Canon & Nikon v.s. The Rest of the World

[MusicDoctorDJ]

Let's look at the current Nikon DSLR line: D3 and D3x for pros and
wealthy amateurs. D700 and D300, both class leading upper mid-range
cameras in FF and DX format. D90 and D60, two great entry level to
advanced level bodies. Now let's look at the current Pentax line:
K-20, a single mid-range camera, K-M and K-200, two entry level
bodies. No pro bodies and no full-frame.

It's not luck that Nikon are leading the pack, the reason is, they
simply have the much better line of products than those companies who
are trailing behind.

OK . . . it has become increasingly obvious that you are a Nikon fanperson . . .

Funny how you have to thump your chest to keep making your point.

But that is OK . . .

Thing with being #1 is that there is always someone gunning for you . . .

Not to mention that the bigger you are . . . the harder you fall!

Just like GM, Ford and Chrysler . . . when you are #1, it isn't easy to stay there.

I don't think that Nikon or Canon will always hold that top spot . . .

Mainly because they both seem to be trailing behind all the other makers in ideas . . .

All they seem to be able to come up with is a bigger sensor and more megapixels!

That is cool right now . . . but in the future camera buyers will want much more than that!

--
J. D.
Colorful Colorado



Remember . . . always keep your receipt, the box, and everything that came in it!

 

[neil holmes]

It's not luck that Nikon are leading the pack, the reason is, they
simply have the much better line of products than those companies who
are trailing behind.
--

BIGGER range of cameras, yes sure. Better? depends on what you want.

neil

 

[Fred Ferkel]

You insult me for no apparent reason and can't come up with a single mistake in my post but instead ramble on about failed US carmakers. You definitely need help. mister.

 

[Richard]

That Canon has sat back on their laurals and produce garbage like the 5d2 50d and yes even the 40d (though I would not call it garbage) Nikon was so far behind in IQ and lenses (and in lenses is still somewhat to a degree). It has now caught up in these areas as more lenses appear and as far as feature and AF has blown Canon out of the water. Maybe this was Canons strategic ploy to see if it could make money on outdated technology in the camera and ride the sensor bus for a few more years.

I think Canon was UNLUCKY when it produce the still not fixed AF in the MK3 and then the black dots of the 5d2 as well as adding video instead of a good AF module. But don't worry, Canon will try to rise again to the top, I would guess, hopefullly the will start watching QC better and test cameras better as the demands and expectations of pros increases (Well the mk4 would only need to focus as good as the MK2 and better than the Nikon)

I think there is always and element of luck. Both companies could produce the best cameras but one could be adopted by Pros because they liked a particular feature or perfomance in one area over another. Styling luck has been in play in car manufacturers over styling or popularity, which is a luck.

Let's look at the current Nikon DSLR line: D3 and D3x for pros and
wealthy amateurs. D700 and D300, both class leading upper mid-range
cameras in FF and DX format. D90 and D60, two great entry level to
advanced level bodies. Now let's look at the current Pentax line:
K-20, a single mid-range camera, K-M and K-200, two entry level
bodies. No pro bodies and no full-frame.

It's not luck that Nikon are leading the pack, the reason is, they
simply have the much better line of products than those companies who
are trailing behind.
--

 

[Fred Ferkel]

Objectively, e.g. the D3 or the D700 are better than any camera from Pentax or Olympus and probably Sony too. Sure, if you take pictures of inanimate objects in bright daylight, the differences are not that relevant but in regard to hi-speed and precise AF, hi-ISO performance and ergonomics, the Nikons are most definitely "better".

 

[neil holmes]

Objectively, e.g. the D3 or the D700 are better than any camera from
Pentax or Olympus and probably Sony too. Sure, if you take pictures
of inanimate objects in bright daylight, the differences are not that
relevant but in regard to hi-speed and precise AF, hi-ISO performance
and ergonomics, the Nikons are most definitely "better".
--

Yes, those pro grade ff ones (at pro grade prices are better (though not for everyone)...unless you want to shoot stabilized primes under 100mm etc).

But then Pentax is not in the market for those cameras at the moment...in the market that they DO compete....better will depend on a individuals wants and needs and what you want to spend.

I will take my entry level camera and useable iso 3200 and stabilization over any entry level Nikon any day....especially for low light high iso. If i wanted to machine gun sports, then Nikon or Canon WOULD be a "better" choice for me...I do not so it is not.

