Ya'll can gang up on Harry now, it's after midnight, he's an ooooold man... and we ALL know he needs his beauty sleep
Bring it on!!! :rambo
I can go all night. I may be getting on a bit but at least I still have some money left.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Last MiniPax bulletin states Andy and DanielB had Nikon sector doubleplusgood breakthrough. Harry and Dr. It annihilated! MiniPlenty personnel will requirework plustime to adjust CMOS prod stats. Inparty Lglass ration will probawise be increased. Gloryvic! Gloryvic! Gloryvic!
You keep buying over priced and over rated Nikon stuff.....and that won't last long.
Not to worry. I have a long shopping list and deep pockets. Quality costs. I can understand not being able to afford the best and having to go with the cheaper brand. You head on over to the Golden Arches of photography and order off of their dollar menu. Myself, I'm grabbing a steak at the Nikon Cafe.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
I was probably kidding on the square when I said that Nikon is playing catch up.
Not having had an attachment to either brand when I got my dSLR, I chose cannon because my price point was $1000-1500, and at the time the 20d was the best camera in that class. Nikon just didn't have anything to compete, and the gap between the D7- and the D2x is pretty huge.
Now Nikon has announced the D200, which may or may not inch out the 20d, despite the fact that it is $400 more expensive. I don't think at this level of the game 2 Megapixels makes as much difference as glass. And canon's 30d will likely beat the pants off of the d200. So Nikon has a dubious lead for about 15 minutes.
Nikon is in trouble, marketingwise. they are already in a hole with the general public because the canon brand is much better recieved by the general public. And I have a strong suspicion that the digicams are the bread and butter of these companies and give them the financial base to do the R&D that allows them to duke it out at the semi-pro and pro level. So Nikon needs to come up with something really innovative. I haven't seen them do that.
Given that Canon always seems to be out front, and that there seems to be more used canon glas floating on the market, I think for a new photographer Canon is clearly the way to go.
Also, the differences between the absolute top level of Canon and Nikon are so small as to be irrelevant. Take a look at harry and andy's photos. Did they get to that quality because of the different sensors? I don't think so.
If we are going to get snippy about lens quality, then what are you all doing not shooting film?
There's blue skies and then there's Nikon skies that's all I have to say about that
Geeze Harry, you used to be so much more agreeable when you shot a Sony. I still can't figure out how and why, a smart fella like you, made that wrong turn?
I was probably kidding on the square when I said that Nikon is playing catch up.
Nah. At this point Canon is playing catch-up. You're hoping that the 30D will close the gap between the D200 and the 20D.
Now Nikon has announced the D200, which may or may not inch out the 20d, despite the fact that it is $400 more expensive.
It does more than inch out the 20D
And canon's 30d will likely beat the pants off of the d200. So Nikon has a dubious lead for about 15 minutes.
A few paragraphs ago you said Nikon was playing catch-up and now they have the lead? The 30D will be an incremental improvement over the 20D. Its been on the drawing board too long to be responsive to the D200.
Nikon is in trouble, marketingwise.
Don't really care. I don't give a hoot about their respective sales or profit margins. I care about the cameras, the glass and the pictures.
Given that Canon always seems to be out front, and that there seems to be more used canon glas floating on the market, I think for a new photographer Canon is clearly the way to go.
Nah again. Don't equate popularity with quality. The latest editions of "Survivor" and "Miami Ink" would beat out a showing of "Hamlet". Just because McDonalds has great sales doesn't mean they have good food. There's more Canon glass for sale because there are more Canon users. There's a lot more competition for that used Canon glass. If I was in he market for used Nikon glass I would not have a problem in finding it.
Also, the differences between the absolute top level of Canon and Nikon are so small as to be irrelevant. Take a look at harry and andy's photos. Did they get to that quality because of the different sensors? I don't think so.
Finally something I can agree with. You're Ok after all.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
There's blue skies and then there's Nikon skies that's all I have to say about that
Geeze Harry, you used to be so much more agreeable when you shot a Sony. I still can't figure out how and why, a smart fella like you, made that wrong turn?
Steve
Err Steve, your avatar still has its holiday garb. Time to get that avatar current.
