Best ads for newer Nikon digital cameras

http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/1967

 

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-8740-9068-9537

 

Having a number of sports shooting pro friends who have D3's and a few lower models I am interested in their experience

with the cameras. Some have switched to Nikon from Canon after having problems with the 1DMkIII Canon bodies. A few

switched becaue their papers did so. One switched after doing a direct comparison of the two in the field, same focal length

400 f/2.8 lenses.

 

The main benefit so far seems to be High ISO image quality. They all say Nikon is the clear winner.

Then we have the Auto Focus problems some (not nearly all) had with the Canon 1DMkIII. In reading about the problems

and talking with a few who had experienced it I wonder if it isn't that the Canon AF capability isn't picking up the moving and

pumping hands of the runners coming into the lens rather than focusing on the body? Might explain the twitchy front focus

they seem to have. Has anyone checked this?

 

Anyhow, every news and sports photographer I know who has compared the latest Nikon offerings with Canon has been

impressed with the quality of the photos. High ISO combined with a camera designed for solid photojournalism use has the

D3 a big winner.

 

In looking at Robert Hanashiros sportsshooter.com website I find it interesting he switched from Canon to Nikon. He was a

Canon shooter for some time.

 

I was shooting Nikons for years mainly because Canon and the old F1's were not going to produce a 600 f/4 lens and I

really needed that focal length and speed for my news/sports/wildlife work. Then AF/digital came around and Nikon fell way

behind. Canon came out with the big and fast glass. Took Nikon 4+ years to come out with it. That(my opinion from

observation and talking with other news shooters) is the main reason so many white lenses showed up on sidelines for so

long. Nikon just did not have the glass and 4+ years of no AF big lenses lost money in lost sales. The guy next to you on the

ski slope is nailing 32-34 out of 36 exposures sharp with white AF lenses and you are getting 20-24 sharp of the skiiers

bending the poles and taking tumbles. That translates to money lost and the switch was on for many of us.

 

Now Nikon has finally quit playing catch up and has actually taken the lead. A big part is (only my opinion) the 1DMkIII and

Canons failure to come out and say "We have a problem and we will make good on it". Instead they sat on their hands and

did nothing, gave no money back and replaced few cameras. They let people switch and apparently figured few would do so.

 

A lot have done so and Canon has lost their lustre. Yes they will come up with a 'better' camera to replace the flawed

1DMkIII but they have lost a lot of news shooters to Nikon by dragging their feet. Just as Nikon lost so many by taking

almost 10 years to come up with a top photojournalism camera.

 

Now Nikon has the clear lead in this catagory. Maybe not in the ultimate pixel count but surely in the ultimate photojournalists

working tool catagory. Canon can't just play catch up, they will have to come out with something visibly better or keep losing

photographers to the black lens crowd.

 

The first link at the top is the best "Ad" for Nikon I have seen yet. A user article on what it was that pushed him back across

the great divide. The proof is on the sidelines. For some years now dominated by white lenses as Canon had the lead and

Nikon sat on their corporate duffs apparently not understanding the needs of photographers. "Be Patient" doesn't cut it

when you lose sales because you do not have the tools to compete. Now it is Canon playing catch up, all thanks to a flawed

camera and Nikon introducing one more solid Photojournalism tool.

 

It took time but Nikon got it right.

http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/bestseatinthehouse/2008/09/26/to_boldly_go_where_no_camera_h.html

 

Missed putting this link in. If you want to see what the Nikon hoopla is really about you can take a look at the High ISO image quality by Rod Mar of the Seattle Times newspaper. For sports, perfororformance and other low light shooters this is amazing capability that can only increase your workflow and quality.

I shoot sports professionally and have seen exactly one person switch over the last year. It's not like it's something that sports shooters get up and think about despite what camera buffs think here. The camera is one of the things I think about least as long as the photos are selling, there are much more important things to worry about. The "what camera" thing appears mostly with online forums among people who don't shoot professionally and pick out one or two articles to make a big deal about.

There were lot of pictures of photographers at the recent Olympics. It looked like it was about 50/50 for Nikon vs Canon. Just a year ago those kinds of pictures were 90/10 in favor of Canon. Interesting but in the end it doesn't really matter to me what camera you use.

What about high speed video camera still shots? For sport, is it not better to film the whole lot and take the frames you want? For shots that make the front pages, quality is usually not so important as timing.

 

Ian

Ian, that would be fine if all you need is a 1280 pixel wide image, which is the format most HD video cameras shoot in these days. For any usage more than a quarter page, you'd be out of luck of seeing massive pixelization.