Is a ferrari better than a truck?

neil

 

[K1000Photographer]

Let's look at the current Nikon DSLR line: D3 and D3x for pros and
wealthy amateurs. D700 and D300, both class leading upper mid-range
cameras in FF and DX format. D90 and D60, two great entry level to
advanced level bodies. Now let's look at the current Pentax line:
K-20, a single mid-range camera, K-M and K-200, two entry level
bodies. No pro bodies and no full-frame.

It's not luck that Nikon are leading the pack, the reason is, they
simply have the much better line of products than those companies who
are trailing behind.

OK . . . it has become increasingly obvious that you are a Nikon
fanperson . . .

Funny how you have to thump your chest to keep making your point.

But that is OK . . .

Thing with being #1 is that there is always someone gunning for you .
. .

Not to mention that the bigger you are . . . the harder you fall!

Just like GM, Ford and Chrysler . . . when you are #1, it isn't easy
to stay there.

I don't think that Nikon or Canon will always hold that top spot . . .

Mainly because they both seem to be trailing behind all the other
makers in ideas . . .

All they seem to be able to come up with is a bigger sensor and more
megapixels!

That is cool right now . . . but in the future camera buyers will
want much more than that!

--

I agree but you will be flamed for it.

 

[K1000Photographer]

Objectively, e.g. the D3 or the D700 are better than any camera from
Pentax or Olympus and probably Sony too. Sure, if you take pictures
of inanimate objects in bright daylight, the differences are not that
relevant but in regard to hi-speed and precise AF, hi-ISO performance
and ergonomics, the Nikons are most definitely "better".
--

Yes, those pro grade ff ones (at pro grade prices are better (though
not for everyone)...unless you want to shoot stabilized primes under
100mm etc).

But then Pentax is not in the market for those cameras at the
moment...in the market that they DO compete....better will depend on
a individuals wants and needs and what you want to spend.

I will take my entry level camera and useable iso 3200 and
stabilization over any entry level Nikon any day....especially for
low light high iso. If i wanted to machine gun sports, then Nikon
or Canon WOULD be a "better" choice for me...I do not so it is not.

Is a ferrari better than a truck?

neil

The real markets are entry to mid level. The need for fast frame rates and BIG zooms is not that great.

A couple years ago, I could not say it. Now, Pentax looks to have a better non-pro system out there. Yes, they do not have FF or the huge sports zooms. Again, that is not the market.

 

[bobn2]

That Canon has sat back on their laurals and produce garbage like the
5d2 50d and yes even the 40d (though I would not call it garbage)

Why would you call the 5DII and the 50D garbage? They are both very capable cameras. The 5DII probably gives more bang for the buck in terms of IQ over the whole range of ISO's than any camera available today. That's hardly garbage. The 50D renders more detail than any other APS-C camera. Hardly garbage either. OK, both have some early life issues, but that also applies to Nikons.

I think Canon was UNLUCKY when it produce the still not fixed AF in
the MK3 and then the black dots of the 5d2 as well as adding video
instead of a good AF module. But don't worry, Canon will try to rise
again to the top, I would guess, hopefullly the will start watching
QC better and test cameras better as the demands and expectations of
pros increases (Well the mk4 would only need to focus as good as the
MK2 and better than the Nikon)

You misunderstand what QC is. What both these cameras have suffered from is design faults, which is not an issue of QC, it is a matter of fixing the design. The common problem in development is you can't test for faults you don't know are there, thus faults can make it through to production, so long as the product meets the development specs (which are the things people did know to test for). QC tests production line units against a specification. If that specification now includes 'no black dots' then this might fix the problem, but if it results in Canon rejecting the majority of units, it will be an expensive fix.

I think there is always and element of luck. Both companies could
produce the best cameras but one could be adopted by Pros because
they liked a particular feature or perfomance in one area over
another. Styling luck has been in play in car manufacturers over
styling or popularity, which is a luck.

If you think car styling has much to do with luck, you don't know much about the car industry, the style of a car probably receives more market input, market testing and development investment than any other 'feature' of a car.

--
Bob

 

[jk]

sounds like classic aspergers

Here I am, getting on in the evening, read your post under "Next
new". I instinctively knew it was a Joseph Wisniewski post. Go up to
the top, and there's your name.