Heck when we both shot Sony we were constantly beating up on Canon users preaching the Canon liturgy to us on STF. What ever happened to that good old Steve? Another one who fell victim to the Dark Side. :lol
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
0
Matthew SavilleRegistered Users, Retired ModPosts: 3,352Major grins
edited January 18, 2006
I'll definitely have to interject here and speak out in defense of my beloved Nikon system!
Hahah okay I kid. But the point I want to make is that Nikon went down a different path with the D200. They put a fork in the $1,000-$2,000 DSLR road that wasn't there before, and then went down the one that leads to the places Galen Rowell used to haunt. The D200 is a burly, 100% "pro" level camera that is basically a D2X with the bottom chopped off, and a few hairs of AF performance fell out while in surgery. The 5D, 20D and 30D however are full-fleged "prosumer" cameras that are significantly spaced apart from the 1-series Canons, not only in build quality but in features.
The 30D will most likely continue down the "prosumer" path to the masses that await it, and will fly off the shelves as did the D70 in 2004. But that does not make it better than the D200! (and I shall shout this until everyone agrees with me! ;-) ) The D200 is simply a different beast, meant for a different task. In my case, praise be to Nikon, but in many, many cases, "you" the potential buyer should pass it up for the less expensive Canon 30D. It will beat the D200 for the specs that matter to YOU.
I have to disagree with your disagreements of my.... never mind.
I think the popularity of the digicams is important. Not because the popularity or the digicams per se are important, but because the margins on those products provide the cashflow that supports R&D on the cameras that I care about. You can make quality goodz, but if you don't have a healthy balance sheet it doesn't matter; and neither Canon nor Nikon can live off of what thir top lines bring in. Not without becoming a much different company. And a specialty producer really can't last that long without a mass base for the tech- look at Leica's financial problems. How long before hasselblad and mamiya go that route- particularly when a 30mp or so digital medium format back is available for $500. Farfetched? I don't think so- look at where the CMOS sensor was as recently as 2000. When that happens, Nikon and Canon will have the sensor tech to go after that market, if they want it.
Is the Nikon 200d that much better a camera than the 20d? Not really. It is a slight bit ahead. It beats the 20d in terms of megapixels and buffer for continuous drive. IIRC, Canon noise is still better.. Not that I like 3200, and I hardly ever shoot it. If I was going to buy an SLR today, I might go for the 200d. But I would probably buy a 20d and a $400 USM prime instead. I was expecting the 200d to be a big right fist to Canon's face. Instead, it sort of gives them the finger. But not when they are looking, so its not even that bold.
But Nikon's problem is that the 200d wasn't available when I bought my dSLR. So now I am committed to Canon, as I have made a serious investment in lenses. Nikon needs to capture and hold the lead at the semi-pro price point in order to get "transitioners." Once you transit from P&S to SLR, you are partisanized, usually for life. The general trends matter, because everybody's camera system evolves. One evolutionary path precludes another.
If the 30d has a full frame sensor... Well, it probably won't. But Nikon had better hope it doesn't.
for someone in my situation, however, this is all rather pointless. Unless you are shooting with L glass, or the Nikon equivalent- you are limited more by your lens than your camera, I think. A convoy moves at the speed of its slowest ship.
As I am shooting with the kit lens:uhoh and an old 35-135 USM, and I have never really used a nikon, all of this is just conjecture. But I make it a policy never to allow ignorance to stand in the way of my opinions.
Cave ab homine unius libri
0
Matthew SavilleRegistered Users, Retired ModPosts: 3,352Major grins
I was expecting the 200d to be a big right fist to Canon's face. Instead, it sort of gives them the finger. But not when they are looking, so its not even that bold.
Also, Nikon doesn't have those red rings.
Buyakasha!
Gold is better than red! Heheheh...
I think you put it well concerning what Nikon did to Canon with the D200. The D200 was a curveball that Canon didn't expect, but Canon isn't exactly thinking "oooh, that hurt bad" because the 20D and the 30D are what the masses want. The D200 is a grand slam amongst those who need what it offers, but no more than a base hit with the masses. The 30D will also be a base hit though, there will be no "grand slam" audience for it. It's just a scheduled "update" to it's prosumer lineup.
