Nikon users disappointment

[kevin_harper]

Has anyone read the thread on the D2Hs over on the Nikon forum? It

makes me glad that I chose a 300d a few months ago, after agonising

about the D70 (even though its a better camera) for quite some

while. Greater choice of top notch and affordable (the 4L's) glass

was the tipping point, but with an eye on a top notch 1.3X or full

frame camera in the future. Its a shame really that Nikon can't get

their act together, as real competition can only be good for the

consumer.

[digitmstr]

>>real competition can only be good for the consumer.<<

 

I think the most successful companies compete with themselves. That is to say, they have a vision for what the future holds while keeping an ear to the ground. Those who "compete" usually play catch up, if you know what I mean.

 

Canon has taken quite a few "unique" paths in its history. Even though many have criticized and/or disagreed with those decisions, its current lineup of digital and film cameras systems (including lenses) clearly show that their philosophy is working.

[kevin_harper]

I suppose the innovators do steal a march on the rest Giampiero, until someone else improves upon their idea. The problem is Nikon aren't doing it for the most part.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Canon and Nikon dont make camera phones; the camera area with the most fastest rate of solid growth.

[squareframe]

are Nikon users complaining, or just those that make a hobby of comparing specifications? I know a few photographers that make their living using Nikon products, and they are quite pleased. I suppose because they like Nikon bodies and lenses, and what is offered allows them to be successful in their endeavours.

[kevin_harper]

Daniel, from what I've read, here and elsewhere, the only reason many Nikon users are still Nikon users is their investment in glass, but of course there are many satisfied Nikon users. Camera phones Kelly?

[grant g]

While it does seem a little stupid of Nikon to put out a camera that's close to Canon 1D MkI specs, I think if there is a significant price break between the two then it is still providing the competition that we need.

 

What really bothers me is that people still seem rather fixated on pixel counts when/where I don't really think it's really necessary. If I shot sports and used Nikon...I don't think I'd have too much of a problem buying the D2Hs at $2,500-3,000. 8 fps and 4M pixels with a 40 shot RAW buffer is still capable of very good shots with the right zooms.

 

While it seems intuitive that 6M pixels is 1.5x "better" than 4M pixels...it is not. For example, if you take a 6Mp picture and crop it to 80% vertical and horizontal...you are left with...less than 4M pixels. And I frequently crop past that with acceptable results. So resolution/pixel density wise, 6Mp is only about 1.25x better IMO. following the same math 8Mp is only about a 43% improvement over 4Mp.

 

This is why my P&S is a Canon S410 not a S500, and why I bought a used 3.1 Mp *gasp* D30 as a backup to my Drebel. While I may upgrade to a 20D when the next model comes out, I don't think it as a significant increase in resolution. That's what dreaming about a 1Ds MkII is for!

[kevin_harper]

I suppose what really makes the Canon system more appealing is the greater choice of lenses, which sell for less money, and the full range of DSLR bodies which cover the range from novice to advanced amateur to PJ/sports to studio. OK MP aren't the be all and end all of photography, but wouldn't it be nice to have some latitude where that is concerned?

[squareframe]

there are many reasons to like Canon. I own a passel of Canon bodies and lenses, but I have always thought that Nikon bodies, with their viewfinder, metering and user-interface, were more appealing. my EOS-1v isn't a slouch however ... aesthetically or functionally.

[digitmstr]

>>I have always thought that Nikon bodies, with their viewfinder, metering and user-interface, were more appealing<<

 

Funny you say that. I switched to the EOS system because I grew "tired" of Nikon's ergonomics and UI :)

[squareframe]

they're cameras ... go use the bloody things. you're happy today, but when Nikon comes out with the D84x ... you'll fall into a funk until Canon one-ups the spec dual. I can confidently suggest that those interested in the D2Hs, as photographers, are most likely not pounding on their keyboards here at photo.net all day, nor too worried about what Canon will do next.