Isn't all this just advertising and hearsay - is there any real evidence for all this speculation Al? As for all the "D3 is

the clear winner" etc. etc. I just don't believe it - what about the new 5D mkII for example? What about all those

sports photogs who are not taking shots of American football? I think the full frame Nikon was well overdue, but

Canon photogs with significant investment would have to be pretty dumb to sell up and switch just because Nikon

have finally arrived with a FF (but still lower-than-Canon megapixel) body.

Ian and Dave - I think the convergence of video and stills will probably produce a camera that is popular with news and sports journalists but we're not there yet. Red (the Hollywood cinema guys) have a secret project aiming at this but it's still vaporware.

 

Robin - The 5D is a fine camera, perhaps the best image quality of any 35mm sized camera out there but sports photographers need the faster AF and fps rate of the 1D series or D3/D700/D300 more than they need higher MP.

 

The only evidence I have are pictures from the Beijiang Olympics. Just google "nikon vs canon olympics" and you'll find tons of threads and pictures of a hundred photographers lined up taking pictures. Basically people are counting how many black vs white lenses to judge which brand is more popular. Just 2 years ago those kinds of pictures showed a 90/10 ratio in favor of Canon.

My point about the 5D was not to say it was as suitable as the D3 but a harbinger of the new 1D which one has to surmise will (in theory at least) surpass the D3. Is this not inevitable? My point is that most people know this and they are pretty foolish to change unless they have serious issues.

I know six personally who have made the move and the D300 and D3 are the main reasons for doing so. Four of the six had 1DMkIII's that were problematical and Canon did not address the issue as they expected. They expected that buying pro gear meant Canon would take care of them, not tell them all was well and to wait, and wait some more.

 

A Photojournalists camera the 5DMkII is not. Just not versatile enough for this use. Even if the image quality is tops it won't fill the bill as the D3 beats it in almost every catagory that helps get the image in low light and crappy conditions. Not to mention the D3 is available now.

 

Canon is a disappointment in many ways. As one good friend has told me in our discussions of the gear. "I want a digital EOS 3. Why can't Canon make it?" Nikon has come the closest with the D300 and now the even better whiz/bang D3.

 

Canon has to surpass them in quality, frame rate and autofocus performance to even be in the game now.

 

The percentage of black and white lenses on sidelines is way different than even a year ago at most sporting events. Canon has wasted their four/five year lead by being short sighted.

 

For some of us the cost of switching makes it impossible for some time. We hope Canon will answer Nikon with an honestly competitive camera, not a warmed over 40D with a few bells and whistles. I would much rather have that EOS3 equivalent in digital than a direct hookup to a cheesy photo printer. I would love to pick up two extra frames per second with an add on battery booster. (like the EOS 3 and the D300 both have)

 

For now Nikon is taking Canon shooters from the pack. Even Robert Hanashiro who runs the Sportsshooter.com site switched back. He was a pretty notable Canon photographer for some time.

 

Now Canon is playing catch up. Nikon did it but changed everything with the D300, D700 and D3. No more catch up but a leap forward in quality and features as well as some sweet glass. It appears Nikon is committed to its core market of photojournalists from the days of the Nikon F/F2/3/5 days. They have hit a few home runs lately while Canon has been picked off first while napping.

Heck, I like my Nikons as much as the next fanboy, but let's be realistic. Canon surpassed Nikon with low noise/high ISO performance pretty well a couple of years ago. Those older model Canon dSLRs didn't suddenly get noisier. They're still plenty good enough for most professional use.

 

Now we're talking about nths of a degree, incremental improvement where the advantages of the current Nikon dSLRs would be apparent only in limited situations. An example might be the recent Olympic fencing tournament. Since fencing is traditionally done in an alleyway illuminated by a single candle (or so it would seem from most photos), there's one specific situation where Nikon might currently hold an edge. But most pro and high level school sporting events that would be covered by pro PJs are illuminated well enough that the advantages of the current crop of Nikons won't make much difference.

 

Now, if your passion is photographing live theater or documenting every moment in the progress of your kid's gymnastics activities in venues where the illumination is lousy, sure, you'll appreciate the difference. If you're a wedding photographer, sure, it might matter.

 

But up to ISO 1600, there just ain't enough difference to matter. I don't see why many pros and photojournalists would suddenly ditch their perfectly good Canon gear just to follow the lemmings. These incremental changes mostly lure photographers who are obsessed with equipment rather than making photographs.