How will Canon match D700X?

<p>Having just added 5D and 135mm f2 to my gear, I strongly feel that Canon has to come out with a new (about) 15megapixel, 5-7 fps camera for about $3,000-3,500 to be competitive with Nikon.<br />Its 5D MkII is good, but still lags D700 in many areas. 1D3 does not allow you to take advantage of ultrawide lenses like 16-35mm. IDs MarkIII is beyond reach for most of us.<br />With Nikon 700X rumoured to be out any day now, what will be Canon's reply to that?</p>

<p>Oh, you mean the 1DS Mk2? That was about 5 years ago. :-)</p>

<p>Canon and Nikon have differerent product philosophies. They bracket their product lines differerently so there are not products that match up exactly between the two product lines. Nikon's D700 has much better AF speed and build quality but Canon's 5D has much higher resolution. If you feel that the D700 or any future D700X is better then perhaps you shouldn't have bought that 5D and 135 f2 and bought Nikon instead. There are plenty of Nikon landscape shooters that bought the Canon 5D because they wanted higher res and didn't need fast AF.</p>

<p>I have to admit that this kind of thought and question have come up in my mind, but every time that happened I told myself that Canon is a multi-billion-dollar company, their reasearch/development and marketing teams know much better than myself about what the market needs and what Canon needs to do to cater it and still make a profit. If your livelyhood depends on your gears, you should switch to Nikon. The grass is always greener on the other side, my friend!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have to admit that this kind of thought and question have come up in my mind</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Really? You actually do think about how Canon SHALL respond to a someone's NONEXISTING camera? Wow, your life must be one easy street...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If your livelyhood depends on your gears, you should switch to Nikon</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Oh <em>nonsense</em> - there are <em>uncounted thousands</em> of pro photographers using Canon very happily and doing a great job of making a living.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Really? You actually do think about how Canon SHALL respond to a someone's NONEXISTING camera? Wow, your life must be one easy street...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Micheal, perhaps you should read everything I wrote before you mouth off to your quick & stupid reply</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If your livelyhood depends on your gears, you should switch to Nikon</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Keith, I agree with you. I was trying to tell the OP that if his livelyhood depends on his gear and Canon can't satisfy him, he can always switch to Nikon.</p>

<p>Any pro that can't work with either brand has a real problem. A photographer masters the equipment, not the other way around.</p>

<p>when i hear the "nikon has faster AF" i always laugh because the fact that those cameras have 51 AF points doesn't mean it's faster. If anything those that have shot both (I Have - Lifelong Canon shooter - 1D, 1DII, 5DII - D700 with 24-70 2.8 for 4 months) and can be honest will tell you that the systems are just different. The Canon always feels "snappier" while the Nikon is smoother which to me always comes across as slower. Will I tell you that I wish the 5DII had the 1DII AF? YES. But I will also tell you that the market that the 5D's are aimed at and dominate don't generally need 51 points....</p>

<p>Both systems are good now - that is for sure but I will also tell you that having had a chance to play with the D3X and look at the files - Nikon has still not mastered low noise in high MP cameras to the degree that Canon has. The D3X and i assume the rumored (and denied) D700X should share a sensor that does not best the 1Ds3 in any signifigant way never mind the 5DII in terms of IQ....<br>

Almost all of the "grass is greener" crew's concepts are based on taste and perception. Has anyone proved that the nikons are more weather resistant? Heavier? YES Grips that fall off? YES More weather resistant? NO Quite the contrary the much maligned 50D has won awards for build.... People for a year said that nikon had better LCD's - Not compared to the 5D or 50D or the T1I for that matter...</p>

 

<p>The whole question here really points to a bigger issue in my opinion. It seems people have adopted a mindset that makes us think the next biggest and best thing will improve our photography. The winners in all this, of course, are the camera manufacturers. The advent of digital technology has given them a great opportunity to get us all to buy new camera bodies every few years, something most never considered when shooting film. But there is a reality that the current lineup of cameras, with their maximum megapixels, have reached or exceeded the capabilities of the lens/sensor resolution. Sure, they will continue to tweak this and that, but until there is a breakthrough in sensor technology, the new "improvements" will be minor and more for the sake of marketing than actual functionality.</p>

<p>Even in discussion recently with the rep for one of the major medium format manufacturers, when I proposed this fact, he said that they were taking care of that with the "software". Of course, as we opened several files from their 39 megapixel back, there was no true sharpness at 100%--which makes you wonder how the 50 and 60mp backs look. Having both the 1dsMKIII and the 5DII with top end L glass, I believe the same is the case with 35mm systems.</p>

