D700 vs. New Competition = $ Drop

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by george_paulides, Sep 17, 2008.

  1. With recent announcements from Sony (A900) and Canon (5D MKII), it seems that we can expect the price of the
    D700 to drop quickly. Both the new Sony and Canon are 20+ megapixel models at roughly the same price points as
    the D700:

    Sony A900 body (24.6 MP) @ $US2999.95,
    Canon 5D MKII body (21.1 MP) @ $US2699.99,
    Nikon D700 body (12.1 MP) @ $US2999.95

    Nikon will have to move on price to counter "the Jones" - after all the more megapixels, the merrier we are!
  2. after all the more megapixels, the merrier we are- I'm not, but all HDD suppliers are and computer suppliers too....
  3. The D700 can be expected to have superior high ISO performance, and the AF system is superb. Pixels ain't everything. In fact, for me, I'll take high ISO performance any day unless I'm choosing a studio camera.
  4. Of course that means that if you want that Sony or that Canon then you'll also need Sony and Canon lenses too don't forget.
  5. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Not all of us evaluate DSLRs solely based on counting the number of pixels they have.

    For example, the 5D Mark II once again has Canon's 2nd-tier AF system similar to that in the 40D and 50D; it can also only reach 3.9 frames/sec., while the D700 has Nikon's best AF system and can shoot 8 frames/sec with the MB-D10 grip. Just like the D3, the D700 is a true sports DSLR that can meet a lot of demanding shooting conditions that should be compared to the 1D Mark III, which still costs $4000 at 10MP.

    We have reached the point that it is unclear having more pixels will do more harm than good. Low-light performance is one issue and you need really good lenses and technique to fully use 20+MP on 24x36mm.

    But generally speaking, there will continue to be downward pressure on prices as competition heats up.
  6. gy


    My idea is Nikon has been too conservative with the resolution in D700.. Still 12mp since the D2 !! Canon delivered 16mp and 21mp choices years ago. If Nikon could have made the D700 at least 16mp then still it would compete against the Canon in terms of value.

    Sure the price will drop for D700 ( probably around 2500 ). I also expect to see huge price drops for 1DSMIII.

    For landscape, wedding and studio/fashion shooters, 5DMII seems to be the best option in terms of specifications at the moment.

    High mp, good noise performance and compact body. I bet it will be even better option than the 1DsMIII as its going to have better high ISO performance with same resolution and much much more affordable.. If I hadn't invested in Nikon system, I would have been considering the 5DMII.. It seems it is a camera that can be hold on to for many years.
  7. Do you and Shun have some inside info in the 5D Mk II?
  8. "I also expect to see huge price drops for 1DSMIII. "

    I doubt it. Horses for courses.
  9. gy


    me ?
  10. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Elliot, Canon officially announced the 5D Mark II overnight. It is all public information now:


  11. Don't forget about the lens resolving power. There aren't a whole lot of lenses that can out-resolve the sensor on a D300 or D3. So,
    adding more pixels doesn't actually lead to more useable image detail. If they (Nikon) want to move into medium format turf, then a
    camera with D3 pixel density and more sensor area would do much better. Of course, that would require lenses that could cover the
  12. "My idea is Nikon has been too conservative with the resolution in D700.. Still 12mp since the D2 !! Canon delivered 16mp and 21mp choices years ago. If Nikon could have made the D700 at least 16mp then still it would compete against the Canon in terms of value. "
    Not in my view. The 5D2 and the D700 do not compete for the same kind of user, I would say. If one does not know if he need 8fps, clean 6400 iso, pro af and excellent weather sealing or better 21 mp and video... he should really think to what he shoots at. On the Canon camp, people is complaining that Canon has been too conservative in not upgrading the af, the build, the sealing, the fps, the slow shutter... it is a 2500$ camera, you cannot have everything, you should choose a compromise, and both makers did.<p> As a result the 5D2 is unmatched in the Nikon camp as much as the D700 is unmatched in the Canon catalog. And I would bet they will stay like this. Since long time, either brand avoids to build the camera the other one does: this increases sales for both. <p> Of course, if you want 20 MP and you have Nikon, you are not going to be happy for now.<p> L.
  13. I'll only add one thing: wait and see how the new Canon performs in high ISOs. At the moment, we all know perfectly well by now
    just how amazing the D3/D700 performance is (personally, I own a D700, so I know first-hand) at 6400 with practically no noise - the
    Canon is still an unknown quantity. If indeed it can compete, then we'll see. Of course, the far superior AF system of the Nikons and
    the amazing body design/sealing, the fps and all the other smaller - but equally important - differences still make it a winner in my
    humble opinion. And seriously...HDD video???? I mean...why???? ;-)
  14. 'And seriously...HDD video???? I mean...why???? ;-)"

    Because many people want it and it makes sense. I can definitely use it for some of my clients.
  15. The ergonomics, viewfinder, speed, autofocus, and high ISO image quality of the D700 are amazing. The 5D Mk II
    ups on the pixel count and adds video, which are useful for many users but what was done to reliability,
    ergonomics, autofocus, and operational speed of the camera? Are these less important than the number of pixels?

    I prefer Nikon's priorities. I can crop my people shots from the D700 and still get amazing print quality, as the
    lenses cleanly render the relatively large pixels of the camera. The ergonomics of the camera are truly first class.

    What concerns me is how many people will choose the 5D Mk II based on pixel count only, and not buy high end
    lenses for it, effectively obtaining large files with not that much good info. I suspect there will be many.

    For a landscape photographer the 5D Mk II seems like a fantastic camera. For my people photography the FX Nikons
    are wonderful, and most architectural, macro, and landscape work 12 MP is adequate and practical. I love the
    liberty in ISO choice, the clean and saturated files, the great autofocus system, the fact that it never makes me
    wait. I will eventually get a high res FX camera, but am in no rush, since I know the returns will be mostly
    limited to the center of the frame, the data processing burden will increase, and in 2-3 years computers will be
    much better equipped to handle the larger files. As it is now, my postprocessing burden is huge.

    I tend to use very large apertures a lot of the time and in these situations the lens is the more limiting factor
    in image quality even with the best lenses. The 12 MP sensors are just perfect for this kind of work IMO. As one
    stops down to f/5.6 or f/8, uses a tripod, and prints at 13x19 or so, significant returns would be obtained by
    using a higher resolution camera, but really I enjoy the current equipment so much that I am just amused about
    the fuss that the Canon and Sony 20+MP models are creating. Like this was really important. For me, the jump from
    DX to FX is a great advantage and increasing the pixel count from 12 MP to 20MP without increasing sensor size is
    just minor tweaking. (Having tested the DX crop against DX cameras, I know what is to be gained in the center of
    the frame.) I know that the cropping potential will improve but again, I already have what I need 99% of the time.

    I have reviewed the new image samples from the Canon and Sony high res cameras and the studio pics show
    impressive fine detail. I am not prejudiced against this kind of approach (I wouldn't be collecting the glass I
    have if I weren't ultimately taking future sensors into account) - I just don't care. It will take me years to
    actually take advantage of the huge potential of the current 12 MP models and get used to their quality.
  16. gy


    "The ergonomics, viewfinder, speed, autofocus, and high ISO image quality of the D700 are amazing. The 5D Mk II
    ups on the pixel count and adds video, which are useful for many users but what was done to reliability,
    ergonomics, autofocus, and operational speed of the camera? Are these less important than the number of pixels? "

    Ergonomics of Nikon could be better for you but not for the other. That is totally subjective. I dont see much
    advantage regarding the viewfinder as well. In fact MKII covers more area than D700 ( %98 vs 95 ),
    autofocus&speed will be more than enough for what this camera is targeted for ( its not aimed for high speed
    sports shooter ), and if they did extend the ISO range to 25600, then I would guess that they achieved the
    similar high iso performance of D700/D3.

