Wow!!! Canon sure did leapfrog Nikon

[peter_lamotte]

I finally sat down and took a look the Mark II vs the D2H. And in Nikon's defense the D2H

is a little bit older, but boy that D1s Mark II is one amazing camera. Just based on the MP

to Fps it really is quite a camera. As a former Canon junkie, now Nikon, I have to say I am

jealous. Only the fact that I know the D2X has to be right around the corner gives me

hope. I just hope that Nikon's next move can take the same leapfrog that Canon did.

 

Just my thoughts.

[peter_lamotte]

I think everyone know this but what I meant was the 1Ds not D1s. And its the 1D Mark II

not the D1s Mark II. Sorry about that.

[andrew robertson]

As Canon is a much larger company, expect Nikon to lag by a generation for at least a few

more years.

 

Let the flames BEGIN!

[steve_barnett2]

Canon are playing corporate games with Nikon. Likewise expect a Canon annoncement regarding the replacement of the 10d just about the time the D70 starts to ship........... ;-)

[photobyalan.com]

I disagree.

 

Saying Canon "leapfrogged" Nikon is to imply that Nikon was ahead of Canon. Nikon has been playing "catch-up" for several years now in the DSLR market. I'm not saying the D2H is not a very good camera with some very nice features, but it hardly broke any barriers when it was introduced and now those 4 little megapixels are looking sort of puny since Jan 29.

[hclim]

I wonder if Nikon is tied down in some way by licensing or OEM agreements with Kodak and Fujifilm.

[marshall]

We're really going to have another thread just focused on leapfrogging of digital camera makers? That's kind of sad. The new Canon looks like a very impressive camera. The D2h still looks like a very impressive camera for many uses, especially where 4MP is plenty (check out those full-bleed two-page spreads in major national magazines...). But whatever. I ain't getting into it.

[stephen_steiner]

<p><i>As Canon is a much larger company, expect Nikon to lag by a generation for at least a few more years.</i></p>

 

<p>The only thing with which I disagree is "a few more years". Canon has overwhelming resources compared to every other manufacturer and has indicated its intention to dominate digital. I think it likely that Canon will actually pull further ahead of the pack, including Nikon, over the next few years.</p>

 

<p>IMO, Nikon may not be able to compete with Canon in every segment of the market. For example, I think it interesting that, to this point, Nikon has not challenged Canon in the full-size sensor market (1Ds). Nikon and Canon traditionally fought for supremacy in the pro segment of the market, which was the basis for much of their respective advertising and public relations. Will Nikon now be relegated to a niche player?</p>

 

<p>Just my take on the state of the union and I would be interested in hearing other opinions.</p>

[scott_eaton]

As somebody who leans toward the Nikon camp due to their legacy film cameras I have no problem admitting Canon is leading the technology arms race in terms of DSLRs. Face it, the 10D and 1D have placed marks Nikon currently hasn't been able to reach in terms of raw quality. I'll save petty debates about ergonomics and auto-focus while following erratically moving ducks for those who are inclined to do so. When it comes down to the meat, it's all about sensor quality, and Canon has done better than this with Nikon. If it weren't for using legacy Nikon glass considerations I feel that Nikon would be even further behind Canon in terms of pro sales.

 

What I find really interesting though is the more niche' market, where Canon has historically done poorly. As popular as the Rebel 300 is, it's miffed a lot of photographers by it being nothing more than a '10D light', and I know many that are holding out for the D70. Also note the popularity of the D100 which seems to occupy favor among serious amatuers, semi pros more so than Canon. Another point I'd like to make is none of thesde cameras have much meaning in the pro-sumer market when body prices remain above $1000. For a working pro you must have one hell of a cash flow to be upgrading to a mark II from a 10D so soon, but the mark II might entice the last of the film hold-outs into the digital camp.

 

What were seeing now are refinements of flagship cameras, and this have historically been the best cameras to purchase and use. We're also getting into the incremental part of the quality factor since at 6x megapixels, it's starting to get tough to see the differences in the newer cameras.

