| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/24/2005 03:10:39 PM · #1 |
I use Canon equipment. Like a lot of people who have ended up with a particular product line, this was not a pure research-driven decision, but something that sort of evolved over time.
I originally had a Canon Elan IIe that I was comfortable with back in my film days. I had a few lenses with it. Then I wanted to take the plunge into digital and dicovered that if I bought a D60 I could keep my existing lenses and the controls would be familiar. Etc, etc, and a few years later I have four Canon EF mount bodies (2 film, 2 digital) and a whole host of lenses. At a certain point I became married to Canon as a product line simply because the kit kept growing, and even with good resale value it is a big hit to the pocketbook to make a switch. Lucky for me I like their stuff.
I have always been very pragmatic about the reasons I have Canon gear, though, especially the element of chance that was involved with it. If I had started with a Nikon film body I am fairly certain that I would have a D100 or D70 or some other Nikon body today.
So what does this have to do with Nikon? Well, in a nutshell, I am sort of worried about them. Canon seems to be overwhelming them with their DSLR body offerings. And the 5D seems to be a particularly large hammer to hit them with - full frame for under $3500? Yikes.
I worry about Nikon because I see a strong competitor to Canon as a good thing for me as a consumer. If Canon does not have a strong competitor they have less incentive to produce a better variety of equipment at a lower cost. They have less incentive to provide excellent customer service.
Does anyone else feel like Nikon might actually be facing some future trouble in terms of competing with Canon? I don't mean financial trouble so much; Nikon profits are way up right now - I mean trouble in terms of losing marketshare in the DSLR space.
|
|
|
|
08/24/2005 03:13:31 PM · #2 |
This is seemingly appropriate at this juncture in time.
|
|
|
|
08/24/2005 03:16:33 PM · #3 |
Rich, like you I had the Elan IIe and acutually got on the boat with an AE-1 Program after college. Lenses are what keep most people from changing teams. Nikon has many loyal followers as well so dont worry.
Now where is the "e" model (eye controlled focus) on the DSLR's? |
|
|
|
08/24/2005 03:17:12 PM · #4 |
| That image could get a lot of use around here! |
|
|
|
08/24/2005 03:19:28 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by photodude:
Rich, like you I had the Elan IIe and acutually got on the boat with an AE-1 Program after college. Lenses are what keep most people from changing teams. Nikon has many loyal followers as well so dont worry.
Now where is the "e" model (eye controlled focus) on the DSLR's? |
That's a very good point - that sort of 'equipment marriage' as it were can lead to some very faithful clients of any vendor.
And I also liked the eye control - some have called it a novelty, but I really thought it worked well.
|
|
|
|
08/24/2005 03:23:09 PM · #6 |
I switched over from Nikon when I went digital and I am not the lone convert. Nikon is still competition to Canon and to some degree they still do keep them on thier toes. Canon is also aware that in the space of a year or two the market may be a totally different playing field, with the introduction of new technology.
Nikon will anounce the D200 in about a month and that should be enough to keep many of Nikon's existing customers loyal until the next release, and will sway a good many first time DSLR purchhasers in thier direction.
Have faith. Competition is a good thing.
|
|
|
|
08/24/2005 03:28:29 PM · #7 |
Time will tell of course but I see it not as a battle of "full size sensor" for under $3,500. Certainly the 5D will have an audience but I'm not sure how large. My guess is most that want to make that move will move further up the line. It will be hard to beat the Nikon D2x for many photojournalists and sports guys.
As I see it could end up being a battle over which strategy wins out, 35mm size sensors vs. APS sized sensors. Digital is different and there is nothing that says you have to stay with the same old format when moving to a new technology. There are some advantages for journalistic, sports and wildlife photographers in the smaller sensors. Speed and long lens advantage for two. Of course there is an advantage currently with a 35mm size sensor in terms of noise and detail, the same issues as 35mm vs. large format. But there always was and is a place for both.
I would not count Nikon out as yet. The bigger worry for Nikon is marketing. They seem to rest on their prestigious past and are getting hammered by a much more aggressive Canon marketing team. As I said, time will tell.