That is, unless they turn it into a fast ball with something like a FF sensor or more likely eyepoint control. If this is the case, Nikon is going to be the one going "Ow, that hurt" ...And if they don't have a D80 or D90 on the drawing table, they will lose major bucks in this area of $1,000-$1,500 DSLR bodies, where a LOT of cash is going to be flowing in 2006.
for someone in my situation, however, this is all rather pointless. Unless you are shooting with L glass, or the Nikon equivalent- you are limited more by your lens than your camera, I think. A convoy moves at the speed of its slowest ship.
As I am shooting with the kit lens:uhoh and an old 35-135 USM, and I have never really used a nikon, all of this is just conjecture. But I make it a policy never to allow ingorance to stand in the way of my opinions.
Wait a minute, which is it? Have you "made a serious investment in lenses" or have you only got the kit lens and the 35-135 USM? I'd consider $1,500 a considerable investment in lenses, and $3,000+ a "serious investment"...
think the popularity of the digicams is important. Not because the popularity or the digicams per se are important, but because the margins on those products provide the cashflow that supports R&D on the cameras that I care about. You can make quality goodz, but if you don't have a healthy balance sheet it doesn't matter;
Last time I looked Nikon had a healthy profit for last year. Nikon does not appear to be sinking at all. You had better hope Nikon stays around if Canon has no competition there would be no need for them to come up with their camera of the month.
Nikon has redone their DSLR product line and the current line-up of the D50, D70, D200, D2Hs and D2X is an extremely strong line up. DSLR sales are booming now that the price of entry level DSLRs are dropped below $1000. Nikon has wisely choosen not to chase after Canon but has developed their line-up with an eye towards quality. They seem pretty well set for awhile. The only new camera that I see in the next year should be an improved D2H model (10MP version forecast, that will be a killer camera).
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
I hesitate to classify the d200 as a grand slam. 12mp is defintely better than 8mp, but 10 isn't that much better than 8, then again it isn't that much worse than 12. The gaps here are getting smaller.
If I wanted a Nikon, I would likely go for the d200 rather than the d2x, because I like the lower weight, and I don't shoot sports. If I was a sport shooter, however, that 8 fps would really, really matter.
The 20d definitely isn't for the masses. The 350d and d70 are the only SLRs in this dogfight that approach that level.
I would be very suprised if the 30d had a full frame sensor. That would undercut the 5d. If you get FF for $1500 less, then why buy the 5d? Which, by the way, is a hell of a camera, and the only recent innovation which really surprised me.
Eye control focus freaks me out. No lasers in my eyeball please. I also sense a microsoft complex. Making a machine for dumb users that frustrates the smart ones.
Wait a minute, which is it? Have you "made a serious investment in lenses" or have you only got the kit lens and the 35-135 USM? I'd consider $1,500 a considerable investment in lenses, and $3,000+ a "serious investment"...
-Matt-
Dude, I have a portuguese wife and a mortgage. $400 for 3 lenses is a serious investment for me.
Like I said, most people acquire a system through an evolutionary process. Buy a body, add a few lenses, hopefully sell some prints, add more lenses. Once you have gone down a road, most folks won't chuck it all and start over.
Yell at me later, but reading all this Nikon/Canon stuff brings back the old days of the Chevy/Ford muscle car wars. Aha the passion!!! The hours worked to have the MONEY to buy the stuff (cams, carbs, paint jobs). Awesome cars both sides, but different, and both had strengths and weaknesses. Oh the grudge matches that would pop up. Guess I'm really dating myself here huh.
There was one guy, had a raggie Camaro, didn't have much money, and we use to say he kept the carb on the car with rubberbands.. But oh man could he drive. In his hands that car was sweat.
Same with cameras me thinks. I have a Canon and will probably stay there, but Nikon blue is pretty cool
Comments
Under no circumstances should I be taken seriously.
"Osprey Whisperer"
OspreyWhisperer.com
Updated.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Bring it on!!! :rambo
I can go all night. I may be getting on a bit but at least I still have some money left.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
You keep buying over priced and over rated Nikon stuff.....and that won't last long.
