Canon seems so far advanced vs Nikon

[mr-mike]

This is FUN! I have been a Nikon user since 1971. I still use my old F with an F36 drive. I have an F100 and got a D2H in December. I have always looked at Canon's equipment, but never been willing to buy it. Any company which willfully ditches its customers by obsoleting their lenses sends you a message -- they don't plan for the future, they just try to capitalize on the market today. I have used some of my 30-year old Nikkors on my D2H to get shots I couldn't cover with my new lenses. (For example, my old 80mm f/1.8 AI made a portrait that was so crisp and perfect that it blew away anything else. The shot made it into the catalogue, and The sheer perfection of the optics allowed me to work at the pixel level in retouching in a manner the other photogs -- using Canons and Hasselblads -- could not approach).

 

Canon makes good products, but they are laid out poorly from my POV. I am a techno geek, and always wasting money on the absolute top of the line when I buy computers, and getting pisse dhwne they're obsolete in 6 months. When you can still use a camera and lens that you bought 30 years ago, and interchange their use with a piece of massive technology made last week, THAT is consistent performance.

 

90% of Canon's innovations are meaningless to most users. Few consumers make 16x20 prints of their snapshots. 11 mps are great, but try emailing that file to your mother in Texarcana. My D2H has performed awesomely photographing horse jumping, soccer, tennis, golf, and so on, while also making great snapshots that look just as good at 8x10 as my film shots.

 

My wife is one of the leading art experts in the US, and her eye is relied on for $10 and 20 million paiting purchases. She thinks the Nikon D2H images are stunning, and the Canon I rented produced fine images, too.This from a sports/PJ camera! When Nikon comes out with the d@x, I feel pretty certain it will up the ante again, and make Canon amp up some new gizmos to catch up -- the old tortoise and hare!

[lukas_kisiel]

There was a comment here about Nikon, its heritage and Canon, its innovation. I can add to that. Recently I went to a small trade show geared towards pro-video production market. Photo companies Canon, Nikon, Olympus and Minolta were there also. At the Canon table it was _all_digital_ bodies with one lens on each body and a small brochure about new Elan 7N in the corner. At the Nikon table they had digital and film bodies (including FM3A manual SLR) and several lens to go around. Tells me something about corporate philosophies. Who's going to dump film bodies first, any guesses?

 

I have nothing against Canon or Nikon. It's all about marketing. Really, I don't think heritage or innovation has nothing to do with it. Some people just like Nikon ads and some people like Canon ads.

 

S**t! what are we gonna do if the two companies... merge!!! End of the world?

[gl5]

keep in mind that the mirror on non full frame digital cameras is smaller than on a film camera or full frame digital camera. thus, it doesn't induce nearly as much shake.

 

i've had a chance to compare side by side, the Nikon D70 and the Canon 300d and can tell you that the Nikon mirror/shutter feels silky smooth and quiet compared to the Canon. i have found that i can effectively handhold with the Nikon down to 1/8 of a second with no noticeable image blurring. not so with the Canon.

[peter_phan]

I just attended the PhotoImaging & Design Expo in San Diego. All I can say is that it's increasingly becoming a Canon world. It was suprising to hear from several well-established photographers at the show who had just migrated from the Nikon system (Nikon and Fuji DSLR users) to the 1D MKII. For example, Jeff Hawkins, one of the seminar speakers (him and his wife, actually) revealed that he just moved from Nikon to the 1D MKII. There was also an extremely well attended seminar by Denis Reggie, pj wedding photographer extraordinaire-- and a long-time Canon user. (It was a fantastic seminar that ran two hours. He charges $25,000+ per wedding if you're interested in hiring him. But when you've shot JFK Jr.'s wedding and been hailed as "the best of the best" wedding photographers in the country, if not the world, what do you expect?) Reggie spent quite a bit of time talking about the equipment he uses (everything from software to lenses to lighting to camera bags, etc.), and he was raving about the 1D MKII. And he revealed something quite surprising: with the 8.2MP resolution and quality of the 1D MKII, he's decided that he basically only needs to shoot in horizontal now! He was serious. If he needs a vertical, he just crops the image to vertical afterwards!!! (He also crops down to square quite a lot.) And he doesn't use a flash bracket anymore because he doesn't need to have the flash above the lens in verticals because there's no longer an issue of a side-oriented flash! (He uses a Stofen Omnibounce, and plenty of bounce flash to avoid flash shadows.) Pretty amazing. He just keeps the camera in horizontal, has his flash on the hotshoe at 45 degree tilt with Stofen diffuser, or "foofs" (as he calls it) the flash off a ceiling or wall. That's pretty impressive.