[ShunCheung]

Essentially, the camera that is introduced later has the advantage to see what the competition has just done and then produce something better. In this case Canon has the advantage to see what the D2H is all about and produce something superior. Recall that about 5 months ago, the Digital Rebel broke the $1K barrier and was a big deal, but Nikon got to look at it and then added "pro features" such as 3D color matrix metering and fast flash sync into the D70, which has an impressive feature list that attracts buyer. I am not so sure that the D70 will indeed produce images that are so much better.

 

The EOS 1D Mark II certainly looks impressive, but the D2H has the advantage of being released first. A lot of news organizations have already bought into it and it is unlikely that they will switch brands so quickly. Moreover, it has long been demonstrated that 4MP is sufficient for news organizations and magazines. 8MP is in a way a waste; not to mention that the 1DII is 40% more expensive, which is an important factor also.

 

What Nikon is really needs now is a D2X. The D1X is a 3-year-old design and quite out of date. At this point Nikon simply has no modern high-resolution DSLR to compete.

[scott_eaton]

Note that Nikon is holding out on sample images from the D70 showing they know it's imperitive it have equal if not superior image quality than the Rebel and 10D. How they're going to pull it off with same sensor as the D100 will be interesting.

[stephen_steiner]

As if the 1D MK II wasn't bad enough, what about Nikon's failure to answer the 1Ds with a full-frame sensor camera?. As more long-time Nikon pros switch to Canon, Nikon will surely suffer a severe blow in the "prestige" department. Catering to the pro market and demonstrating dominance in that segment has always been a marketing strategy of both companies in order to sell cameras 'downstream" from their respective pro lines.

[marshall]

Nikon seems to have answered the full-frame sensor question with a range of very wide DX lenses. Certainly the success of smaller-sensor bodies from both Canon and Nikon suggest that full-frame isn't really required for everyone. Of course, it remains to be seen whether that is sufficient as a long-term strategy.

[peter_phan]

The problem with the Nikon D2H is that, coming two years after the introduction of the Canon 1D, it came with too little, too late. The 1D MKII is what the D2H should have been. The second problem with the D2H is that even though it was announced months ago, it was mired in mystery and delays, with barely any sample images released-- and those sample images were plagued by disappointing noise and poor quality. Finally, the D2H didn't become available until late December/January, and by then the 1D had been discontinued and there were expectations of a 1D replacement coming in February. So the D2H never was able to gain much momentum. And already, it appears that the 1D MKII offers considerably better quality (less noise) at higher ISO speeds than the D2H, which will be a boon for pj/event/sports photographers, with the additional benefit of higher resolution.

 

Someone had mentioned that 4MP is sufficient for news organizations. True. But news organizations that don't have high quality demands will do just fine with a lower resolution JPEG, too. And of course, you can shoot the 1D MKII at a lower resolution JPEG if you like. But for magazine, fashion, wedding, landscape, etc, the 1D MKII will be equally well suited. The wonderful thing about the 1D MKII is that it is the first really do-it-all digital SLR that can offer resolution and speed, rather than being pigeon-holed into a "primarily good for pj/action" or "good resolution but slow speed" camera.

 

I think Canon is aiming at the Olypics with the 1D MKII. They want the 1D MKII to the *the* camera to have for photographers covering the Olympics. And with its first-ever combination of resolution and speed, it doesn't have much competition right now.

[berg_na]

Speaking of prestige and pros... NASA astronauts on the Space Station are currently using the <a href="http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=11741">Nikon D1 to capture images</a> for downlink. No Canon equipment has ever been flown in space for use in scientific applications.

[stephen_steiner]

<p><i>Nikon seems to have answered the full-frame sensor question with a range of very wide DX lenses.</i></p>

 

How is that an answer - in as much as Canon will eventually move to 17-18 MP (the resolution of film) full-frame sensors within a few years?