    Talking about weather seals and reliability?? MKII's weather seals is no less than D700.. look at other sites for
    the spec's. I have D300 and my top LCD is already filled up with dust just from casual usage ( no dusty
    environment ) and I know many people having excess dust building up under the LCD's of D300.. and I have seen
    5D's used in very harsh environments without problems. MKII is even better build. I don't see any advantage one
    to other here.

    and yes, I would also like to have the HDD video. Cause thats where the trend is going for presentation of
    stories specially for the news and documentary sites. Sound + video + pictures. Multimedia is becoming the new
    way of story telling. Nikon will add this feature to its pro models as well.

    For me, the only advantage D700 has is the better AF, higher shooting rate and to be able to control speedlights
    out of the box. ohh, and most important ( for me ) the feel of the Nikon design in hand which is why I choose
    Nikon over Canon.
  17. You should definitely buy a 5D II, Gokce. It goes to '11', just like in Spinal Tap.
  18. having been a canon shooter that bought a d700 to play with while i waited to see what a mark IV 1D looks like or this new 5D I would like just one person to show me one of the supposed "clean 6400 iso" shots i keep hearing about...cause I don't see it.
    Even at 1600 there is plenty of noise in the blacks.
    shooting with 24-70 2.8 for those that want to know...
  19. gy


    Robert, my native language is not EN so sorry but I did not get "It goes to '11', just like in Spinal Tap."

    But no, I wont be buying the 5DMII :) .. I had all Canon's when used film but always wanted a Nikon. And I am happy with what I have now.

    Joseph, you should definitely service your D700 ;)
  20. Just because the nominal maximum ISO is the same on the 5D Mk II doesn't guarantee that the quality is the same.

    I have not been able to get anything under the skin of my Nikons, not dust or water. I hear stories of the mirror
    coming off in original 5D's in normal use, which is why I am concerned about its build quality. Have we any
    confirmation that the mirror assembly has been made more rugged in the 5D Mk II?

    Even if the camera is not targeted for sports, there will be people buying it and using it for that application,
    since the 5D Mk II is smaller and more affordable than a 1 series body.

    I will be excited to use DSLRs for video as well. However it is possible I may skip the first generation and wait
    for fully manual exposure control. The lack of it in both Nikon and Canon models suggests that they added the
    video to their cameras as an afterthought. It seems likely that the live view function is hard coded into their
    image processing chips and that's why the exposure control is limited for the time being (live view is auto
    exposure). Hopefully it will be resolved soon.
  21. Joseph, even ISO 1000 images have visible noise in the shadows (in 100% view on the screen) on the FX Nikons. But
    if you expose correctly in camera, the results can look gorgeous up to ISO 3200. The camera is less tolerant at
    ISO 6400, it's sort of the edge of what is acceptable, again it's mandatory to nail the exposure and not to
    expect miracles. I don't shoot color at ISO 6400, but have obtained extremely good results at ISO 3200, when
    printed. I don't pixel peep my high ISO shots, I make prints. ;-)
  22. "Even if the camera is not targeted for sports, there will be people buying it and using it for that application, since the
    5D Mk II is smaller and more affordable than a 1 series body."

    Even at 3.9fps? I thought the sports photographers wanted speed. Also there is still the shutter lag thing.
    Supposedly it is not fixed on the new 5D. It is by far one of the most annoying features of my 5D.
    When I shoot with my D300, I get both speed and zero shutter lag.
  23. My idea is Nikon has been too conservative with the resolution in D700.. Still 12mp since the D2 !! Canon delivered 16mp and 21mp choices years ago. If Nikon could have made the D700 at least 16mp then still it would compete against the Canon in terms of value

    I agree wholeheartedly! Nikon is trying to slow down the speeding train but they will actually lose market share. I have used nikon cameras for 35mm work exclusively for years, but the new Canon 5D mk II might make me switch. I am one of those guys that does need higher and higher megapixels at a cheaper price. I am anxiously awaiting the day when I can actually start using a digital 35mm camera for fine art work as well as for client shoots. There are rumors floating around that Nikon might introduce a 24.4 MP body soon...I have a feeling it won't be anywhere near the same price point of Canon's 21 MP body though.
  24. The "goes to 11 just like Spinal Tap" is a reference to a "Mockumentary" - Fake Documentary - That Rob Reiner directed in the 1980's about a fictious band named "Spinal Tap".

    Spinal Tap had all of their amplifiers and guitars rewired so that instead of the volume going from the typical 1-10, they would go from 1 - 11, since "11" obviously is louder and better than 10!.

    Spinal Tap aside, Nikon will need to assess the impact to sales of the D700 from the 5DMII and make a decision based on that as to whether or a price drop makes sense. My guess is that Canon shooters for the most part will still be Canon shooters and Nikon shooters will still be Nikon shooters at the end of the day.

  25. Andrew, which lenses are you going to use on 24 MP? You might find that getting glass that can match a 24 MP 24x36
    camera could turn out to be far more expensive than the camera itself, and that money might better results if invested
    elsewhere. Of course, there is the odd 50/1.8 to prove the exception. Still, I don't understand why "fine art" work
    specifically would require high MP in a small sensor, unless you're talking about landscapes which isn't a small format activity to begin

    People make the assumption that higher MP <=> better. I have a hypothesis: the likelihood of a such a person having
    actually used an FX Nikon is infinitesimal. :)

    Nikon isn't trying to slow down a speeding train. They're being practical and produce equipment that produces high image
    quality without bloated files. In point and shoot cameras, dynamic range and file cleanness are atrociously poor because
    the manufacturers cram too many pixels in a tiny sensor. I for one don't want to see the image quality of DSLRs ruined
    in a similar pursuit.
  26. Prices will drop, period - I paid ukp 1950 and it can now be bougth nearly 20% cheaper. But... did you look at the images on the Canon web-site. The CA is terrible - if that is what doubling the resolution gives on an FX sensor then I can pass please. I get no CA fro the D700 and it is a joy.

  27. Robert Budding and David Haas.... Perhaps it's not the Canon 5D Mk II, but the Canon 5D Mk Eleven!
  28. Wow. For the kind of photography I shoot, if I had the money, I'd be snapping up a 5D-II no question.

    if I shot more sports and action and was more concerned about high ISO performance, I'm sure the D700 would be better.

    But, as much as I like Nikon, I suspect Canon has hit a home run with this camera. Nikon will want to develop a D900 to
    compete, and Canon will probably be developing something like a D700, too.

    Competition. Everybody wins!
  29. The manufacturers have been clever enough to make their sub-$3000 full-frame models slightly different, making a direct comparison difficult. Add on top of that the differences in lenses and the flash system and it's not so obvious which one to pick.

    I've never owned an EOS 5D and wouldn't, since the viewfinder just wasn't up to my standards. The new version will surely fix the processing power issues with the old one, but fixing the viewfinder is another matter. Just played with a D700 in a store with Zeiss lenses: in a word "smooth". Haven't had that focusing feeling in a long time on a 35 mm system. Nikon must be doing something right.