All to ask one thing. Where did you get that great historical
technical knowledge of photography? It makes many of your posts
highly interesting to read, but more than that, your depth of
knowledge is amazing.

Hi Don...

It's a combination of having a really good memory, a genius level IQ,
and intense curiosity, bordering on dangerous (most every kid plays
with rockets, not every kid builds them 7 foot tall, carrying 10
pounds of liquid fuel).

I was reading science books at a young age, art books, and
photography books. And charging right out to apply what I read. How
many 8 year olds know how to solder? My parents used to take us to
the library once a week, I would often sign out my limit in books.
While I was there, I caught up with Scientific American, Omni, All
the "Popular" titles (Electronics, Photography, and Science), Modern
Electronics, Modern Photography, Outdoor Photography, Amateur
Photography, National Geographic, 73, and QST.

Photography was something I read about more than practiced at the
time, because shooting was expensive on a kid's budget in the early
70s. Scrimped and saved a lot for film. Discarded cameras were free,
if you could fix them

Got a lot of help from a neighborhood photographer. A mentor is
something to be thankful for.

Electronics was easier, there were always radios at the curb, a bit
of skill desoldering, and we had a near unlimited supply of
resistors, capacitors, transistors, diodes, etc.

My father had a complete collection of Popular Science and Popular
Mechanics going back to the 50s, and a near complete run of National
Geographic back to the 20s. And I read every single one of them.

I read science fiction, and then went digging through physics books
to find out what was plausible, what was flat out impossible, and
what was worth speculating about.

On the other hand, I do have a bit of trouble with focus, and tend to
flit from project to project. I should have more finished books,
instead of multiple works in progress, so many incomplete designs,
etc.

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving
grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

--
beam me up scotty

im giving it all shes got captain

 

[RedFox88]

Interesting to note that most of the recent innovation that benefits
still photography is not coming from the big two. In body IS,
effective dust removal, live view, and now a high definition EVF, are
all being pioneered by the little guys. I suppose video record could
be counted as Nikon first put that out, but it would not have been
possible without live view.

Typical that an olympus user claiming that liveview, dust shedding sensor filters (which are still marginally useful at best) and EVF were significant innovations that others could not do.

Liveview was inevitable since it's how P&S cameras operate, and Canon and nikon had also been developing dust repellant sensors for several years on their own. And most people that buy an SLR do so because of its optical viewfinder. Holding a camera at arm's length is not always a great or practice thing to do. Plus they are nearly useless in bright sunlight unlike optical viewfinders. Plus there's the refresh rate issue with an EVF like the G1. The eye has a very high "fps" rate unlike electronic viewfinders. EVF's also eat up battery power.

I'll take an optical viewfinder anyday over an electronic one, thank you!

 

[K1000Photographer]

EVF's have a way to go but built in stabilization rocks. That is something that N and C do not offer. To be honest. N&C make good machine gun sports shooters but for the lowly non-pro, Oly and Pentax are IMHO doing a better job.

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

In the mid 80's Nikon stumbled, and lost much of the market it
dominated. Canon came out with the first reliable autofocus system,
and Nikon was slow to react. Their first effort, the F3AF, was at
best a sluggish performer

Nikon did not "react" to Canon.

1980 - Pentax ME-F (all AF components in lens, camera just steered it)
1983 - Nikon F3AF
1985 - Minolta Maxxum 7000
1985 - Canon T80, AF via contacts on FD "Breech lock"
1986 - Nikon F501/N2020
1986 - Olympus OM-77/OM-707
1987 - Pentax SF-X
1987 - Canon EOS

(I have one, it's an interesting
curiosity). That propelled Canon into the forefront, especially with
sports and action photography.

Yes. Canon managed to refine faster than Nikon.

Up until then, Canon had been a bit of
a wannabe, known mostly for its AE-1, which introduced aperture
priority, and it's pro level F1 which had not sold well.

Pentax and Minolta followed suit with AF,

Minolta launched Maxxum in 1985, two years earlier than the 1987 Canon EOS. You have a strange definition of "followed suit".

Pentax launched the SFX auto focus system the same month as Canon launched the EOS.

Olympus decided to exit the
film photography market, and let the OM line die.

Nikon eventually
got its AF house in order, but by that time Canon had developed some
excellent telephotos.