 

These online discussions are fine and dandy, but Nikon needs to get off their butts because photographers are voting with their wallets, and in droves. And that's not a good thing if it means less competition and higher prices. Plus, anyone who thinks "Nikon is for photographers" and "Canon is for consumers" simply has their head in the sand.

[david_lau3]

It is that simple: in terms of image quality and speed which most pros need for their assignments, Canon 1Ds and 1D MK2 have no competitor at this moment. While Nikon D70 is in general better than 300D, it is no match to these 2 Canon cameras.

 

I hope Nikon will really come up with a D2X or equivalent that matches or better than Canon. Consumers benefit from competition between manufacturers!

[berg_na]

Canon follows a completely different market strategy than Nikon. They strive to be first to market with products that may not be quite complete, in terms of functionality (at least for a photographer). Nikon, on the other hand, won't release a new camera until they've completed its development phase. Compare the results: the D100, Nikon's first entry level slr has features that the 10D, Canon's 3rd generation slr still doesn't have. The differences between the D70 and 300D also reflect the differences in marketing philosophy between these companies.

 

In the end, Canon succeeds in impressing some people, like the original poster, who just 'loves to see the latest advances', but Nikon's products are much better photographic tools for professionals and serious photo enthusiasts.

[gl5]

right. first to market doesn't mean better. Canon and Nikon always one up each other but when Nikon comes out with a camera body, it is always better and more refined than the Canon counterpart.

 

i find it telling that i can get a Nikon D70 for about $1,100. and it has image quality which exceeds that of even the Canon 10d at $1500, which is even supposed to a higher end model.

 

do you want to be in a position of always having a Canon camera that has a Nikon counterpart that is better?

[peter_phan]

<I>i find it telling that i can get a Nikon D70 for about $1,100. and it has image quality which exceeds that of even the Canon 10d at $1500, which is even supposed to a higher end model.</I>

<P>

No, the D70 does not offer image quality that "exceeds" that of the Canon 10D. At best, it matches it at certain ISO speeds. But just like comparing an N80 to F100, both take good pictures except one offers more features and is thus more expensive. Same, too, when comparing the D70 and 10D.

<p>

For example:<P>

D70: plastic body, 10D: metal body<br>

D70: ISO 200-1600, 10D: ISO 100-3200<br>

D70: no mirror lock up, 10D: yes, mirror lock up<br>

D70: no mirror pre-fire, 10D: yes, mirror pre-fire<br>

D70: 4 shot RAW burst capacity, 10D: 9 shot RAW burst capacity<br>

D70: .75x magnification viewfinder, 10D: .88x magnification viewfinder<br>

D70: no vertical grip, 10D: yes, vertical grip<br>

D70: no cable release, 10D: yes, cable release<br>

etc, etc.

<p>

Well, you get the picture. Obviously, you can take great pictures with either. But one offers more than the other. Also keep in mind that the D70 also uses a significanly weaker AA filter, which makes it more prone to moire. So you really have to weigh all these factors before declaring that the D70 is better in any way. The only thing you can say with certainty is that it's cheaper and newer, but as you can see, that doesn't necessarily mean "better".

<p>

[manfred_sadlowski]

D70: spotmeter, 300D and 10D no spotmeter.<br>

D70: Distance based flash metering, 300D and 10D no such a thing.<br>

D70: RGB color matrix meter, 300D and 10D plain matrix meter.<br>

D70: Multitasking hardware that can write data continuously as you shoot, 300D and 10D are limited by the buffer.<br>

D70: On demand grid lines, 300D and 10D no such a thing.<br>

D70: has a set of dedicated wide angle lenses, 300D and 10D no such a thing.<br>

D70: Can autofocus, 10D: at least some of them has issues about that.<br><br>

 

D70 eats 300D for breakfast and even better than 10D in many ways. Nikon checkmated Canon by challenging 10D and 300D by a single camera. Now Canon needs to replace them both to make some money. Btw, D70 uses the weaker AA filter for more detailed pictures and unlike Peter writes, D70 has a remote control.