    As for resolution, I'm holding out for future 24 mpix FX cameras but I know that there will be plenty of times when such resolution is not needed. Honestly I'd much rather take a 20+ megapixel medium format back. The lenses and technique will be an issue; my current D300 is brutal in showing weaknesses in some lenses and 24 mpix FX is not going to make the situation better.
  30. Megapixels Shmegapixels! I'd take a D700 for $2999 over a 5D MkII any day of the week! I predict the D3x will be introduced soon anyway with 24mp for all those pixel peepers out there. My D300 is humming right along for me, and will for the next 5 years or more.
  31. mjt


    Nikon doesn't need to worry about Canon.<br /><br />

    Nikon, and Canon, and Sony, and etal, should worry about RED and their DSLR, er, DSMC<br />
    http://www.reduser.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=47<br /><br />

    The fanfare started here: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=18710
  32. You only have to look at the bottom right hand corner of the image David Tolcher provided a link to, to see the weakness in the "more mega pixels is better" argument. I can't see many critical landscapers being satisfied with that: I certainly wouldn't. While the new Canon may be an excellent camera, the lens is frequently likely to be the weak link in the chain. In all likelihood, only the best lenses may be up to the job, with obvious cost implications. My personal view, have used DX and now FX Nikons extensively, is that Nikon's current FX camera bodies will work well with a considerable part of the company's lens legacy and that the 12MP sensor is a well judged choice for a wide range of applications. It certainly has a nice synergy with the lenses I use and I value critical sharpness right across the image. There's also the file storage issue to consider, as others have already mentioned.

    While I wouldn't use my D700 for critical landscape work when my 5x4 is a convenient choice, I wouldn't hesitate to use it when its greater portability is advantageous. It's the first digital camera I've used that produces a tonality that really rings true for me and I absolutely love it - it will take a really exceptional camera to tempt me to upgrade for some time to come.
  33. In my case, and for most others I suspect, it depends which system you have invested in - I see no reason to move
    away from Nikon. I am happy with my kit.

    For manufacturers it is all about how a new model and its feature set will be perceived relative to the competition
    based on a price point. Certain features have appeal more so than others to individuals. Unfortunately when it comes
    to cameras the first point of comparison is "megapixels" count. As for computers, it is "processor clock speed".
    However we would not be all so swallow, would we?
  34. I think the high ISO performance of the new Canon will tell the tale. Obviously Canon has a built in pool of buyers that have been hanging on for an upgraded 5D, but Canon needs more than that to regain their momentum, I think.

    Interesting thought about lenses now becomming the weak link as resolution goes up. That may be the real limiting factor on sales since the impact on affordability would be huge! I now mostly have $1,000 lenses. Would I have to start buying $1,600 lenses to keep up? Maybe.

    Kent in SD
  35. Back to the original post - yes, I think we will see a drop in the prices of both the D700 and D300, and possible the D3 due to the releases of the A900, the Canon 5DII and the Canon 50D. I do not expect to see the prices drop until all these competitors are readily available in the stores - which should be for the Holiday Season.

    With due respect (and I do mean with due respect; I have great admiration for the work I have seen on photo.net) to all you Pros, Sports Photographers, and Critical Landscape photographers, sales to you is not what will determine the price point; there simply are not enough of you. The vast majority of sales of D700 and D300 will to to the amateurs - not necessarily entry level amateurs but D60, D70, D80 users (and their Canon and Sony equivalents) looking to "move up". Then there will be people like me who have been shooting good film cameras (I use a F100) looking to move into digital.

    Do mega-pixels count? Yes, to an extent. So does price; probably to a greater extent. Nikon will have a difficult time maintaining the D300 price of $1600 when the new Canon 50D, with 15 mega-pixels, is priced at $1400. Nikon will have a difficult time maintaining the price of the D700 at its current level with the A900 at the same price level and the 5DII a few hundred dollars less. Unless, of course, the picture quality of both the Sony and Canons are atrocious.

    As for weather sealing, I, and most people I know, do not take cameras out in horrid weather. Heck, I do not take myself out in horrid weather; my Mom taught me to come in out of the rain. <BIG GRIN> If I do get caught in the rain, I have "all hazards" insurance on my photographic equipment. As for the number of autofocus points, my F100 has only 5 but works quite well - for me. My point is not that some of you do not need weather sealing or many focus point; it is that the majority of D700 and D300 users do not. It is this majority of potential users that will determine the price point.

    What I do not understand is why people are so upset and adamant. The more competition the better - for the buyers (now if you own Nikon, or Canon, or Sony stock, I can understand your concern). I would love to buy a D300 at about $1300(US) or a D700 for about $2100. If the price drops to those points, I might even do it. <grin>
  36. I suppose people who will be buying the 5DMkII are those who already own 5D or other Canon DSLRs and the same
    goes with D700.
    I don't think many first-time buyers (who are not brand orientated yet) will choose either 5DMkII or D700, so I
    think the real battle is still around the D300 or D90 range of cameras, which I personally think Nikon is still
    winning as of this moment.

    But nonetheless I love it that we have 2 camera giants battling each other, products are getting cheaper and
    better at faster rate. Do you think I can expect D700 to drop to $2,000 by Christmas 2009? :)
  37. Hi Albert,

    By Christmas 2009, I expect a D700 replacement. The only question is will Sony sell Nikon the sensors. Sensor availability is a Canon advantage - Canon designs and manufacturers their own sensors. Nikon must rely on third parties for their sensors. If Sony decides not to sell the 21/24 mega-pixel sensor ... Nikon is in trouble.

    However, with price drops and/or rebates, I do expect a significant drop in the prices of both the D300 and D700 by Christmas 2008, if Sony and Canon can deliver a significant number of their new products by that time. It all comes down to market share.

    You are probably correct; the majority of D700, 50DII, and A900 purchasers will already own a DSLR, but it will be a DX sensor size DSLR. Many will own DX only lenses. For these buyers, moving into the FX market is starting over (I realize that the D700 can use DX lenses, but how many users will want to pay almost $3000 for a 5 mega-pixel camera, which is what the D700 degrades to with a DX lens).

    It is three camera giants - Nikon, Canon, and Sony - battling for the FX sensor space and two for the high end DX space. The two are related; price drops in the D700 effect the price of the D300.
  38. The D700 price at B&H "in cart" has dropped by $100.
  39. Brooks, if they have replacement for D700, that's even better, then I can be certain that I can get a bargain price for D700, haha.. But I am not really sure how Sony will fare against Nikon and Canon though.
  40. "If Sony decides not to sell the 21/24 mega-pixel sensor ... Nikon is in trouble. "
    That's what makes me think about Nikon's future. Sony can probably bring Nikon to its knees.
  41. Dpreview lists the pixel density for cameras as a way to compare the size of pixels jammed into the camera.

    The Nikon D300 has a density 3.3mp per cm/2
    Canon 5DII is 2.4mp per cm/2
    Nikon D700 is 1.4mp per cm/2

    All things being equal the 5DII should perform at least a good as the D300 in high iso noise but more noisy than the d700. Considering the D300 is very good Canon may be good enough for many users in available light.

    And for me the extra resolution at low iso will be good for landscapes and nature details.
  42. Hi Albert,

    "But I am not really sure how Sony will fare against Nikon and Canon though."

