Nikon - missing the middle ground...

[ecarter]

I know it isn't just me, seeing some of the posts around with Nikon

users expressing at least some confusion (and some disappointment)

with Nikon's current line of digital SLR's.

I don't think that every time Canon comes out with a camera, Nikon

needs to follow suit, but it does seem to me that Nikon is missing a

key element in its lineup - the middle ground.

 

Nikon has just got its D2X out on the market, and by all reports, it

is a great camera! Although it isn't a "full frame" sensor camera

like the top-end Canon DSLR's, it is clearly aimed at competing in

the same level for less, and I think it does a good job.

 

On the "entry" level, Nikon has the D70 and D100 (some may argue

that they shouldn't be grouped together, but right now for all

practical purposes, they are ... people can debate the merits of one

versus the other, but at this point they're near the same price

range). This competes nicely with Canon's 10D and Digital Rebel. The

new Canon Rebel XT overcomes quite a few of the shortcomings of the

original, but the D70 is still competitive with it.

 

But in the middle, Canon has the 20D, another nice camera. But what

does Nikon have? The D2Hs is something I think of as a "specialty"

camera for sports and shooters that need speed over resolution.

 

I think that the gap that concerns people most (including myself)is

that Nikon doesn't (yet) have anyting for this middle ground where a

LOT of photographers, both amateur and professional, tend to look.

 

I don't think Nikon is falling behind in the quality of its cameras

in the face of the competition. I have a D70 and wouldn't trade it

in for a Rebel (including their new one) - I think it's a better

camera for me. But I got the D70 before Canon brought out the 20D

and while I have not regretted the D70, if Canon's 20D had been out

at the time, things might have been very different. This is where

Nikon may be losing out. Hopefully before long they'll have

something there to help fill the gap between the D70/100 and the

D2X - otherwise Nikon risks losing people to the 20D and the new

Rebel XT.

 

Here's hoping they don't keep missing the middle ground.

[gary_woodard]

I got a sneaking suspision Nikon has a handle on this, Im sure sometime latter

this year Nikon will drop another bomb which fills this void, as a smaller

company they probably have to put their energy into products which are on

solid ground, until then they are ramping up production to 100,000 units per

month to meet the sales for the d70 and are producing the D2x for a unheard

of demand for a $5000.00 camera. Having one sensor size and designing

their future lens offerings will in the end be a wise decision on Nikons part,

Canon is juggling 3 sensors at the moment, as digital technology is still

getting on its feet, a clear leader has yet to take the forefront, Im with Nikon.

[klix]

I do think Nikon's on the right track, although they obviously do not move at the same pace as the much larger Canon.

 

The D70 is selling very well, so the obvious next camera was the D2X, NOT a D200 -- since a D2X is clearly a different market than the D70, while a D200 might eat into D70 sales.

 

When the buzz dies down about the D2X, and if/when D70 sales slow down, we might see a D200.

 

To me, what is puzzling are all these Coolpix cameras... If Nikon just limited those, then produced a D55, it may be enough to entice the high-end digital p&s crowd to move up to a DSLR, and then expand the market for Nikon glass, flash and accessories.

 

That's what I would do... but what the heck do I know?!

[gary_woodard]

KLIX, from what I understand, from those who search the patent grants, Nikon

has recently patented the D50 name, so it may be seen before the D200.

[digitmstr]

D50 CANNOT be a patent but could be a TRADEMARK.

[gary_woodard]

Giamp, nikon has applied for the D50 trademark, my mistake.

[stephen_bay]

Eric,

 

What do believe that the 20D has over the D100 that isn't covered by the D2H(s)? In my opinion (based on looking at DSLR prints from 4MP to 8MP cameras) the resolution differences between the D2H, D100, and 20D are going to be minor and basically unnoticeable unless you put the print right up to your face.

[ecarter]

If the D2Hs were priced to compete with the 20D, I'd say nothing much. But it isn't. The D2H is $2000 for the camera body, while the D2Hs costs what... $3500? But you can get a 20D kitted with a lens for $1600 - or less. The 20D body alone will set you back less than 1500. But compared to the D100, which is what it tends to compete with, it has quite a few advantages. The 20D doesn't tend to compete much with the D2H and the D2Hs - it does compete with the D100 and the D70 much more, I think... and that's the problem. There are people who might otherwise be attracted to a D2H or a D2Hs (except the people who focus ONLY on megapixels) - but the cost may turn them away when there's an option that is less expensive but can do the job they want it to.

[ecarter]

Don't mean to span two posts with this, but realized I should clarify my view on this. Right now, I'm more concerned with overall quality and price. Neither the D2H or the D2Hs are really priced right to compete with the 20D. If the price were dropped some on the D2H perhaps... but even then, with the market so focused on megapixels, at least in marketing it would be at a disadvantage.

 

It isn't necessarely how good it is - a lot is how good it appears to be. Gotta love marketing (laugh cynically).

[scott_eaton]

Where Nikon has it right is re-tooling their lenses to work with the limits of non-full frame sensors. If canon had a frikken clue vs pushing coke-bottle lens kits than make $1500 dSLR's perform like APS film cameras, they'd be doing the same.

