/D3s.

Click to expand...

The 5D mkII will go toe to toe with the D3 or D700 in high ISO. Pixel peepers only think otherwise because they fail to equalize magnification or print.

The D3s is pretty recent and does improve high ISO. Canon will surpass it in their next release, then Nikon, then Canon, etc, etc.

maxpayne said:

And when will Canon give it's users a full frame sports camera?

Click to expand...

I agree with you that the 1D should be FF. But interestingly enough when I mentioned this on another forum 1D owners almost universally responded that they prefer APS-H for sports. Maybe Canon's marketing is on to something there.

maxpayne said:

Chill out, will you? I think you misread my post

Click to expand...

Sorry, I just wanted to "rock the forum"

maxpayne said:

Daniel Lee Taylor said:

maxpayne said:

'Yes, it's called 7D' and it was announced what, more than a year later after the D300?

Click to expand...

The D300 was a great body but it didn't possess any technology or innovations Canon didn't have. Canon just dragged their feet on filling out that market segment.

Click to expand...

That's cool... so your justifying Canon's policy of withholding features from higher end bodies to mid/lower bodies... Funny that you call me a fanboy, but your defence of this silly policy makes me think who's the real fanboy There's no point of possessing any technology if it's not available and Canon's APS-C line up suffered from this till Nikon D300 came along and changed the game and forced Canon to re-think their strategy.

Click to expand...

And re-think it they did. However, if you think for a minute that Nikon doesn't do the same thing, you need to think again. Take the much debated AF for example, the D300 may have 51 focus points but it is far from the same system implementation and performance of that found in D3x (even though they may appear at first glance to be the same). The D7000 and the 60D are also closer than you think; both have 9 cross type sensors with about the same sensitivity. In the hands of competent photographers the difference will be irrelevant.

But none of this “organ size comparison” matters anyway, because you are not going to be able to put up a photo that you shot with any Nikon that cannot be shot by someone with a Canon and vice-versa. You can shoot a bunch of photos with a variety of cameras spread then on the table and nobody is going to be able to tell you which camera shot them, and if some turn out to be better than others it is more than likely the skill of the photographer that is “to blame” and not the bells and whistles in the camera body.

maxpayne said:

I also find it rather disheartening when you downplay the D300, saying that it didn't have anything Canon didn't posses. Here's just a list of things the D300 had (and the list isn't even complete, just the stuff that popped into my mind)

1. Built-in chromatic aberration reduction
2. A high-res LCD
3. 1005 pixel RGB metering sensor
4. AF tracking by colour, scene recognition system

How may of the above did a Canon APS-C body have at that time?

maxpayne said:

By contrast, it has taken Nikon over a year to break 12 MP in APS-C sensors.

Click to expand...

Huh? I could also say that for a company that's been leading the ISO game for a decade in digital photography, Canon still doesn't have an answer for the D3/D3s. It's been what, two years already? And when will Canon give it's users a full frame sports camera?

maxpayne said:

maxpayne said:

Trust me, when D400 or whatever that's coming out after the D300, it will rock the Canon forums like the D7000 is rocking it now (and even if it's not a D7 competitor get that?) and just like the D300 did for a long time when it came out first.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

maxpayne said:

OK fanboy...

Wasn't the topic innovation? How long did it take Nikon to get in lens sonic focusing motors? Image stabilization? 35mm digital sensors? Decent high ISO performance? Equivalents to Canon's L super telephotos? Broadcast quality HD video?

They've narrowed the gap, but for most of the past two decades Canon has clobbered them on innovative technology. And Canon still has a broader lens library.

Nikon has some of their own innovations. And they clearly make excellent equipment. But Canon has been one of the most innovative companies in small format photography for the past two decades. Anyone claiming otherwise, especially on the basis of one body release in one market segment, is simply clueless.

Click to expand...

Chill out, will you? I think you misread my post

I very well know Canon's background as an innovative camera/lens manufacturer (USM/CMOS/IS etc. to name a few). My original post had noting to do with Canon's innovation, it was a response to D7000 and D7 being compared.

Cheers,
T

Click to expand...

--
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/26158506@N07/

Actually, to break into the market, it just needs to write a doc converter that works. People aren't locked in to word processors at all....

People don't need to be locked into cameras either. If I've learned anything from the Canon/Nikon battle, the lesson is -- as a hobbiest -- don't buy two much of any one manufacturer's gear. They'll both screw you.

If I were a pro, I'd certainly keep my eyes open for better technologies too. Your most expensive resource is your time, and if a manufacturer comes out with a better tool than you're using -- even if it's a competing manufacturer -- it may make sense for your own productivity to switch. For instance, if Nikon comes out with a better high ISO camera, it might make more sense to switch, even if it costs several thousands of dollars, rather than to spend hours and hours dealing with noise with the camera you're using.

You should get it out of your head that the difference between cameras at this level will make any difference in your photography (but maybe your ego). They are all so good that any competent photographer can get the same results with either system. Don't fool yourself into thinking changing systems for a few bells and whistles will improve your skill and end result because it won't. Spend the money instead on classes or workshops and not to serve the marketing departments and bottom line at Canon and Nikon.

Bob

Stakeouttoo said:

Lisa O said:

If you haven't bought a new body since 2006 you are behind the curve.
What do you want the camera to do that todays' don't?
The Nikon D7000 is it's answer to the 7D about 10 months behind in release.
--

Click to expand...

gotta compare apples to apples... Canon 60d was trumped.. make that blasted by Nikon d7000... the 7d came a long time after d300 and d300s .. same class.. that's the only way to compare them

Canon has not been the leaser or innovator in recent years... Nikon has been ... and I've always been with Canon... that may soon change...

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron

n/t