Why is Nikon so far behind Canon in technology?

if you really need huge quality and don't want to spring for the hassey, a nice 8x10 camera outfit will run you about a tenth of

the price and blow all the digitals out of the water. Sure they are bulky, slow, inconvenient and an all around pain, but the race

to make a better one has ended, you are guaranteed there won't be a better one announced at the next big gadget show.

The running cost of 10x8 is an expensive one. My 10x8 I still have loads of film and polaroid sitting around, waiting to be

used.

Dont run behind MP aspect. Its just dumb for most of us and really matters with those who go for large prints.

Also keep in mind that Nikon, and Canon for that matter, is not a camera company - it is a lens company. A camera is just a way of getting lenses into the hands of the consumers. Your idea or vision is what matters. The difference between 12 and 21 MP is a nit. You would have to compare very large prints very closly in order to see the difference. Resolution is a combination of the size of the print and the distance from which you are viewing the print. You wouldn't stand three inches away from a bill board sized print to view it. If you did, you would notice all of the little dots that make up the print. When you stand far enough away from the bill board, you can resolve the image and guess what - you don't see the dots any more. Camera resolution as stated before on this thread and in many others on this site, is a suckers game. Worry about getting good glass but most of all, work on the ideas you have in your head and experiences behind the lens - and of course light, composition and content :) .

It doesn't really matter. Megapixels may matter to photographers, they don't much matter to clients. And your clients most likely don't have a clue to if you shoot with Nikon or Canon -- they just want pictures that make them look good. In fact, I doubt many clients have a need for anything bigger than a 16x20 .. and for you wedding shooters, come on now, what size print goes into the wedding album?

 

When it comes to the business of photography, the talent of the photographer always trumps the technology of camera manufacturers .. always. While all this talk about camera tech is good and interesting ... we all come to the point of realization that megapixels and a lot of name-brands high tech gear in the bag .. can't make a photographer profitable, successful, or even an artist ..

 

If I had stock in a camera company, yes, I'd be concerned with who in the lead and how they are strategically structured to sell their product .. other than that, it really doens't matter.

 

I think a lot of readers are easily confused with charts, numbers, and marketing information; and equally confused as to seeing any real differences between competing cameras .. the differences between one brand and another is extremenly small .. and when it comes to pro gear, it takes more research than reading marketing literature and concluding that a high price is the sure way to quality. No magic algorithim, or high tech gear is going to make you a good photographer.

 

Just remember that camera manufactures have to keep you interested .. they have to create in your mind a doubt that their competitor's camera is lacking, and that their product is better at the price they have set. This is precisely why digital cameras are introduced so frequently; and why there is a contemptuous attitude perpetrated on those who find film satisfying .. these things simply come into conflict with the camera manufacturer's profit-paradigm .. and photographers who have invested heavily to the point where they believe their own bias, yes, a commercial photographer has to sell his talent and knowledge ... just remember this simple truth .. image quality is more a product of talent than equipment.

 

In the quest for achieving better image quality, be careful of megapixels, technology, and brand name .. because in the final analysis you can produce good images with virtually any camera old or new, film or digital .. how you get there is up to you.

I have been lead once to pay close to 2000 dollars for a digital camera, and I will not do it again. The thing depreciated

about 75% of its value within a year. The fact of life is that the digital technology of both Canon and Nikon is far from

reaching the quality of film. Think of film as of the asymptotic value for digital, digital has a way to go... IMHO a little 200

dollar digital camera is all one needs, to take vacation or kids shots. For the photos to last keep the film, or even better

large format...

Thanks Rade, that makes 2 votes for large format! And David, as far as the cost of digital vs large format is concerned, i

know the general opinion is that digital photos are "free" once you have the equipment, however i just filled up another hard

drive and am looking at spending a couple hundred bucks for my third. It does add up. I am faced now with not shooting

digital until a couple more paychecks come in, yet i have several full boxes of sheet film ready and willing to be shot. It's all

relative, and it all adds up.

The megapixle count is not a absolute measurement of technological advancement by any means. There are a lot more to sensor technology than that.

 

As of today, the Canon 1Ds Mark 3 is the only camera Canon makes that has more MP than the Nikons. In fact a few Nikons actually have more MPs than their Canon counterparts: D3 vs. 1D Mark 3 and D300 vs. 40D. More importantly, a difference of 2 MP is very much minimal.

We're living in sad times, if megapixels are all photographers think about.

Not available for a while yet but the Nikon D3x will have 24.4 MPs , not that one will ever need it. The real problem I have with any digital camera is that as soon as you buy it there is something else that comes along. Makes one wish that more instead of less businesses would handle film. Then I would go back to shooting 6x7.

there's a rumour of canon working on a 50MP sensor. kodak just came out with one like that for the hasselblad h3d II

Yea Vojislav, and in fact, I read someplace that the opening of the shutter causes light to smack the sensor, and over time, it starts to desensitize the photo sites. Therefore, it's best to keep the shutter closed at all times. Got to preserve the photo-sites! Keep the camer like new!

"Sony is about twice as large as Canon by sales, but Canon is a better-run company and makes substantially more profit. The products in question are a small portion of either company's business and there's really nothing that can be said about any "economies of scale" or "budget" based on the relative size of the two companies."

 

Sony is much bigger than Canon, and can easily out research and out produce Canon if they put the effort into it. They have Zeiss making them lenses that are better than Canon L glass and they will likely soon have better sensors. If Sony puts a serious effort into DSLRs, they will win. We will see if they make the effort. I am not going to buy a Sony camera anytime soon, but big fish often eat little fish, and Canon is not the biggest fish any more.

It's not all about company size. You need the right people. Zeiss has only made a few lenses for the Sony DSLR system, many more Zeiss lenses exist for the Nikon mount, for example.

 

I don't see Sony becoming a major player in DSLRs. The autofocus system should be all ultrasonic based, to begin with. Without that, they won't be attractive for many serious users. Nikon also has weaknesses in this area, but at least they're compatible with manual focus lenses and have a huge 2nd hand supply of lenses.