    Let us see. Sony has deep pockets - they are involved in everything from electronics - TV sets, Walkman, PlayStation, auto electronics - to the entertainment industry - movies, TV shows, and music - to cameras - they bought Minolta, have a relationship with Zeiss, and make the sensors that they and Nikon use, including the ones in the D300, D3, and D700. They have a long history of making camcorders. Some suggest the future lies in integrating the HD camcorder with the DSLR. The have an extensive R&D and manufacturing capability. Worry more about how Nikon and even Canon will do against Sony.
  43. Dpreview lists the pixel density for cameras as a way to compare the size of pixels jammed into the camera.

    The Nikon D300 has a density 3.3mp per cm/2 Canon 5DII is 2.4mp per cm/2 Nikon D700 is 1.4mp per cm/2

    So noise at high iso should at least be equal to the D300 which is very good.

    Canon lenses seem cheaper than Nikon lenses and most have AFS, the Camera and lenses being cheaper will make buying a complete kit quite a bit cheaper, maybe even about the same as getting a D300.
  44. I've been wondering about that for a year or so, Brooks.
    Nikon is small compared with Canon which in turn is small compared with Sony.

    If Sony gets serious.....
  45. my guess is that there won't be a price drop, but probably a rebate in the spring on D700s...

    was quite surprised at two things with the new 5D -

    * the price
    * the video thing

    megapixels just don't register with me anymore.
  46. To David, no! Spinal Tap is real!!!

    I believe a lower pixel count "full frame"(That's an other discussion) sensor can deliver better quality. as they start
    jamming more and more pixels on the same area. you loose the reason people choose a large sensor camera: big
    pixels, better colors,...
    at first people wanted as much as possible pixels, right after, the awareness of pixel size grew, but now many are
    looking again for as much pixels as possible...<br>...so the Nikon might be worth his price...
  47. jbm


    The most intelligent post in this thread is the post regarding the potential Red "dSLR Killer." This company, more than anything, has the ability to fundamentally change the paradigm of taking and producing still images. Digital capture as it is used in dSLR's changed several paradigms: the capture device and storage device were different, the ability to instantly see the results of pictures and act on that information, or to erase images. But the idea of capturing a "moment" is going to change when a company like Red allows you to pull high quality images off of a full frame sensor that takes away completely the distinction between video and still camera.

    I have a D300 right now which is fine. Full frame dSLR's are totally great...but I am not worrying about upgrading to a full frame machine until I know what the future of still photography is going to be, where the new direction really lies.
  48. Jay, isn't the RED sensor movie full frame 35? That's more or less DX in nikonspeak.
    If you shoot at 24 or 30 fps, producing i.e. 8 MP single frames, how will you handle the terabytes of data that you get? I don't think this is a smart idea at all, unless you have a post-production budget similar to Hollywood movie studios.
  49. "If Sony decides not to sell the 21/24 mega-pixel sensor ... Nikon is in trouble. " That's what makes me think about Nikon's future. Sony can probably bring Nikon to its knees.
    This is amusing. First of all, Sony probably makes more money selling chips to Nikon DSLRs than they do from their own small DSLR business. Second, it's possible that Sony uses Nikon equipment to manufacture those sensors. Third, Nikon can design their chips and have any of a number of chip manufacturers make them. The Sony A900 image quality, from samples given so far, is nothing to brag about.
  50. erik_christensen|3

    erik_christensen|3 Self-employed

    ""If Sony decides not to sell the 21/24 mega-pixel sensor ... Nikon is in trouble. " That's what makes me think about Nikon's future. Sony can probably bring Nikon to its knees.""
    If Sony drops Nikon as a customer, they do not have a sustainable chip production anymore and would be forced to close this business, and then they would have to go to 3rd parties to source chips for their own cameras imho.
    I doubt very much that this will ever be a scenario.
  51. From my point of view, one that has a limited budget and does not want to buy an old piece of machinery, I have to say that while in DX format Nikon is pretty good (nd i am a happy user) in the FX format it is "still not there". To spun a serious interest price of the D700 must be at least the half, still remaining an obsolete piece of hardware.
  52. gy


    I have downloaded both sample images of the 5DMII and D700. There are portrait samples for both of the camera's websites. I opened them in PS and pulled contrast slider all the way right and played with the brightness slider almost all the way to the right and left to experiment. What I see is ( im no expert by the way ) Canon has virtually no noise even when the file is pushed to these extremes and retains its smoothness. Where as you start to see the image getting little noisy and if correct to say kind of muddy for the D700. Im not even comparing D300 which even totally screws up at the base ISO. And remember that the Canon has almost the twice pixel density.
  53. Mauro, why do you not think they're "not there"? There are some omissions in the FX lens line (like a fast modern wide angle; Canon just updated their 24/1.4 and Leica brought out 24/1.4 and 21/1.4, so there's got to be someone interested in these). But the features and image quality in Nikon's FX cameras are definitely "there", in fact they made something of a revolution in how people think about available light work.
  54. bms


    I have downloaded both sample images of the 5DMII and D700
    sorry I may be behind but can you post the links for the images you tested....? Not to second guess but I'd like to see for myself....
  55. Sony would have to be have a significant market share to drop Nikon as a customer. They could just drop them out of spite I suppose and take a hit on the chip manufacturing, but even that couldn't happen instantly (like over a year or 2) otherwise I'm sure nikon could sue them to high heaven.

    So even if Sony's eventual goal is to cut off Nikon, that won't be happening in at least the next 15 years. At which point I will have my Nikon D900xhs with 16mp, flawless ISO 25600 performance and 24 frames per second full resolution capturing...I'll buy a second one in case the first one breaks, and carry on for the next 40 years into my old age... ;)

    In the mean time, it sure will be nice to see the price of FX cameras coming down in the near future :)
  56. gy


    Sure Benjamin,


    ( I have downloaded the second ( bride ) image )

    ( I looked at the last two portraits )
  57. Alright, here are some examples

    d700 - ISO 6400 - No Noise reduction - Production Camera

    50d - ISO 6400 - No Noise reduction - Pre-Production Camera

    Things to concider before judging:

    Pre-production cameras dont offer the same quality so expect better results
    5D will probably be better the 50d for obvious reasons (as in the past)
    Ambient lighting is relevant

    Personal opinion:
    Seems to me like most negative comments are unfounded...stop nitpicking, the quality of prints is what counts. I still think it's more about the user then the camera, If your happy with Canon stay with Canon, If your happy with Nikon stay with Nikon
    You can say... The xxD seems great but I'll stick with My Dxx
    Notice how most PRO PhotoG dont change brands and usually dont complain about competing products on forums
  58. One last thing... according to reviews the Sony A900 isn't a competitor due to too much compromise between Quality/Resolution. Dont expect the d700 to drop that much
  59. jbm



    You are correct about the Red FF camera.

    I don't think shooting this way will be terabytes of information. The idea will be that you can have a running 3-5 second buffer for action shooting and depressing the shutter will bracket the information behind and ahead of the buffer. Then you can immediately hack down to the relevant stills. It's really an amazing concept. The throughput, write rates, and storage for this will quickly become portable, and it will change a lot of what it means to be an action photographer. At any rate, I am going to stop posting on this thread as it is really for those interested in debating the merits of current FF offerings from the big players.


  60. As I posted my thoughts when Nikon released the news of D700 back in June, I believe that Nikon had positioned the price too high, including D3 too. Now the numbers show and I close my case.
  61. In order to do a comparison properly the images really need to be shot in the same light and of the same subject.
    While I think some indication of the quality can be achieved by looking at random samples, it takes thousands of
    images of actual shooting to form an useful real world characterisation of the image quality. BTW the D700 and D3
    pass this test with flying colors.