"Osprey Whisperer"
OspreyWhisperer.com
"FUJI!"
Let me know when Canon or Nikon can make some real skin tones.
CANON GLORYVIC!
.
.
.
.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
Not to worry. I have a long shopping list and deep pockets. Quality costs. I can understand not being able to afford the best and having to go with the cheaper brand. You head on over to the Golden Arches of photography and order off of their dollar menu. Myself, I'm grabbing a steak at the Nikon Cafe.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
I'm a Canon user...I'm saved!
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
I was probably kidding on the square when I said that Nikon is playing catch up.
Not having had an attachment to either brand when I got my dSLR, I chose cannon because my price point was $1000-1500, and at the time the 20d was the best camera in that class. Nikon just didn't have anything to compete, and the gap between the D7- and the D2x is pretty huge.
Now Nikon has announced the D200, which may or may not inch out the 20d, despite the fact that it is $400 more expensive. I don't think at this level of the game 2 Megapixels makes as much difference as glass. And canon's 30d will likely beat the pants off of the d200. So Nikon has a dubious lead for about 15 minutes.
Nikon is in trouble, marketingwise. they are already in a hole with the general public because the canon brand is much better recieved by the general public. And I have a strong suspicion that the digicams are the bread and butter of these companies and give them the financial base to do the R&D that allows them to duke it out at the semi-pro and pro level. So Nikon needs to come up with something really innovative. I haven't seen them do that.
Given that Canon always seems to be out front, and that there seems to be more used canon glas floating on the market, I think for a new photographer Canon is clearly the way to go.
Also, the differences between the absolute top level of Canon and Nikon are so small as to be irrelevant. Take a look at harry and andy's photos. Did they get to that quality because of the different sensors? I don't think so.
If we are going to get snippy about lens quality, then what are you all doing not shooting film?
BTW, no one has addressed the Leica envy issue.
Or the sheep.
There's blue skies and then there's Nikon skies
Geeze Harry, you used to be so much more agreeable when you shot a Sony. I still can't figure out how and why, a smart fella like you, made that wrong turn?
Steve
Setup: One camera, one lens, and one roll of film.
Lucky for Fuji, Sony, HP, and Kodak some folks actually believe that.
"Osprey Whisperer"
OspreyWhisperer.com
Now there's a man to my heart! Although you obviously need to learn how to spell Olympus.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Err Steve, your avatar still has its holiday garb. Time to get that avatar current.
Heck when we both shot Sony we were constantly beating up on Canon users preaching the Canon liturgy to us on STF. What ever happened to that good old Steve? Another one who fell victim to the Dark Side. :lol
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Hahah okay I kid. But the point I want to make is that Nikon went down a different path with the D200. They put a fork in the $1,000-$2,000 DSLR road that wasn't there before, and then went down the one that leads to the places Galen Rowell used to haunt. The D200 is a burly, 100% "pro" level camera that is basically a D2X with the bottom chopped off, and a few hairs of AF performance fell out while in surgery. The 5D, 20D and 30D however are full-fleged "prosumer" cameras that are significantly spaced apart from the 1-series Canons, not only in build quality but in features.
The 30D will most likely continue down the "prosumer" path to the masses that await it, and will fly off the shelves as did the D70 in 2004. But that does not make it better than the D200! (and I shall shout this until everyone agrees with me! ;-) ) The D200 is simply a different beast, meant for a different task. In my case, praise be to Nikon, but in many, many cases, "you" the potential buyer should pass it up for the less expensive Canon 30D. It will beat the D200 for the specs that matter to YOU.
-Matt-
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
I have to disagree with your disagreements of my.... never mind.
I think the popularity of the digicams is important. Not because the popularity or the digicams per se are important, but because the margins on those products provide the cashflow that supports R&D on the cameras that I care about. You can make quality goodz, but if you don't have a healthy balance sheet it doesn't matter; and neither Canon nor Nikon can live off of what thir top lines bring in. Not without becoming a much different company. And a specialty producer really can't last that long without a mass base for the tech- look at Leica's financial problems. How long before hasselblad and mamiya go that route- particularly when a 30mp or so digital medium format back is available for $500. Farfetched? I don't think so- look at where the CMOS sensor was as recently as 2000. When that happens, Nikon and Canon will have the sensor tech to go after that market, if they want it.