[john_baker8]

Wait until the Nikon users hear about the new 8mp Rebel XT that was just released tonight. http://www.pma-show.com/review/canon/001_EOS_digital_rebel_xt.html

[jim_larson1]

The problem here is that we do not have a spec war. This new camera is nowhere near the 1D-II. People will compare it to the obsolete 1D.

 

Nikon is seriously behind. We need a Nikon that seriously competes with the 20D and Rebel XT. Not having one is not good for consumers.

[astcell]

I came here from having Nikon since 1979. They let me down with digital and have the 1DMkII and love it. I bailed just in time!

[andrewpgrant]

Dude, is there any real point to this thread apart from bragging about your 300D, Canon lenses and higher-end Canon aspirations?

 

If you are looking at cameras with pixel count over performance then I am left scratchng my head as to why you would have even considered something like the D2H as an upgrade from a D70 (I interpreted that as your final deciding factor for the 300D from your initial post w.r.t. to future upgrades and lens compatibility)?

 

Go and shoot some action sports with a D2H (or D2Hs... if it comes to that) and then tell me you don't love it to death.

 

If you want flexibility, or a camera for some other purpose, then go with whatever else is more appropriate.

[min_wong1]

I am so disappointed that Nikon D2Hs isn't a 8MP camera. Otherwise, it will be a hugh competitor to 20D and 1DMark2. As more competition involved, us, the consumer will be better off. Nikon is a good company for film and glass, but they rely on Sony's digital technology too much. Nikon can't do anything if Sony doesn't develop a new good sensor for them. If Nikon combines their digital department with Panasonic. It will be another story.

[kevin_harper]

"Dude, is there any real point to this thread apart from bragging about your 300D, Canon lenses and higher-end Canon aspirations?

If you are looking at cameras with pixel count over performance then I am left scratchng my head as to why you would have even considered something like the D2H as an upgrade from a D70 (I interpreted that as your final deciding factor for the 300D from your initial post w.r.t. to future upgrades and lens compatibility)"

 

The point is that the cameras released by Nikon (such as the D2Hs) are not serious competitors to Canons higher end models, and if they are not, there is no pressure on Canon to reduce their pricing of those models, which is bad for the consumer.

[John Crowe]

You said it Kevin! Consumers need Nikon to step up to the plate...and hit the odd one out of the park.

[andrewpgrant]

<p><i>"The point is that the cameras released by Nikon (such as the D2Hs) are not serious competitors to Canons higher end models, and if they are not, there is no pressure on Canon to reduce their pricing of those models, which is bad for the consumer"</i></p>

<p></p>

<p>You have a point, to a degree...</p>

<p></p>

<p>Yes, Canon has most areas of the market covered really nicely (don't get me wrong, I love the current release Canons) and it is a pity that Nikon don't have the same extent of the market covered as effectively.</p>

<p>On the other hand, Nikon have certain niche areas of the market very well covered also.</p>

For example, it is arguable that in the serious-amateur DSLR range the D70 is a more complete camera than the Digital Rebel (and they sure are selling an awful lot of those)!

If you're in the business of shooting sports or journalism (where, let's face it, the money isn't always there in large amounts and you probably don't need larger enlargements than 5x7 or the occaisional 8X10) a performance-based D2H might be a better business investment than a slightly better-rounded 1D Mark II at almost twice the price (often likewise with lenses).

<p></p>

<p>So yes, it is a shame that Nikon don't have anything to match the 1Ds Mark II (perhaps they don't wish to compete with the 14MP Kodaks - which are basically Nikon SLRs with digital bells on) or anything as well-rounded as the 1DMII, but to assume that they're out of the game and that all Nikon owners are browned off with the situation only seems to stoke the fires of head-in-the-sand brand-loyalty.</p>

[andrewpgrant]

PS. Perhaps the D2x is meant to compete with the 1D Mark II?

[astcell]

Tne D2Hs competed with the Canon 1D Mark I if you ask me! Nikon should have made it 8MP...a year ago. Canon has a year on them.

 

Thete is ONE good reason for the D2Hs, it sets the low price bar for the H series higher than $1999, so now the X series will cost more than that. Not my idea of good news.