 

Where Nikon has it wrong is their pricing strategy and not being innovative enough to put a leap on Canon. It's weird, but it's like a complete and total reversal of roles from past film SLR production.

[ecarter]

Agreed, Scott. I think Nikon is going to end up in the long run with a better system overall, but it seems to me that they risk losing out in the market without having something to compete with the 20D and the XT in the same price range.

 

Don't get me wrong - I'm not abandoning Nikon for Canon anytime soon. :-D But there are people who are doing just that now because they want more than the D70 or D100, and see a nice step up for not too much cash. Also, people who aren't invested in either system are going to take a look at what's available and may be more likely to choose Canon based on the 20D as a percieved happy medium between the entry level cameras and the high end.

[ilkka]

I think both companies are missing the middle ground, Nikon more than Canon. Both companies currently have a fast sports/newspaper pro camera, a high megapixel pro camera and a couple of amateur level bodies. I would like to see a digital EOS3 or F100 model in the 2.5-3k price range. Something like the 1DMII but not as fast and heavy, preferably with 1.3 crop factor and could have 8-12 megapixels.

[peter_cofran]

Am I the only one who thinks the D2X sensor size is ridiculous? Jamming 12mp in a 1.5 crop and charging 5k are you freaking crazy? Canon has it right by transitioning to a full sized sensor for their top of the line.

 

News flash to Nikon 4mp D2Hs doesn't cut it for pro dslr unless you're a newspaper photojournalist. Maybe they should have built a general-purpose camera that could be adjusted for specialist instead of designing it the other way around. It was a shortsighted creating lens specifically for aps sensor. Now they're backed into a corner with the photon limitation of aps size.

[kenneth_beatty]

News Flash Peter their are many working pros using the D2H and they are not all PJs.

[carl smith]

<i>I think Nikon is going to end up in the long run with a better system overall</i><Br><br>I doubt it. If anything we've seen from the film wars that it's a pretty even game between the two. I'm a little more worried right now about what Nikon is going to do, but I'm reasonably confident (not as much as I'd like to be) that they'll get it together, and that Canon will address the shortcomings with the EF-S lenses people have brought up.

[john schroeder]

My guess is that Nikon will announce two D-SLR's this summer, the D50 and the D80/D200 (D100 replacement). I also would hope the release a series of D-type primes soon. Not to mention a 70-300 f3.5-5.6 ED VR for $450. Ok, I'm dreaming on the last one. It would make alot of frick'n sense to add this lens to the lineup. Are you listening NIKON!

[nello]

But Canon has always had a progressive technology stance (eye controlled

focus, liberal use of image stabilization in its lineup, DO optics, complete

change in lens mount from the FD to the EOS...and now its prolific attitude

with DSLR lines) while Nikon on the other hand has always been

conservative in its approach.

 

Just like politics some people like Progressive and some people like

Conservative. There are strong points and minus points for each approach.

Some might argue, however, that the world of digital cameras benefits from a

progressive approach more so than the world of film cameras...

 

I for one hope Nikon can put out a 20D competitor soon. The trend with

Canon so far has been to release a new prosumer camera every 1 - 1.5 years

(D30, D60, 10D, D20). This trend would predict Canon to have a 20D

replacement sometime between this Christmas and PMA feb2006.

[peter_cofran]

I get the feeling that Nikon has intentionally not offered cameras to compete with Canon Rebel, 20D, or MarkII, because they don't think they could win a head to head battle with Canon. Instead they have tried to squeeze in between the gaps of Canon's line up. Its very odd Nikon has released so many low end PS. The low-end market is saturated with so many companies seem like bad place to be concentrating.

[peter_phan]

I think it might be reasonable to hope for a D100 or D70 replacement at PMA 2006. Something will probably be announced at the end of 2005 (to dissuade people from buying Canons during the busy holiday shopping season), but it won't be available until February 2006. This seems to be Nikon's pattern. But of course, by then, Canon might be updating their 20D, too. But in the meantime, it's the XT vs D70, and the 20D vs D100. I think the D70 will be around for at least another 18 months. The D100 is already several years and a few generations old, so it will be replaced first. And, yes, it's very long in the tooth compared to the 20D. But I don't think Nikon has the resources to update their cameras as quickly as Canon does, otherwise they would have updated the D100 a while ago because, after all, there's a lot of sales volume in the ~$1500 or lower segment. This is the segment where companies grow their marketshare by grabbing a lot of new users. However, I think Nikon's most immediate priority was to stem the tide of pro users leaving the Nikon system, which is what the D2X is aimed at doing.

[bobatkins]

If I were Nikon and couldn't get a new Consumer DSLR out before PMA 2006, I'd be pretty worried. It's very likely that Canon will have a 20D replacement out around PMA 2006, so Nikon would have to jump 2 generations of DSLRs, not one. It's not good enough to bring something out that beats the 20D, it has to beat whatever Canon are planning for after the 20D if they want to do more than slow down the rate at which existing Nikon users are switching to Canon. If they want to attract new users into the Nikon system, they have their work cut out.