    If one jumps from one brand to the next based on whoever has the most megapixels, chances are that one won't have
    the lenses to get the best quality out of any system. Getting the right lenses for one of the systems and
    sticking with it is a better use of money than chasing a body from whoever has the latest sensor.

    And by the way, it's even more important to take pictures and work with the art and process of photography
    instead of just theorizing about
    sensor technology based on data sheets. It's the equivalent of sofa sports vs. actually moving your body.
  62. gy


    just ame by while surfing.. here are some comparisons of D700 & 5DMKII and 5DMKII samples from ISO 200 upto ISO 12800..

  63. gy


    just came by while surfing.. here are some comparisons of D700 & 5DMKII and 5DMKII samples from ISO 200 upto ISO

  64. I wonder if the hd video can be sent via wifi to a battery powered hard drive for storage if you have the accessory grip?
  65. "And this debate has gone on this far? Honestly.. basics suggest plainly that the canon tool is superior to the nikon tool."

    The samples above are taken in different lightning in favor of Canon (read the exif) but yet they suggest the opposite, Canon has too much processing which makes the photo look as if it is out of focus with no detail on the eyebrows and no visible eyelashes-Nikon has kept the fine cactus needles and some fur detial, I'd pick Nikon 25,600 any day.
  66. Surely, for many of us, even some of those shooting on a commercial basis the issue of the print plays the most important part. Given that everything from the first 6MP cameras or DSLRs of yesteryear provide superb prints all the way up to A3 sizes, the most important factor above all is the quality of glass and for a few of noise.
    I bet that if you work out the proportions of how many images make the final cut and then are processed and printed, I reckon you will find that current equipment over the past few years of the digital transition will cope more than adequately to this day.
    Let us not forget that the current market and technology is moving quickly and the differences now between camera generations is marginal. Yes, eighteen months time we will no doubt see similar threads on how these "ameliorations" will aid and potentially improve our photography.
    I guess what I'm saying is save those bucks and invest in quality glass, or better still for photograph trips.... unless you are one of those who are lucky enough to plough through the (looks like) oncoming recession and purchase all those lovely new tools.
  67. Prices for these cameras are subjective to every single person. If you are wanting to do landscape, get a medium format camera or
    large format film and scan the film and never complain about quality nor price. If you want to do fashion and commercial, same boat. If
    you want to do weddings and events get a D300, D700 or D3 and never complain about prices or what is better. If you need action sport
    shots, get something designed for that and don't complain. Every camera out there was designed for a purpose. Ever since the D100
    I've wanted a Full Frame camera and when is finally out (D700 and D3) I am not willing to pay 3k or 5k. I expect Nikon to lower the price
    on their cameras to about 1500 for the D300 and $2000 for their D700... but, is just an idea. I never bought any DX lenses because I
    always told myself that they would release a full frame camera and I'm glad I did. I always thought about going with Canon for their 5D
    but I never needed the full frame, I just "wanted it". I have realized, after 5 years that a D700 is the PERFECT camera for me. I do
    commercial work, event work and a few sports and in my market I have never ever needed more than 10mp. Canon offers 20+mp ? Is
    nice to have, specially for big photo prints for fashion but most of the fashion and commercial work I do goes to billboards or magazines
    and I really don't see much difference on a billboard that is 50ft away, I can't distinguish an 8mp DSLR vs a 12mp DSLR, so I doubt I
    would see a difference in a 22mp camera... the future will tell though. I'm in no hurry.
  68. "By Christmas 2009, I expect a D700 replacement. The only question is will Sony sell Nikon the sensors."

    So many silly statements in one thread! As already pointed out, Nikon designs many of it's sensors and simply outsources production. They could have someone else make sensors for them. Perhaps even Canon since their sensor manufacture is most likely not a part of the photo business (if it is, they should reorganize!).

    Canon's photo business is similar in size to Nikon's photo business. That's what matters. People within companies do not all cooperate. They compete with other internal businesses for funds and attention. So it's not uncommon that my competitor in one business is my client in another. And just because a company is large does not mean that it can compete. Look at Detroit! GM used to be huge.
  69. Another thing... Video on a DSLR? no. I will not get a DSLR over another camera for that purpose. It doesn't have
    Genlock, Zebra, SMTPE, Focusing Assistant, TimeCode, XLR inputs, nor other professional essentials for professional
    video... In other words, your video will be sooo amateur looking, so bad that you would make a clown out of you. It may
    be cool to use and nice to have the HD video feature, but... I leave it at that until it offers what I just mentioned.

    I would be more interested in a Video camera that has a high quality 16mp sensor, so I can record an event and get hyper
    high def shots worthy for print.
  70. ISO6400 (JPG Basic) straight from my new D700. Picture Mode: Neutral. All other settings (Contrast, Sharpening, Saturation, Brightness set to default of NEUTRAL MODE).
  71. I will take lesser MP (12.1) than 21MP for the cleaner and smooth pics. I have one sample for ISO400, which is even more cleaner than my D300 at ISO100. The pic posted above is at 6400, and can be printed A4 size, without showing much noise. I am so excited with this new capability of shooting in low light without having to carry my tripod and/or flash. :)
  72. Another sample at ISO400 from my D700. So clean.
  73. "I will take lesser MP (12.1) than 21MP for the cleaner and smooth pics."

    There is so much that goes into image quality besides megapixels (or even pixel density, for that matter) that I will be happy to suspend judgment until I have personally seen what both cameras produce, side by side, with comparable lenses.

    I, too, am impressed with Nikon's high ISO capabilities, and the low noise that one gets with such high ISO. Even so, until I see some serious head-to-head comparisons a la dpreview.com, I don't feel the need to judge prematurely. On certain types of judgment, I definitely proceed a posteriori, after the fact. I am not about to give a judgment at this point--but I will be very interested in what more rigorous comparisons do reveal, since I have absolutely no brand loyalty at this point.

    I could go either way, but I intend to do so on the basis of very hard data, which I doubt that we have right now.

  74. "There is so much that goes into image quality besides megapixels (or even pixel density, for that matter) that I will be happy to suspend judgment until I have personally seen what both cameras produce, side by side, with comparable lenses. "

    You have resonated my point and infact agreed to what I was trying to say. In 5DMKII, I still do not see a pro level AF. Even if it has the AF of 40D, I still think, it is much inferior to Nikon's 3500 AF engine. An auto-iso is another thing, which makes Nikon's new offerings much better than current 5DMKII. In some cases, this feature alone can make the difference between getting a shot or no shot at all. Then there's commander mode, which is missing from Canon line. Weather proofing. The list goes on..... I do not need to wait for head-to-head comparison for commenting on these issues, because they cannot be compared, because they are missing from Canon. What hard data you want to wait on?? High ISO? I am already a big fan of D700's high ISO capabilities. Even if it's a little better in 5DMKII, it still doesn't makeup for other short falls.
  75. gy


    Iā€™m a Nikon user, but not a fanatic and appreciate when I see a camera that has outstanding specs. Canon and Nikon both has advantages to one another.

    5DMKII does have weather sealings and does have an auto-iso feature. What left is yes the D700 may have better AF system which can be maybe extra benefit to only action shooters ( tracking ) IMO. No way I guess landscape, commercial, wedding or fashion shooters will struggle with the AF of 5DMKII. With its price, it is a very good spec'd camera. If MKII did have an pro AF, then they would have put the 1dsM3 sales in danger ( which they already did in my opinion )

    Commender mode is nice but not no no for me.

