Has Nikon lost it?

Apparently the D2H was a missed opportunity to catch up with Canon, wasn't

it? Just as it ships, the double-res 1DII is announced and Nikon isn't even

shipping its second wave of prosumer DSLRs (D70) while Canon sold

countless (10Ds and drebels) of its second wave. We're even hearing

something about 10D discontinuation. In an era where DSLRs seduce more

and more people who never owned Nikon or Canons (I'm talking about

Minolta & co + MF users who are converting), do you think Nikon lags behind

bad?

Nikon = dead.

I hope not. Without competition the consumer will suffer.

The Canon slr came out a month or so before the Nikon F; it wasnt until the 1972 Olympics that Canon got a good hold with working pros..

What's your point, Kelly?

<i>Apparently the D2H was a missed opportunity to catch up with Canon, wasn't it? </i>

<p>

Things aren't as simple as you think. Judging from pics in your portfolio you still got much to learn, young Jedi.

<i>Things aren't as simple as you think. Judging from pics in your portfolio you still got much to learn, young Jedi.</i><p>

 

I don't see what the pictures in his portfolio have anything to do with the Nikon/Canon battle.

 

I DO think Nikon is in a dicey predicament, but their D70 at it's price has been pretty good effort toward dampening the 300D blow. Whether they've something else up their sleeve or have started on a complete re-drawing of their board is anyone's guess. I think a lot depends on Canon's introductions this year.

 

But this is a Canon forum. Try the Nikon one. :P

I thought this was the Digital Cameras Forum. I haven't noticed any brand bias here at all. Seems to me there are several brands of digital camera.

When my time comes to pass over into the other side and meet the old man on the hill to get all those questions answered that I have been saving up, like, "How does a automatic transmission work?", and "Who really shot JFK?", one of the questions I am going to ask is, "Why do so many people care if Canon starts selling a new model a couple of months ahead of Nikon?"

Robert- Could you also ask the Old Man about the meaning of life, and the war in Iraq? As to the original question, the D70 is light-years ahead of the Drebel, and the D100 has many features lacking in the 10D. The Canon D1II costs a whopping 50 percent more than the Nikon D2H, and it doesn't have wireless capability -- although Canon says that they can implement it by the end of the year. So the Canon cameras are the ones that appear to lag behind seriously, in terms of their capabilities. The higher resolution is good, but is it worth the cost? In the end, the D1II may be a very nice camera, but at $4500 a pop, it won't do any good for many of us...

Yuriy Vilin, shove that young Jedi crap where it belongs, pal. My portfolio

serves right now as a host for a to-rent add and may I point to you that only

imbeciles have tendencies of drawing conclusions very fast. I consider myself

well above average in photographic talent and techniques. Photo.net isn't my

life. If I chose to show, I'll show. Until then, get back on my topic, create your

own or shut up.

"In an era where DSLRs seduce more and more people who never owned Nikon or Canons (I'm talking about Minolta & co + MF users who are converting), do you think Nikon lags behind bad?"

 

 

 

No, I plan on using one of my two F5 bodies into 2007 (unless something mechanical is offered as an improvement.) The object of shooting some of the time is to make a bit of income: shooting digital is good for the income of Canon or Nikon. Current business is fine with film, the income of my photo busines is steady. At least for Nikon, I can use the old or the new glass. Canon's improvement (EOS) left a lot of FD glass available for good paperweight material....

Then according to your example Nikon certainly lags behind because your

two F5 bodies have, I suppose, already been bought and right now it doesn't

matter to Nikon what you're using. I'm talking about active market, not Nikon

vs. Canon existent users pool.

Guys, I'm talking about salesmen who bring on the counter side by side the

Elan7 and the N80 in front of a clueless consumer who has never been a fan

of Canon or Nikon, frequent scene in any shop. The same salesmen used to

repeat the same scene countless times with a D60 and D100. Replace those

two with whatever is current and I'm just asking your take on this one: I feel

globally Nikon lags behind. That's all.

The Nikon versus Canon debate is over 1/2 a century old. It is like arguing about GM verus Ford pickup trucks; which is the better truck for hauling a farmers manure; or better for a street show truck for a Yuppy who wants to look cool.<BR><BR>Canon/Nikon.... When one company pulls ahead; the other adds the same features; and sometimes does a better job. What is the "better" deal varies with time; having many players causes the camera makers to improve ones options. Nikon has made optical items since World War 1; and has made alot of custom glass for industries; graphics arts; copiers; microfilm cameras; microscopes; gun sights; enlarging lenses. Canon chose the Nikon lens makers lenses and used them in their cameras in the 1930's and 1940's. Canon at one time was a camera body maker; and Nikon a lens maker. After World War 2; Nikon made a 35mm camera; and Canon started to make their own lenses. In industrial applications; the Nikon F bayonet is used; because it is the same since 1959. Canon has been thru 3 mounts since then; if you count the Canon R verus FD variation that occured about. <BR><BR>The lower end Canon DSLR's have surged ahead of Nikon. Will the question of has Canon lost it be asked in a five years?

<i>Yuriy Vilin, shove that young Jedi crap where it belongs, pal</i>.

<p>

I'm not your pal. I am a part of photo.net community that serves to help other hobbyists regardless of their age, nationality, gender, color of skin, habits and mating rituals. People say "thanks" here when they get an advice (just so you know). Same applies to you as it is clear you don't really understand things you're talking about.

<p>

<i>My portfolio serves right now as a host for a to-rent...</i>

<p>

Again, if you did know, photo.net portfolio is intended for non-commercial use only.