Agreed.

So here we are today.Lately, Canon seems to have stumbled a bit with
the flaky AF on the last 1D,

I think what did it for Canon was D2H (and F6) actually beating 1D II and EOS 1V in AF shootouts.

plus 5DII getting a less than glowing
reception - perhaps dimmed by black spots.

It's doing surprisingly well, despite the black spots.

Don't see that knocking
them down any time soon, they will recover. Too much of their
corporate identity is tied up with photography.

Definitely.

Interesting to note that most of the recent innovation that benefits
still photography is not coming from the big two. In body IS,

That came from Minolta, and a whole lot of good it did them. It may not have been from the "big two", but that particular innovation sure didn't keep its inventors from going belly up.

How much of an "innovation" is that? They moved the stabilization platform from the lens to the body. Not really that much of a deal. On one hand, it works with any lens. On the other hand (testing side by side, with rigorous methodology, cameras instrumented with multiple axis accelerometers, multiple lenses, multiple test subjects) the in body systems do not work as well as the lens based systems. And they don't stabilize the viewfinder, or the AF systems.

Nikon and Canon did what they had to do. They created their systems back before digital. Canon had lens based stabilization over a decade PD. Canon and Nikon have not yet said "OK, we haven't built any new film SLR bodies in a year or two, the distribution channel is almost empty, film is dead". Until they do, they're pretty much looking at lens based.

Now, if you want to understand a business plan, have a look at the Oly 50-200mm f2.8-3.5 design, there's a weird optical compromise, a "protected" area near the back where there are no lens elements that is inappropriate for a 50-200mm zoom. It makes the lens bulkier than it needs to be, and (in my opinion anyway) decreases optical quality. It's like a sign that says "insert lens based stabilizer here".

So, it appears that Oly was geared up for lens based stabilization, and the body based system was a last minute decision.

effective dust removal, live view,

First launching on the Canon 20Da "astrophotography" camera. Oly refined it, theirs was much more useful than the first Canon system. Full time operation, tilt and swivel screen, etc.

But the innovation came from one of the "big two".

and now a high definition EVF,

Minolta did the high resolution, field sequential EVF back when they were one of the "big guys", with P&S share higher than Nikon.

Nikon gave D3 and D300 the first VGA 640x480 liveview, when everything to that point had been QVGA 320x240.

are
all being pioneered by the little guys.
I suppose video record could
be counted as Nikon first put that out, but it would not have been
possible without live view.

Yup. Movie from one of the big two, followed weeks later by the other, all possible with liveview that also came from the big two.

The big two have a lot of money. From Nikon came the:

Single OEM integrated DSLR, the D1
"designed for digital" near telecentric lens, the 17-35mm f2.8
Nanoparticle anti-reflection coatings in lenses
Contrast detection AF in liveview
Movie mode

From Canon came:
CMOS sensor DSLR, D30
Reduced backfocus (lens protrudes closer to sensor) APS DSLR
First commercially viable full frame DSLR
Liveview

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[Joele]

I disagree it is not just MP and bigger sensors..

I used Olympus and Pentax up until very recently and switched over to Nikon. I am not a fan of any brand, I buy what suits me and care little about 'converting' from one brand to another (or owning multiple brands)...

The advantages against both Oly and Pentax to me have nothing to do with more MP.. The k20d has more MP than the D90 and my Oly e-3 wasn't far enough behind to bother me. But to me the images produced are far less noisy with the D90, and better dynamic range (esp highlights).. That has nothing to do with more MP, thats better pixels ;-)

Not to mention that I do actually find useful

• contrast AF in LV mode (for difficult angles)
• much faster and more accurate AF than Pentax (oly with their SWM lenses were better also)
• More consistent metering, both with and without flash (though especially with flash)
• Better remote flash control
• video has actually come in handy
• Better lens range than Olympus

Disadvantages

• Their wide prime lineup needs updating
• Tilt Swivel LCD would be good ;-)

------------
Joel - Nikon D90
My Gallery: http://www.eisner.id.au

 

[Joele]

--
------------
Joel - Nikon D90
My Gallery: http://www.eisner.id.au

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

sounds like classic aspergers

Actually, I'm atypical.

I have more areas of interest than a typical Asper. (photography, painting, engraving, glass blowing, flute playing, electronics, computer science, paint ball, singing (especially karaoke), physics, native American culture, writing). I tend to be much broader in my outlook on all of these than most Aspers, and a bit less obsessive about them.