<p>My suspicions that current technology had reaced a maximum were actually the result of seeing high-end film scans from the same cameras and lenses and knowing that the resolution limits of the lens/film combinations were maximized at a level lower than 39 megapixels for MF cameras. This doesn't mean you can't get a gorgeous 40x50 inch print from these files (I even have printed beautiful prints at this size from the original 5d and its 14 mp files), but it does seem to mean that the extra megapixels are really doing nothing for us.</p>

<p>The current line-ups, and the rumored releases coming from both manufacturers, meet the requirements of most shooters and probably we would all be better off spending our time learning to create better images than looking for better cameras.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The current line-ups, and the rumored releases coming from both manufacturers, meet the requirements of most shooters and probably we would all be better off spending our time learning to create better images than looking for better cameras.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Very well said.</p>

<p>Incidentally, at this point there is no this "Nikon D700x" camera. How can Canon possibly respond to something that doesn't even exist and whose specifications are unknown?</p>

<p>I think it's great that there are many who feel they have to keep up, and constantly upgrade. There are so many new, eager, and possibly talented photographers, who cannot afford a new mid-priced camera, <strong>now</strong>, but will be able to in another year or two when their prices are driven down a third or two, due to the demand for better technology. I'm in total agreement with you, John, as to "spending our time learning to take better pictures", but seriously man, shhhhh....</p>

<p>If the D700x features the D3x's sensor, then due to its higher pixel density and smaller pixel size (relative to the 12 mp FX sensor), then its low light performance should roughly be on par with the D300. Most reviews and tests I've read as of now suggest that although featuring far more pixels, the 5D2 is not much worse in terms of low light noise performance than the D3/D700. This essentially means the 5D2 is an excellent low light camera that also features the advantages of its high pixel count. The 5D2 is also one of the only two low cost FF DSLR with over 20 mps, which could be useful to certain types of shooters who needs the freedom to crop and enlarge. (and with the Sony A900's noise issues and Canon's excellent lens selection, I don't see the Sony as a feasible alternative to the Canon)</p>

<p>>> "ts 5D MkII is good, but still lags D700 in many areas."</p>

<p>The D700 is faster (up to 8fps), built to be more robust, has a "physical" advantage in terms of noise, and has a pop-up flash. While the 5D2 is more or less superior in many other aspects.</p>

<p>Nikon already has an excellent line-up. The line-up's only "hole" is the lack of a low cost, high resolution FF camera that works great in low light like the 12MP FX cameras. </p>

<p>I have been with Canon since 1971. I have seen cameras come and go.</p>

<p>The one thing that Canon has always fallen behind is in the rumor department. I cannot understand why they can't put out the quantity and the quality of rumor that is so prevalent on the Nikon side.</p>

<p>With their operating profits and the size of their research department you would think they could come out with a steady stream of rumors that would knock Nikon and their owners off of their lofty perch.</p>

<p>But no. All Canon does is come out with a product and wait for others to catch up. It is getting boring. There has to be more to this hobby than just going out and taking pictures.</p>

<p>Shuo Zhao, you are absolutely right.<br>

Marc too is spot-on. Canon does not make noises, but always delivers. As for ``wait for others to catch up'', I agree only partly with you, Marc. <br>

It will be fair to say that Canon too has to do a lot of catching up with Nikon in wide angle/macro lenses and camera body ergonomics. </p>

<p>Line of the day:<br>

"we would all be better off spending our time learning to create better images than looking for better cameras."<br>

It's way easier to get caught up in the hype of this vs that than to be out taking shots, working on them, and perfecting our technique. These discussions are interesting to read, but really offer very little to the entusiast photographer other than the quote referenced above.<br>

I've got less than $750 in the outfit that took this shot - and I'm still learning.</p>

<p>sorry - double posted</p>

<p>Line of the day:<br>

"we would all be better off spending our time learning to create better images than looking for better cameras."<br>

It's way easier to get caught up in the hype of this vs that than to be out taking shots, working on them, and perfecting our technique. These discussions are interesting to read, but really offer very little to the entusiast photographer other than the quote referenced above.<br>

I've got less than $750 in the outfit that took this shot - and I'm still learning.</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>The one thing that Canon has always fallen behind is in the rumor department.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Very true, Marc. Web stats show the Nikon rumors site has triple the page views, ad revenue and overall worth of the equivalent Canon rumors site. Of course, triple the cow flop is still just a bunch of cow flop. But in an era where buzz=perceived value even cow flop is a commodity.</p>