Is the Nikon 200d that much better a camera than the 20d? Not really. It is a slight bit ahead. It beats the 20d in terms of megapixels and buffer for continuous drive. IIRC, Canon noise is still better.. Not that I like 3200, and I hardly ever shoot it. If I was going to buy an SLR today, I might go for the 200d. But I would probably buy a 20d and a $400 USM prime instead. I was expecting the 200d to be a big right fist to Canon's face. Instead, it sort of gives them the finger. But not when they are looking, so its not even that bold.
But Nikon's problem is that the 200d wasn't available when I bought my dSLR. So now I am committed to Canon, as I have made a serious investment in lenses. Nikon needs to capture and hold the lead at the semi-pro price point in order to get "transitioners." Once you transit from P&S to SLR, you are partisanized, usually for life. The general trends matter, because everybody's camera system evolves. One evolutionary path precludes another.
If the 30d has a full frame sensor... Well, it probably won't. But Nikon had better hope it doesn't.
Also, Nikon doesn't have those red rings.
Buyakasha!
As I am shooting with the kit lens:uhoh and an old 35-135 USM, and I have never really used a nikon, all of this is just conjecture. But I make it a policy never to allow ignorance to stand in the way of my opinions.
Gold is better than red! Heheheh...
I think you put it well concerning what Nikon did to Canon with the D200. The D200 was a curveball that Canon didn't expect, but Canon isn't exactly thinking "oooh, that hurt bad" because the 20D and the 30D are what the masses want. The D200 is a grand slam amongst those who need what it offers, but no more than a base hit with the masses. The 30D will also be a base hit though, there will be no "grand slam" audience for it. It's just a scheduled "update" to it's prosumer lineup.
That is, unless they turn it into a fast ball with something like a FF sensor or more likely eyepoint control. If this is the case, Nikon is going to be the one going "Ow, that hurt" ...And if they don't have a D80 or D90 on the drawing table, they will lose major bucks in this area of $1,000-$1,500 DSLR bodies, where a LOT of cash is going to be flowing in 2006.
-Matt-
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
-Matt-
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Guilty as charged
Last time I looked Nikon had a healthy profit for last year. Nikon does not appear to be sinking at all. You had better hope Nikon stays around if Canon has no competition there would be no need for them to come up with their camera of the month.
Nikon has redone their DSLR product line and the current line-up of the D50, D70, D200, D2Hs and D2X is an extremely strong line up. DSLR sales are booming now that the price of entry level DSLRs are dropped below $1000. Nikon has wisely choosen not to chase after Canon but has developed their line-up with an eye towards quality. They seem pretty well set for awhile. The only new camera that I see in the next year should be an improved D2H model (10MP version forecast, that will be a killer camera).
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
If I wanted a Nikon, I would likely go for the d200 rather than the d2x, because I like the lower weight, and I don't shoot sports. If I was a sport shooter, however, that 8 fps would really, really matter.
The 20d definitely isn't for the masses. The 350d and d70 are the only SLRs in this dogfight that approach that level.
I would be very suprised if the 30d had a full frame sensor. That would undercut the 5d. If you get FF for $1500 less, then why buy the 5d? Which, by the way, is a hell of a camera, and the only recent innovation which really surprised me.
Eye control focus freaks me out. No lasers in my eyeball please. I also sense a microsoft complex. Making a machine for dumb users that frustrates the smart ones.
Like I said, most people acquire a system through an evolutionary process. Buy a body, add a few lenses, hopefully sell some prints, add more lenses. Once you have gone down a road, most folks won't chuck it all and start over.
Except for Dr. It, that is.
There was one guy, had a raggie Camaro, didn't have much money, and we use to say he kept the carb on the car with rubberbands.. But oh man could he drive. In his hands that car was sweat.
Same with cameras me thinks. I have a Canon and will probably stay there, but Nikon blue is pretty cool