[peter_phan]

<i>D70: spotmeter, 300D and 10D no spotmeter.</i>

<p>

The 300D and 10D both have partial meters, which is just a bigger spot meter. Either are perfectly good for metering. But at the recent Denis Reggie seminar I went to, he said he hardly ever takes his Canons off of evaluative metering. These days with digital, I find myself doing the same, except for the most challenging conditions, where partial gets it right.

<p>

<i>D70: Distance based flash metering, 300D and 10D no such a thing.</i>

<p>

The new Nikons have now adapted a pre-flash system similar to Canon's E-TTL, and the new Canon's have now adapted distance information like Nikon's flash system. There were pros and cons to each system, hence the new flash systems from both brands which borrow from each others technologies.

<p>

<i>D70: RGB color matrix meter, 300D and 10D plain matrix meter.</i>

<p>

The RGB meter isn't any more accurate than other evaluative/matrix meters. But it's nice to brag about.

They are all prone to error at some time or another. <p>

<i>D70: Multitasking hardware that can write data continuously as you shoot, 300D and 10D are limited by the buffer.</i>

<p>

I have no idea what you mean by the D70's "multitasking hardware that can write data continuously as you shoot." All current DSLR cameras can write and shoot concurrently-- what you call "multitasking hardware". The 10D, which is obviously older, buffers 9 shots in RAW, and (like any other camera) continuous shooting as the buffer clears (shooting at a slower rate). The D70 buffers only 4 shots before it has to do the same. The only difference is that in JPEG, it will shoot continuously in certain file sizes. But this isn't because of some amazing "multitasking hardware" that is exclusive to the D70.

<p>

<i>D70: On demand grid lines, 300D and 10D no such a thing.</i>

<p>

True. That's a nice thing.

<p>

<i>D70: has a set of dedicated wide angle lenses, 300D and 10D no such a thing.</i>

<p>

You can get a 12-24/4 DX for $1100 (same price as the body). But otherwise, the 300D and D70 both have dedicated wide-to-normal zooms. Meanwhile, the Sigma 12-24 full frame lens is a great lens for only $650. I haven't had an opportunity to try one yet, but I've seen samples off a 1Ds that are excellent, and more than good enough for a cropped-image DSLR. I wouldn't expect it to be too long before Canon comes out with their own similar lens (most likely full frame), given Canon's own lens-making expertise. And basically, it's the only lens missing from their inventory.

<p>

 

<i>D70: Can autofocus, 10D: at least some of them has issues about that.</i>

<p>

I guess you're not aware of this, but the D70 has had plenty of its own

<a href="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=8702939">backfocus issues</a>.

<p>

Overall, the D70 is a fine camera, but it's no replacement for a 10D or 10D successor. Like all things, you get what you pay for. But kudos to Nikon for offering a nice camera that will encourage greater competition and better products. The D100 was getting long in the tooth (it came out at about the same time as the Canon D60).

[david_lau3]

The $1,000 Nikon D70 not only beats the $900 Canon 300D and competes head to head with the $1,400 Canon 10D, it also beats its own $1,200 D100 to instant death.

 

How do you interpret this? You can say Nikon is great and kind to photographers by giving them a good camera at a low price, or you can say Nikon is lagging so far behind and is desperate to cut price.

[manfred_sadlowski]

"I have no idea what you mean by the D70's "multitasking hardware.."<br><br>

 

You may check the specs <a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/nikon/D70/preview.html">here</a> and the discussion afterwards, D70 can shoot 144 pictures in row without interruption in normal jpeg mode. Can either Canon camera do that? That's because of a better design, Nikon didn't blindly increased the buffer size (and cost) to do it. This partially answers the question how could Nikon offer such a camera at this price, Nikon didn't rush the thing, released it after thorough engineering and refinement, which is the usual tendency at Nikon.

[manfred_sadlowski]

"You can say Nikon is great and kind to photographers by giving them a good camera at a low price, or you can say Nikon is lagging so far behind and is desperate to cut price."<br><br>

 

Matter? In the end I get an excellent camera at an excellent price. If Nikon is doing that for despair, I wish some 'despair' to Canon, so that their customers get cheaper and better products. Btw aren't Canon's big lenses a bit cheaper? For despair?

[david_lau3]

The most important thing is that consumers benefit from competition. I do want Canon to feel despair and reduce the price of 1Ds and 1D MK2 to the reach of many more photographers. I do want Nikon to come up with a D2X or equivalent quickly that can beat them hard. I hope this wish will come true.