<p>

<i>I consider myself well above average in photographic talent and techniques.</I>

<p>

Sorry, I haven't noticed.

<p>

<i>Photo.net isn't my life.</i>

<p>

Then you're wasting your time here.

<p>

<i>get back on my topic...</i>

<p>

i did, if this is what you meant with your grammar.

My level of english grammar is absolutely excellent for someone whose

mother tongue isn't English and who never took an academic course, at any

level, in English.

Kelly it has nothing to do with the Nikon vs. Canon debate. That's exactly my

point. The debate is perfectly valid in 35mm... I see dramatic changes in

DSLR which change everything.

Kelly, you're talking about a totally differnt thing. I am perfectly aware that

Nikon vs. Canon is about which one is better just like GM and Ford, but I don't

care about which one is better.

 

The starting axiom is this; Canon DSRL line as a whole is richer. The ensuing

question is strctly a marketing perception topic. Just in case you don't realize

it's possible... one can compare Nikon and Canon in other terms than which

one is better.

 

Font use in logo, employee benefits, all can be discussed... you don't have to

jump to try to stop a Canon vs. Nikon debate by saying it's over 50 yrs old. I'm

talking strictly about DSLRs, should I repeat?

Why the Canon vs. Nikon debate sucks? Because both took great care in

building their 35mm line to have bodies and lenses which are very

comparable one to another and for anything you buy in one line there is often

a perfectly valid suggestion of replacement from the other brand. We've been

there, it's a sterile debate.

 

This DOESN'T work anymore in DSLR. My perception here is that Canon is

way ahead and Nikon lost track. If this wounds your Nikon heart, I don't care, it

might be because you misunderstood me... My question is all about

marketing. I'll even agree that Canon, which is way ahead produces nothing

but crap and Nikon, which lags behind makes the best bodies on the market.

All this doesn't matter to our topic here.

OK guys.

Obviously most of you are barely able to discuss something else than digital

technicalities in a digital forum. Sorry for the inconvenience, I'll take that on a

wired.com forum.

The main thing that keeps me in the Nikon camp is Fuji. I use Nikon lenses on a Fuji body. If it weren't for that I would have converted, and may still do so at some point depending on Fuji's future product offerings.

Nikon needs to get on track because it ends up effecting Canon prices. I think Canon can continue to charge a premium for the 1Ds and 1D MKII because there simply aren't any viable, competitive alternatives out there for working pros. I was really hoping that the 1D MKII would have been south of $4000, but all hopes of that were dashed when Nikon followed up Canon's two year old 4mp, 8fps camera with...a 4mp, 8fps camera. Canon reportedly plans on a production output of 4,000 MKII's per month-- and they'll probably be able to sell every single one at full retail for at least the entire year. As long as there isn't anything to challenge the 1Ds and 1D MKII, Canon will be able to charge top dollar for these products. Bummer.

 

On the low end, it looks like Nikon is finally going to be competitive. The 10D was, for a long time, at least a couple hundred dollars less expensive than the D100-- even though the 10D had twice the buffer capacity, a metal body, high speed flash sync, wireless flash capability, a PC sync, real mirror lock up, a CMOS sensor, etc. The 300D spent the holiday shopping season unchallenged, selling something like 70,000 units since its introduction in October-- and picking up droves of new Canon users. But the D70 looks like this is going to be the shot in the arm for both Canon and Nikon. One only wonders what Canon will do to respond. I think Nikon needs the D70 to survive (at the expense of killing off their own D100), and Canon users need the D70 to keep Canon from getting overconfident with their success. Given Canon's size and resources, it's doubtfull that they'll take too long to answer-- which hopefully will mean a cheaper, better 10D replacement.

My perception here is that Canon is way ahead and Nikon lost track - Macman

 

I'm a Nikon user; always have been. While I somewhat agree with the first part of your statement that Canon is ahead in the DSLR world, I don't agree with the second half -- that Nikon has lost track.

 

I think the Nikon offerings fill specific market segments nicely:

 

Newbie Market Segment - D70: in fact, from what I've seen on the specs, newbies are getting A LOT for their money.

 

Advanced Amateur Segment - D100, though in its current configuration, with the advent of the D70, will likely be upgraded soon to a D200(?)

 

PJ/Sports Pro Segment - D2H: all about speed. For this segment 4MP is sufficient in order to keep the price at $3k'; an 8MP body would have jacked up the price to $5k(?)

 

"Large Enlargement Needed" Segment - D1X, which is showing its age, so my guess is that this will be upgraded soon as well to a D2X(?)

 

Add to that the Fuji and Kodak DSLR's.

 

Given the above, it seems Nikon is addressing market needs, so I'm not sure how it's lost its track. As far as my perception goes, it's on target.

 

Granted, Nikon's product dev lifecycle could use some improvement, but it's probably not fair to compare product dev lifecycles with Canon, since Canon is a much larger company and has a lot more resources at its disposal.

 

KL

From your responses to other posters (the flamed one aside) it sounds like you have already made up your mind. If so (and I mean this sincerely--not trying to provoke you) why ask?

 

I think the comments on development history, btw, are very pertinent. If I were a new user looking to buy into a camera system (digital or otherwise) I would take a look carefully at how my investment in that system--especially lenses--would last over the years. Canon's decision to drop their old lens line in favor of a new one might have put them in a better initial position for the autofocus 35mm and the DSLR race, but you might ask someone who had thousands of dollars invested in their manual focus lenses how that affected them.

 

I wouldn't count Nikon as dead--I sincerely doubt that Canon is thinking that!