I have a tendency to not finish things that is also quite atypical, and most annoying.

My verbal communications (speech, written, and interpretation of speech and writing) on the other hand, is totally classic Asperger's.

I either have decent empathy, or have managed a simulation so good I fool even myself. That is very atypical, and moderately dangerous. People don't like you "reading their minds".

I have a great deal of difficulty with virtually any sport involving catching, throwing, hitting, etc. any form of ball or puck, but I can handle firearms at marksman levels, and can outmaneuver, outshoot, and outwit darn near anyone on a paintball field. Which scares the willies out of me, because I really am uncomfortable with the concept of being some sort of "killing machine".

I have certain things going for me. High intelligence isn't necessarily a characteristic of either Asperger's or any other autism spectrum disorder ("Rain Man" type characters are actually quite rare). I'm fast enough to actually keep a sort of "loop" of thought going at the back of my mind, pretty much any waking hour, that reminds me to watch for and suppress repetitive motions (otherwise, I nod annoyingly) and to pay more attention to visual cues in people I'm talking to face to face, as well as not obsessively organizing everything around me.

And I was lucky enough to have parents that let me be "odd".

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

First, a lot of kids into model railroading were soldering. The
early computer hackers were kids who had learned electrical on their
and club model railroad layouts.

Well, some of them, anyway. And I can see the whole concept of railroad "switching" leading into computation.

I purchase books at a "thrift" store on Vancouver Island, it has a
very decent photography section, usually older books but still very
usable information. I don't think I've paid more than $5 for books,
usually around $2.50. Most of the books are older and I find I can
pick up the history of photographic development by reading these
older books, sometimes text books.

Definitely.

I used to acquire enormous quantities of older text books at the annual book sale at the public library. The sales ran Friday evening, Saturday all day, Sunday all day. Last two hours on Sunday, they had "dollar a bag", the goal being not to have to clean up any books. I was good enough at memorizing which books I wanted to go back and grab that I could come out of there with 10 bags, 150+ decent books.

I an reading one now; it went through 6 editions from 1945 to 1973;
it was an amateur photography textbook, but I have a feeling it was
used in many photo schools at the time.

Aaron Sussman?

You can learn all kinds of
historical wonderful things from these older tomes.

Definitely.

For example, did you know the evolution of lens coatings. Older
lenses had the habit of turning yellow with age. Many thought this
meant they were toast and threw them out. A minority discovered that
when the lens turned yellow, they worked better than the same lens
when it was newer. For some reason, the yellowness of the lens
transmitted light better than a non-yellow lens.

I can see that coming in handy for B&W, a permanent haze killing filter blocking UV and visible violet. The results were probably greatly increased sharpness.

The first lenses to
be coated only had one coat on but still brightened up the lens
significantly mimicking the yellow coating on the older lenses.

I remember reading about carefully dipping lenses in soap solution to get just the right thickness of soap film to act as a single layer AR filter.

So hit those thrift stores and look for their photography section.

Always have, always will.

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.

Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.

Ciao! Joseph

http://www.swissarmyfork.com

 

[Richard]

You misunderstand what QC is. What both these cameras have suffered
from is design faults, which is not an issue of QC, it is a matter of
fixing the design.

Well that is debatable. A design flaw would suggest that all the cameras have the same flaw. But many Canon users do not have the AF or the Black dot issue. So I guess I am not sure. If all of them had the problem then it would be a design flaw. But if only a select people have the problem then it is QC.

I understand what QC is. I guess I am not sure if these problems are design flaws, in which case Nikon is farther ahead than Canon because they don't have these types of major flaws (at least non that I have come across) or they are QC

 

[hwalker]

I think Panasonic was the first one to have the contrast detection AF with the L10. Panasonic's first foray into the DSLR market was an interesting adventure, and produced two very quirky products that had people scratching their heads as the cameras were sufficiently good DSLRs with some nice features for beginners, but priced way too high for the target market, and definitely did not have enough oomph to compete with middle-class DSLRs

Contrast detection AF in liveview

 

[Kermi]

Are we only counting DSLRs here? I'm not entirely sure about the dates, but didn't Sony do thet contrast detect AF on LV APS-C sensor first with the R1?