[frank_skomial]

Canon - the innovator, Nikon - more conservative. Your pick or risk. My experience: Canon 820D printer prints strikes of color occasionally. Cannon could not fix it. Printer sits in garage. Canon S40 - broke, had to replace main circuit board. Canon S50 - red eye reduction makes sure eyes are red most of the time. Promissed to my grandmother never purchase any Canon brand. No problem ever with Nikon equipment.

[Troll]

For many years the only professional camera to have was a Nikon. Canon couldn't even keep distributers, much less dealers. To stay afloat they tried making copiers, and...well, you know the rest. Now Canon is way ahead and eventually someone else will overtake them. Maybe Nikon, maybe Minolta, maybe Honda or Kiev. Just don't hold your breath.

[david arnold eugene, oreg]

...and my Dad can beat your Dad.

 

If you want bragging rights, buy either camera and spend your time posting biased one-sided comments.

 

If you want better pictures, buy either camera and spend your time shooting, evaluating the results, and shooting some more.

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> I do want Nikon to come up with a D2X or equivalent quickly that

can beat them hard. I hope this wish will come true. </blockquote> </i><p>

 

For technical and economic reasons, you shouldn't hold your breath on that one.

[ilkka_nissila]

Carl, I agree that there is a snap available when using MLU with certain tripod/camera/lens conditions, but I have been unable to reproduce them with the F5 (which in my experience produces sharp pics even without using MLU). I *can* see a difference using the F90X and a 180 mm lens with a light tripod (manfr. 190) on soft ground and in such special situations. But the difference is tiny.

 

I'm not suggesting MLU is not sometimes useful but since the D70 produces more detailed pictures than the 10D/300D, I'll take that additional detail which is available on every shot rather than the odd case where I would be using a 500/4+2x TC using a $50 tripod as I'm sure the 300D owners are using to get their use out of the MLU.

 

Peter, saying that the D70 doesn't produce higher image quality than the 10D/300D is worth a laugh and it just tells that you've never used the D70 so that you could actually make a comparison. The biggest difference is not detail, rather colour accuracy. The 10D is like Kodachrome; it has it's own orangish pallette and if you like it great, but how are you going to return to original scene colours from that?

[._._z]

Yeah, if you like moire, you'll love the D70!

[ilkka_nissila]

I don't really know why I'm responding to this, but I haven't managed to get any moire visible in prints of 8x12 inch size, so it is one of those academic complaints about the D70 which seem to arise so often from bitter Canon users never used the D70 in real life.

[._._z]

Once again Illka pretends he knows real reasons behind why people disagree with him.

Once again he is wrong. He'll ascribe dark motives to people rather than deal with what

they write. And, as we saw the other day, he'll sometimes stoop to foolish, sweeping

generalizations about peoples' nationalities in oreder to dismiss them. Funny, funny

stuff.

[ilkka_nissila]

As a scientist I'm frequently confronted by people who don't agree with me. It would be great if people knew their stuff and then disagreed, I'd love that. What is annoying is that people don't find out about what they talk about and then they disagree and vent their disagreement with 4's in my portfolio as in Bailey's case here. Thanks, I know I've been correct about something when I get strikes down below instead of courteous arguments how you came to the conclusion that moire is an issue with the D70. I'm sure you have lots of first-hand experimental data about the situation (preferably using the NEF format and Nikon's own RAW conversion software because some 3rd party software process the files incorrectly with the result of moire).

 

I don't need to dismiss your arguments, I'm an actual user of the D70, while your "knowledge" of the camera is based on selective and inaccurate quotes from magazines and other such sources.

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> As a scientist I'm frequently confronted by people who don't agree

with me </blockquote> </i><p>

 

Do you arrogantly insuilt people with the preface, "The problem with Americans" too, or

do you just do that when losing arguments here, as you did recently? As a scientist do

you use your magical powers to look into peoples' minds and know what equipment

they own? <p>

 

Get a grip and please grow up.

[andrew robertson]

Just to burn the cheeks of the 'D70 is superior becuase it has a spot meter' crowd, it

DOESN'T!!!!!

 

It has a partial meter, like the 10D. The 10D's meter covers 9%, and after Pop. Photo

tested the D70's 'spot' meter they found it covers about... 9%.