[ecarter]

Couldn't have said it better, Bob. I hope that Nikon will have something to fill in and compete with the 20D and its potential successor before too long into this year - at least an announcement of one. I actually do believe that this will probably be the case but I guess without more from the horse's mouth on Nikon's next step, I'm a natural worrywort. Problem is, for Nikon, there's a lot of people out there like me - except that they are looking at buying their cameras soon and are probably looking at Nikon with a suspicious eye.

 

On the other hand, if I thought that way before I got my D70 I'd probably just be frozen with indecision at the camera store trying to decide what I should get not based on what's out there now, but what will be out there next - instead of getting out and taking photos.

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>But Canon has always had a progressive technology stance (eye controlled focus,

liberal use of image stabilization in its lineup, DO optics, complete change in lens mount

from the FD to the EOS...and now its prolific attitude with DSLR lines</I><P>1.) There is a

reason Canon doesn't use eye controlled focus in it's top ofthe line cameras --it is

buggy.<P>2.) I've shot with the 400mmf/4 DO and the 400mm f/2.8L the DO lens has, to

put it mildly, wild problems with specular highlights and AF tracking. <P>3.) Canon had

to change their lens mount completely in order to put electrionics in their lenses. If they

could have found away around it they would have. The Nikon F mount is definitely larger

in diameter and more open than the Canon FD mount.<P>4.) In lenses I really only see

two areas where Nikon is behind: the number of lenses with Image stabilization and the

don't have a 45-50mm or wide angle tilt/shift lens. Nikon is definitely way ahead of Canon

with extreme wide angles for DSLR cameras of any size "chip".<P> Nikon isn't perfect but

neither

is Canon. Nikon definitely needs a sub $2000 8MP class camera; my suspicion is that we'll

see at least one sooner than later. Where Canon really leads is in brilliantly marketing their

gear.

[nello]

Say what you will about the merits of Eye Control Focus, DO optics, replacement of the FD mount, prolific DSLR production, etc. Their worth to you is subjective and can be debated untill you're blue in the face. But the point is that Canon takes a PROGRESSIVE stance toward camera technology. They believe in promoting new technologies, and have historically taken stands to support new technology (regardless of the merits of that technology). Nikon has historically been more conservative in its approach. Both approaches have their strengths and weaknesses.

 

However, I do happen to believe that the "digital world" and its "citizens" by nature align themselves towards the progressive approach -as opposed to the "film world" which could sustain both conservative and progressive approaches. In the "film world" something old could still be good. In the "digital world" however, something old is invariably regarded as something "bad". By nature, digital photogs like technology. And thus they (we) will always be lured by it and will always prefer more of it.

 

Bob is 100% right in saying that Nikon has their work cut out for them....

[peter_phan]

<i>1.) There is a reason Canon doesn't use eye controlled focus in it's top ofthe line cameras --it is buggy.</i>

<p>

According to Canon, it's because Eye Control is not compatible with 100% viewfinders, which is standard on Canon's top-of-the-line bodies. But the EOS 3, which is a pro body, does have Eye Control. And it does not have a 100% viewfinder. It has a 97% viewfinder. So it really isn't because Eye Control is "buggy". But its performance can vary depending on one's eye, one's eye position, and calibration. And you can turn it off altogether.

<p>

 

<i>2.) I've shot with the 400mmf/4 DO and the 400mm f/2.8L the DO lens has, to put it mildly, wild problems with specular highlights and AF tracking. </i>

<p>

It's always good to push technology. I'm sure that future generations of DO will be even better. DO technology is still in its infancy. The first Canon fluorite lenses didn't get the red ring either. They got green rings, just like today's DO lenses do.

<p>

<i>3.) Canon had to change their lens mount completely in order to put electrionics in their lenses. If they could have found away around it they would have. The Nikon F mount is definitely larger in diameter and more open than the Canon FD mount.</i>

<p>

That's practically ancient history by now. You can't exactly hold it against them because without that critical decision, Canon's photo system would not be what it is today. It's a decision that definitely paid off for them.

<p>

<i>4.) In lenses I really only see two areas where Nikon is behind: the number of lenses with Image stabilization and the don't have a 45-50mm or wide angle tilt/shift lens. Nikon is definitely way ahead of Canon with extreme wide angles for DSLR cameras of any size "chip".</i>

<p>

There are weaknesses in both systems' lens selection. But Canon tends to be well ahead of the curve in terms of USM, IS, TS, and Macro offerings. And you can probably add DO to that list, too. And while Nikon did come out with DX lenses first, I think Canon's responsiveness allowed them to jump in to that game pretty quickly. But I think that's always been Canon's strong suit-- it's capacity to respond quicker and get products out quicker than the competition.

[peter_phan]

<i>Where Canon really leads is in brilliantly marketing their gear.</i>

<p>

Yes, but you do still have to have good gear to market. Believe it or not, people still do base their purchase decisions based on the merits of the product, regardless of the marketing. Nikon could have the best marketing in the world, but that still doesn't erase the fact that they're still trying to peddle a three your old D100, and (up until recently) a four year old D1X.