    If I was pro and was in the field of what 5DMKII was designed for, a better AF for tracking which will be no plus for me and the commender mode wouldnt make me choose the D700 at a higher price..

    Yes its too early to speak of but what I see with the samples posted indicates the sensor is very good considering the high resolution. And thats a good thing for Nikon users as Nikon will try to match or better Canon sensor and we're the ones who will benefit from it.
  76. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    I can't speak for other wedding photographers, but to me, the 5D Mark II has the same problem as the original 5D.
    By putting an AF module designed for a 1.6x crop DSLR onto the full frame, all AF points are very concentrated in
    the center of the frame, which forces the photographer to place the subject very near the center, leading to poor
    compositions. See the AF point layout in this DPReview preview:

    In fact, Nikon's D3 and D700 also have a similar issue. On the
    D300, the Multi-CAM 3500 is great. I wish the 51 AF points would be more spreaded out on the D3 and D700.
    However, since the Nikon FX DSLRs have 51 of them instead of the 9 on the 5D Mark II, the problem is not as

    I'd like to see some head-to-head comparison along with the Sony A900.
  77. The quality and sensitivity of the autofocus sensor also affects wedding shooters, who often have to shoot in
    extremely low light. I've found the Multi-CAM 3500 to be far superior in this respect to Nikon's mid-grade
    autofocus sensor in the D200, which hunts frequently in these kinds of conditions. I don't have data on the 5D's
    autofocus low light sensitivity but typically Nikon's AF sensors have done well in comparisons of low light
    sensitivity. Although for many applications, high end autofocus is not necessary, it is a pleasure to use which
    in turn may keep the photographer in a better mood and result in better pictures in that way. Hunting can be
  78. "No way I guess landscape, commercial, wedding or fashion shooters will struggle with the AF of 5DMKII"

    My point again is, why not to include a good AF system to make it a killer deal. Why not also have a little more FPS to make the camera appeal to all type of audience. I will not like to put my money on a camera, which I can use only for static subjects. A better AF plus few more fps could have created a true competition in the market. After spending so much $$, I would like my camera to be a complete camera which could be used for wedding, landscape and sports as well.

    I am no fanatic either. I had been a Canon user for long 10years, and currently jumped to Nikon, because of their latest superior offerings. Canon do need to work on it's strategy, if they want to be anywhere near top.
  79. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    My point again is, why not to include a good AF system to make it a killer deal.
    If Canon had added better AF to the 5D Mark II, it certainly would have been a killer - a killer that obliterates the 1Ds Mark III. As the way it is, the 5D II is already quite close to the 1Ds III (and may in fact have better high-ISO performance) at about 1/3 of the cost, and the 1Ds III was announced barely a year ago.
    Nikon's D700 is also fairly close to the D3, but the price difference is relatively small.
  80. "5DMKII does have weather sealings"
    To what I have read it has more or less the level of weather sealing the 40D has, which is, again to what I know, close to having none. In general, Canon is not famous for the quality of their weather sealing, even on the 1 series, which is surely far better than this, but is still apparently not as effective as one would have the right to ask.
    If weather protection, build quality and in general performance in harsh environments is very important for you, the 5D2 is likely not the best choice. The point is, the typical user needing 21 MP in a slow camera is rarely shooting in places requiring weather sealing.
    As I said above, having everything would be nice, both in the 5D2 and in the D700. Right now, users need to pick their compromise. As one getting satisfaction out of a D200, I have troubles believing either one would be a bad compromise.
  81. gy


    Luca, just for your information regarding the weather sealing ;

  82. >> "The point is, the typical user needing 21 MP in a slow camera is rarely shooting in places requiring weather sealing."

    Many of the camera's potential users may want to shoot landscape in the middle of nowhere. Chance are the climate and general condition of such places won't be exactly "comfortable" for neither the photographer nor the camera.
  83. all AF points are very concentrated in the center of the frame, which forces the photographer to place the subject very near the center,

    Thats why you need higher MP and then crop and crop on the pics. I see nikon users always said MP don't matter...eventually, they will buy higher MP on a future model. One way or the other. In order to take full advantage of the new Nikon AF system, you have to buy new design VR lenses and new flashes. That means you are investing into a whole new system. one way or the other, you have to upgrade. Sure you can still use older Nikon lenses, how often? IMHO.
  84. Anso Ko:

    I rarely crop my images, my camera is capable of focusin all over the area without any problems, I do not have to
    center my subjects. I do not need more than 12mp, some people may, but like I've said... I cannot see the difference
    on an 8mp vs a 12mp camera on a billboard from 50ft away.

    Also, You do not need VR lenses for the new cameras, you mean AF-S lenses to focus faster? You need new USM
    on canon cameras as well but I should say you don't "need" is just nice to have unless you are doing photojournalism
    and sports.

    "eventually, they will buy higher MP on a future model"

    This is funny... well, all new and future models will have higher MP. Is not a choice, is a given.
  85. Calderon Erick

    I rarely crop my images
    well, it gives you an option to crop in case you need it. Like insurance, in case you have an accident...

    you mean AF-S lenses to focus faster?
    exactly, Nikon lenses are compatible with most Nikon bodies, agreed. However, for ppl needs fast, almost quiet AF, they have to buy new AFS VR lenses with new AF bodies with faster AF system in the camera body. One way or the other, upgrade lenses body and flash.

    This is funny... well, all new and future models will have higher MP. Is not a choice, is a given
    That's exactly my point, higher MP wins. again, its up to the individual to choose what they 'feel' like.
  86. all AF points are very concentrated in the center of the frame, which forces the photographer to place the subject very near the center,
    What a very strange thought. The photographer places the subject where they want in the frame. It has nothing at all to do with autofocus point locations.
  87. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Ilkka, if you shoot something like weddings, there is simply no time to focus and recompose. You want to place your subject right under an AF point so that it is always in focus; wait for the right moment and shoot. That is why it has everything to do with the locations of the AF points.

    On something like the D200 and D90, it is even worse because it has only 1 cross type AF point. Its 10 outside AF points are not reliable under dim light so that you are forced to place your subject dead center in the frame. Unfortunately, the 5D and 5D Mark II have very similar problems; the 5D II has 9 cross-type AF points, but all of them are in the center of the frame.

    BTW, we are getting very off topic here. Clearly, more competition will keep prices down. To me that is always a good thing.

    I'll lock this thread.
  88. Shun, if you want a lock a thread, can you please do it before making controversial and patronising comments?
    I find changing the autofocus point a slow and fiddly operation with great uncertainty associated with how the camera interprets the pad actions. Focus and recompose is certainly faster than that. If the subject is moving, then manual focusing based on the focusing screen is better than continuous autofocus, as you have more compositional liberty. To me fixing the focus point a priori results in too much loss in compositional flexibility and changing it during the action could result in totally lost series of images.
    Please do not assume that there is only one way to make photographs, yours. It's disrespectful.
  89. "the 5D II has 9 cross-type AF points, but all of them are in the center of the frame"

    It actually has only one cross type AF, at the center
  90. "I find changing the autofocus point a slow and fiddly operation with great uncertainty associated with how the camera interprets the pad actions."

    Do you use a D300?
  91. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Ilkka, my comments are neither controversal nor disrespecful. There are indeed many different shooting styles. But the fact of the matter is that Nikon is providing 51 selectable AF points on their top-of-the-line DSLRs and Canon has 45. If you still prefer old-fashioned AF and recompose or even manual focusing, you are entitled to your opinioins, but my experience complately contradicts comments such as "Focus and recompose is certainly faster than that."