[stephen_steiner]

<p><i>Speaking of prestige and pros... NASA astronauts on the Space Station are currently using the Nikon D1 to capture images for downlink.</i></p>

 

So what? As Eric Friedemann responded to a similiar proclamation in a different thread: <p><i>"To say NASA uses a Nikon D1 is like saying that stock car drivers race "stock cars." It would be interesting to know how many of the parts on NASA's DSLRs would be found on an Earthbound D1.</p>

 

<p>In any event, yes, NASA has been using Nikons since the Nikon FTn back in the 1960s. Hasselblad also shares this honor."</i></p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>How is that an answer - in as much as Canon will eventually move to 17-18 MP

(the resolution of film) full-frame sensors within a few years?</I><P>They will? Does

anyone at Canon know this? And at any rate a few years from now is not now.

[berg_na]

Instruments that are qualified for space use must pass the most stringent tests to demonstrate that they can survive the extreme conditions during the mission. What it means it that only the best built equipment, both in terms of quality and performance, are qualified. So NASA continued selection of Nikon equipment for space missions means that no other manufacturer has succeeded to offer a better product.

 

In auto racing, sure, the McClaren-Mercedes and Williams-BMW engines that win Formula 1 races are way different from those used in street car models, but some of the technology developed there will eventually be applied.

[peter_phan]

<i>No Canon equipment has ever been flown in space for use in scientific applications.</i>

<p>

First of all, you don't know that for certain, unless you have access to the equipment manifests of every space flight ever conducted. Secondly, that doesn't mean that one brand of equipment is any superior than any other. Frankly, camera equipment goes through a lot more abuse and trauma being used along the sidelines of major sporting and news events than it does floating around in the weightlessness of space. And last time I looked, there are is a lot of Canon equipment being used at major sporting and news events.<div></div>

[marshall]

<I>Nikon seems to have answered the full-frame sensor question with a range of very wide DX lenses.

<P>

How is that an answer - in as much as Canon will eventually move to 17-18 MP (the resolution of film) full-frame sensors within a few years?</I>

<P>

Well, I didn't say it would satisfy everyone, just that it suggests where Nikon's attention has been. As long as we're all guessing about their strategies, why not throw in a few actual product trends, right?

<P>

<P>

<I>

So NASA continued selection of Nikon equipment for space missions means that no other manufacturer has succeeded to offer a better product. </I>

<P>

It's probably safer to say that it means that Nikon has continued to offer a product that meets their requirements and passes their tests. They have a lot of very important things to test for space missions and limited resources (like everyone else); do we know whether they tested the other brands of digital camera on the market?

[stephen_steiner]

<p><i>So NASA continued selection of Nikon equipment for space missions means that no other manufacturer has succeeded to offer a better product.</i></p>

 

<p>Really? And you are certain that NASA requests other manufacturers submit these types of one-of-a-kind, highly specialized cameras for testing and that, each time over the last forty years, the Nikon submission has successfully outperformed all others? And, are you also suggesting that Canon, if it chose to, couldn't build a camera that would be acceptable to NASA?</p>

 

<p>I had a relative who was NASA electrical engineer up until a few years ago. He told me that NASA has been using Nikon (and Hassy) equipmant since day one and has never even requested that any other manufacturer submit a camera, nor have any other manufacturers offered to build such a camera. He explained that forty years ago Nikon was the dominant player and it has become something of a "tradition" to continue using Nikon.</p>

[jespdj]

National Geographics' first all-digital story was done with Nikon equipment (D100 and D1X) - it was the story about airplanes in the issue of November or December last year.

 

Please, please, write more about why Nikon is better than Canon or vice versa.

 

(p.s. I have Canon equipment).

[kelvinphoto - arlington, t]

I am going to move to Canon by the end of this year if Nikon don't come with a full frame sensor for 8MP or more. My customer required 30x40++++ prints and 6MP RAW is not big enuff. WHERE TA HE......IS D2X. SO F******** SLOW

[steve_daggs]

If my observatons are correct, the Canon 1D MKII has a max flash sync speed of 1/250 vs. the D2H sync speed of 1/500. This can be a BIG factor for sports shooters that shoot with arena strobes. It is also worth noting that the D70 has an external flash sync speed of 1/500 vs. the D100s 1/180 and the Canon 300D 1/200.