    In any case, I was commenting on limitations on certain AF systems. (To me, even Nikon's best Multi-CAM 3500 is far from ideal, especially on FX bodies, but that is another topic.) If you don't even use AF, obviously my comments don't apply to you.
  92. "Luca, just for your information regarding the weather sealing" <p>
    Oh, better then. But if you read the page I linked in the above post, you will find that, in that occasion, a not
    negligible number of 1DsMkII cameras, which were supposed to be extensively sealed and built to last, were not
    able to survive a rain that did not harm any one of the D200 that were there (notice, D200, not D2). According to
    their description, I was surprised that a "light rain" could harm a pro level sealed camera... but this report is
    not the first one I hear. Word of mouth is what it is, of course, but I would really trust a high end Nikon over
    a corresponding Canon when it comes to sealing and general good/sturdy build. And I would bet that I would not be
    in the minority. <p> The old 5D, a $3000 camera then, was infamous for having the reflex mirror falling down...
    incidentally that part seem to have been carried over on the Mk II, or am I wrong? Then again, I might be wrong,
    but the photos in the preview let me think that again, the lens mount is screwed into the plastic mirror box
    assembly which sits inside the magnesium clam, while even on my D200 the lens mount is screwed on the magnesium
    chassis which also supports a largely metallic mirror/shutter assembly. I'm not even sure that wrapping a
    magnesium clam around a basically plastic interior is equivaelnt to having a metallic chassis... but I'm no
    engineer, so I may well be wrong. <p> L.
  93. "If Sony decides not to sell the 21/24 mega-pixel sensor ... Nikon is in trouble. " That's what makes me think about
    Nikon's future. Sony can probably bring Nikon to its knees.

    Overheard recently at a Sony executives meeting:

    COO: "Let's bring Nikon to their knees"

    CEO: "How are we going to do that then?"

    COO: "Well you know how we sell them millions of sensors each year at great profit to us, well let's stop selling

    CEO: "Brilliant idea. Let's drastically reduce our sales of chips and profit margins so that they can go and buy them
    from someone else or even make them themselves! Oh and by the way there's a job going over at Nikon for you.
    That'll be the quickest way to put them out of business!!"
  94. Sorry Ikka for the late but i have been out of the internet for a couple of days.

    On the topic: nikon is still not there in FX format.

    While for the quality I hope that is as good as the other 12 Mpx form canon which has been around for at least 4 years :-D

    But I am not speaking of picture quality (if look around you can have good quality with almost any digital reflex), neither i am speaking of gadges like the autofocus points or such.

    If we llok at the main components sensor and viewfinder we have:

    1) a 12 MPX interfaced at 12 bits.
    2) a viewfinder with a D80 coverage.

    This, in modern times, qualifies it as obsolete even if you can take good pictures.

    It is something like buying a pentium IV for the price of a quadcore cpu. Yes with a pentium IV you can still write god novels, never the less it is obsolete.

    But point 2 is far worse because it is a clear manifesto that nikon still is not able to compete in user driven market.
  95. "1) a 12 MPX interfaced at 12 bits. 2) a viewfinder with a D80 coverage. "
    1) I believe that D700 and D3 are actually fully 14 bit. You might be mixing this up with the D300, which has 12 bit readout and uses a trick to go to 14 bit at expenses of frame rate?
    2) If for D80 coverage yu mean 95%, this holds for D700, but not for D3 which has 100%. the 5D2 has 98% which is precisely in between. Besides, the viewfinder coverage has nothing to do with modern or obsolete. Cameras have had larger or smaller viewfinder coverages since always, on the basis exclusively of the engineering decisions. My old F90 was less than 100%, my F5 was 100%, my D200 is 95%, D2x and D3 are 100% and so on. You may dislike that the D700 has 95% coverage and rightly so, but it is not a matter of obsolescence. If anything less than 100% is obsolete, the 5D2 would be obsolete as well...<p>
    On the other hand, is a 9 af point system with only one cross sensitive obsolete in 2008 because there are cameras with 40 and more? is 4 fps obsolete because there are cameras which do 10fps? and so on... <p> You say "sensor" as a main component, but you seem to mean "megapixel". Canon answered to the people wanting a high MP FX camera. Nikon to the people wanting a high speed FX camera. I'm perfectly sure either one could have taken the opposite route with success. As a result, some people are going to switch brand to the one that better suits their need. This is really all, I suspect. <p>L.
  96. Dear Luca,
    you are right for the bit resolution, it is 14 bit and not 12.

    This does not change almost anything.

    Obsolescence is about the sensor and electronics. This does not mean it is a bad camera. It only means that it is overpriced for where it positions itself in the market. As i said you wont buy a pentium IV for the price of a quadcore cpu unless blinded by marketing hype. And yes resolution (or mpx) is important, it is a measure of the state of the art, again this does not mean it is good or not to have it, we all know that 6mpx can be as good as needed for most of the time.

    I can not understand your consideration about the D3 it is not about the topic we were speaking of the D700 ? I never meant it.

    The viewfinder is not a matter of obsolescence instead it is the signal of how nikon considers a buyer spending 2000 to 3000 EUROS. I cannot really see why they did not give it a serious coverage. It seems to me that i made quite clear that this is one of the reason why i consider nikon still not there and do not tell me that the missing 5% does not matter. It matter even more given the relatively low resolution for the format.
  97. Mauro, I do like 100% viewfinders and miss it in my D200. But you said, "nikon is still not there in FX format". FX is D700 and D3. D3 has 100% viewfinder. D700 has not. Look how different it is on the Canon side! The 1DsMk II has 100% viewfinder. The 5D Mk II has not. Ok, it claims to have a 98% instead than 95%, but is this what you think is a chief sign of "Nikon not being there"? I wonder...<p>
    Yes, MP are important, of course they are. But there are at least two things to consider here.<p>
    First, a given percentage increase in MP does NOT count always the same. 5MP to 10 MP is way more significant PRACTICALLY than 10 to 20 MP. In the latter case, to notice you have these additional pixels you will need an excellent lens, stopped down, possibly on tripod, with perfect focusing. The current examples of 5D2 images show clearly how much taxing such a resolution is for the lens. And, second, to notice you will need to print LARGE. I'm pretty sure that no significant difference exist up to A3. So, the point is not how much more resolution you theoretically have. It is how much more you can consistently expect to have on your final product. The increase from 5 to 10 is detectable within the realm of "normal" prints, and does not push the vast bulk of the lenses beyond their limit, so you may be basically sure that it will always show. The one from 10 to 20 is much more demanding, and much less relevant. It WILL be relevant for somebody, for sure. On the other hand, you pay for it: either in camera features or in price, in storage space, in FPS, in computer power required or in post production time... <p> The idea that more is always better is foolish in my mind. There is always a best compromise among competing needs: I strongly suspect that for the overwhelming majority of the needs 12-15 MP is a way better compromise than 20-24.<p>
    The second thing that I think misleading is the belief that resolution is by any means a measurement of the state of the art. I would indeed define THIS as buying into the marketing hype. In fact, the "megapixe war" has been the driving force of the marketing hype in compact cameras for years, and just one year ago, people were saluting the D3 as "hopefully the end of the silly megapixel war"... A FF 21 MP has a pixel density which is slightly below the one of a 8MP APS sensor such as in the 20D of old. I don't design sensors, so I might be wrong here. But my feeling is that, once you have developed the kind of technology that Canon has applied to the 1DS Mk III /5D2 sensor, it does not take any more skill to apply it to a 21 MP than to a15 or 12 MP, because neither one has a pixel pitch that is by any means unheard of or technologically challenging. Canon produced a remarkable sensor for sure (as the always did), only I don't feel that the megapixel count is what makes it remarkable. <p>
    As I said above: I really believe that Nikon could have made a the 5D2 and Canon the D700, they both had the technology for both cameras, although is undeniable that both did what was more in line with their tradition. You, wanting more MP from Nikon, are in the same boat with the Canon people considering the D700 because of the AF and other things. <p> L.
  98. Canon had to match both Nikon (on ISO front) and Sony (on Megapixel front). So it seems that they had no choice but to increase the MP to keep their market leading position.

    For now, most images we are seeing, haven't really tested 5D MkII, but I suspect most of the ISO advantage that Canon has gotten is from better processing n DIGIC IV, then any real S/N advantage at pixel level.

    Given that the ISO performance of D90 (which beats D300), it seems that Nikon can easily improve D3/D700 ISO performance simply with a new processor.

    In any case, the D700 is around $2750 an Amazon now! Yay!!
  99. Luca,
    i understand and even agree with you. But my considerations are of a different kind.

    In hardware terms the question is that in a camera the cost is made by firmware, optics/mechanics and sensor.
    Firmware and mechanics are easy to consider as constant among different products. Also supposing here a more or
    less equivalent marketing, logistic and research expense. This leaves the sensor as the main difference.

    Plus here we are questioning the price of the nikon D700 from a user perspective that does not want to see the
    paid price drop at the speed of light.

    So the question could be simplified as follows:

    1) would you pay the same price for the new model bmw 2000 and the 4 years old one even if new ? no.
    2) would you pay the same price for a pentium IV and a quadcore cpu (AMD spider for an example) ? no.
    3) would you pay a 12 MPX camera the same price of a 22MPX ? .... i leave this blank ....

    We could argue about the fact that you do not actually need the modern bmw 2000 to go from Milan to Tourin (80
    KM or 45 Miles more or less) but that is an other question and maybe an other debate (maybe we could even agree
    that the train is by far a better choice :).
  100. How about this....... Canon is different then nikon. WOW, what a crazy idea. I have read just about every forum on Canon vs. Nikon, and in the end, canon users will fight for the canon and vice versa. every now and then, someone will point out pros and cons of BOTH. Lets just settle on the fact that they are both equally amazing cameras that neither company had a few months ago. Both aimed at totally differant markets and typs of photographers. Everyone knows that in general canon aims for landscape, portrait, fasion etc.... nikon is more sports, action, low light, photojournalism etc...... pic the one thats good for YOU. May you need to blow up prints to billboard size..... get the canon, or maybe you need that great autofocus and frame rate.....go nikon. Its a totally arbitrary and very PERSONAL decision. I personally wouldnt spend my money on EITHER camera. I have a D300 and D200. I love the ergonomics and they both make my 300 2.8 a 450mm. I wouldnt trade that for anything.... not to mention, if you dont like what a manufacturer has on their product line right now, wait a year and youll get your upgrade......
  101. Mauro, I'm sorry, but I still think there are two major flaws in this reasoning. I will try another time, then we
    will have to agree to differ, for I'm not going to argue this forever. After all I am happy with my D200, and
    cannot afford either model, so there is no much point in dragging this along.<p>

    1) Your reasoning on the mechanics being the same is dubious. The 5D2 uses an old, slow, and fragile
    mirror/shutter group, taken from the old 5D, which was well known to have reliability issues, and has never (to
    my knowledge) been used on any camera faster than 4 fps. The D700 uses a system that reaches 8fps. The shutter
    lag is half than the 5D2. I don't really believe that the two mechanics have the same cost. The build quality is
    most likely superior (expensive), the AF system is way more sophisticated (and not a leftover from 5D production)
    so it is again likely to be a more expensive part. Notice how Canon did not even use the more advanced version of
    the 9 points AF (the one in 40D and 50D) which they had in house... I wonder why? The meter system is also a lot
    more sophisticated in the D700, and most likely again more expensive. And again, Canon kept their best meter for
    the 1D only.<p>

    2) Your pentium vs AMD argument continues not to convince me: I will repeat again. The 5D2 sensor, I suspect, is
    not more advanced than the D700 sensor BECAUSE it has 21 MP. I believe it does NOT take much more effort to make
    a sensor 21 MP than 12 (see the reasoning in the post above). Unless you believe that my reasoning is false (in
    which case, tell me why), it turns out that megapixel count is JUST A CHOICE at production stage, based on what
    Nikon and Canon believed was the market target of the product. I will repeat it again: both producers could have
    made the competition's camera. Nikon did not made a 20 MP sensor because they DECIDED that their product would
    have been bought by people who preferred the "12 MP but fast,feature rich" compromise. Canon decided instead to
    go for the
    other compromise. <p>
    I'm sorry but you look a bit too sensitive to the megapixel story. I repeat:I do not believe that making a 21 MP
    sensor is more difficult. It is likely more expensive (higher reject rate in manufacture) and in fact, Canon is
    taking away a lot in exchange. Would you buy a 3 years old AF, when better ones are available, by the same
    producer, in cameras that cost HALF the price? Do you think the 5D2, with its good low light capability, would
    not benefit from the 40D/50D more sensitive AF? Would you buy an old, slow mechanics known to be fragile, when
    better ones are available? Would you appreciate that Canon did not yet manage to put a pop-up flash capable to
    control wireless remote speedlights on a camera ideal for fashion work? It is this what you call a "quadcore
    CPU"? A camera with a shutter lag DOUBLE than the D700 (and greater than a 30D I reckon)...<p>
    Again, I'm NOT saying it is not a great camera. It IS a great camera, and will surely sell well, and will
    produce a lot of great images. For a good deal of people, it is what they need, and the D700 would be a less
    optimal compromise. And vice versa. But one should not confuse "it is what I need/want" with "it is better",
    because they are not the same thing. <p>
    So, to get back to the question you left blank: I will not buy either one. But I, with my own specific needs,
    will always buy a 12 MP camera for the price of a 21 MP camera if it had (as it is the case) a better mix of
    other features that for my needs count MUCH more than the 21 MP thing. Heck, for many things that count for me,
    the 5D2 would be a step back from my D200!! The Mp count is just another feature, and
    has to be weighted according to personal preferences. For me, anything beyond, say, 15 MP has precisely zero
    value. It is as simple as that. <p> L.
  102. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    As I pointed out earlier, I am going to close this discussion since it is getting quite off topic.

    You might recall that back in July 1 when Nikon introduced the D700, quite a few Canon users were complaining about the very old 5D and considered switching to Nikon. It was none other than me who asked them to wait at least until Photokina. It turns out that Canon has now introduced the 5D Mark II. Whether it meets their needs or not is up to those individuals to decide.

    By the same token, if you want 20+MP, I now suggest you wait a couple of months and see whether Nikon has anything new to offer. Again, whether 21/24MP is the answer or not will be each individual's decision. Various sources suggest some November announcement.

    If you want a 100% viewfinder on the D700, there is always the live view option.

    And whehter the 5D Mark II has some of the same defects as the 5D is unknown. I would like to think that even though it may be essentially the same body, Canon would address some of those issues.

Share This Page