Message edited by author 2005-08-24 15:30:28. |
|
|
|
08/24/2005 03:33:07 PM · #8 |
It's not a Canon vs. Nikon battle. What about Konica-Minolta, Pentax, and Olympus? Nikon have a very good collection of lenses, but there are some reasonably good bodies out there from other companies.
|
|
|
|
08/24/2005 03:40:24 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
It's not a Canon vs. Nikon battle. What about Konica-Minolta, Pentax, and Olympus? Nikon have a very good collection of lenses, but there are some reasonably good bodies out there from other companies. |
Agreed. And who came up with a 5D first? |
|
|
|
08/24/2005 03:43:22 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
...but there are some reasonably good bodies out there from other companies. |
But the point is they do not take up a reasonable amount of market share to be a threat to Canon any time in the near future. If you take KM, Pentax, Oly and Sigma and put them together they could not match the Canon DSLR body lineup or come close to thier sales revenue from the DSLRs.
|
|
|
|
08/24/2005 03:46:12 PM · #11 |
I think Nikon will hang on because they do still have very strong products even if not full frame. We are still at a stage in digitial where sensor advances can give a maker an advantage for some amount of time. I believe we will reach a point where we don't simply need more pixels and less noise. At that point the rest of the package (ergonomics, reliability, lens quality) starts to come back into play rather than just sensor advantages. I'm hoping some of the small players in the market can hang on until then. I would love to have a digital Leica range finder and skip all of the automation that Nikon and Canon provide these days.
|
|
|
|
08/24/2005 03:50:47 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
...but there are some reasonably good bodies out there from other companies. |
But the point is they do not take up a reasonable amount of market share to be a threat to Canon any time in the near future. If you take KM, Pentax, Oly and Sigma and put them together they could not match the Canon DSLR body lineup or come close to thier sales revenue from the DSLRs. |
I dunno about them not being a threat.. Canon's dSLRs seem to follow trends from *all* the other camera companies when they come out with new bodies. Look at the 350D/XT. Pentax brings out a tiny dSLR, and suddenly Canon has a (very slightly) smaller one. You don't think they weren't threatened by another company having a marketing ploy like that?
They seem to take into consideration a lot of things from all the camera companies, and use them to their advantage.
Oh, there's a feeling of threat there.. it might not be on the same level as Nikon, but they keep their eyes open for sure, and don't let too many things get past them.
the whole 5D thing is, as well, kind of a slap in the face to Konica-Minolta IMO.. and reeks of underhanded marketing ploys, but that's neither here nor there.
|
|
|
|
08/24/2005 03:58:59 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
Look at the 350D/XT. Pentax brings out a tiny dSLR, and suddenly Canon has a (very slightly) smaller one. |
You think Canon just gears up and pops one out as needed? That body in it's peliminary stages was probably on the board before the 300D was released. The 5D was more then likly in some degree of planning since the 1Ds was released.
As far as the 5D being a slap to KM, well KM ought to slap themselves. The two bodies aren't even in the same class.
|
|
|
|
08/24/2005 04:39:58 PM · #14 |
I was hoping this would be a Kodak vs. Fuji thread.
This is the thing I don't like about digital, in the old days the only competition existing would be lenses vs. lenses, films vs. films. And that was fun. This isn't. Nikon is for some people, Canon is for others and sony should be for no one.
|
|
|
|
08/24/2005 04:46:48 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Ennil:
Nikon is for some people, Canon is for others and sony should be for no one. |
rofl
|
|
|
|
08/24/2005 04:52:32 PM · #16 |
The end of the brand name wars is here!
CanNikkoltaflex has arrived!!!
|
|
|
|
08/24/2005 04:52:49 PM · #17 |
Nikon just reported outstanding profits in a sluggish economy. They are in no danger.
The company is very conservative. Taking a look back at 35mm, Canon introduced models at a ratio of about 6:1. Nikon doesn't jump on the bandwagon with the latest bells & whistles. They make cameras with state of the art technology, but not necessarily all the features that competitors have. They have a very extensive network of pros that give them feedback on features that pros will use. That’s why you never saw cheezy features like eye control on Nikon bodies. A classic example is one of the best cameras ever made (and it is still being made after almost 25 years) the F3. It doesn't have a program mode, because no pro or advanced amateurs use them.
Relating to Digital Nikon is jumping on the mega pixel war bandwagon, knowing that 6mp is just as useful as 8mp. They are sticking to their guns on sensor size. There is no need for the sensor to be larger. Canon (and others) provide these features & specs mostly for ad hype and uniformed customers. Nikon knows that when the dust settles they will be in the game by making outstanding durable products.
|
|
|
|
08/24/2005 05:03:50 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by hyperfocal:
Relating to Digital Nikon is jumping on the mega pixel war bandwagon, knowing that 6mp is just as useful as 8mp. They are sticking to their guns on sensor size. There is no need for the sensor to be larger. |
I have no argument with you that Nikon makes a solid product and that the are in good shape financially.
I will argue, all other factors being the same, that an 8Mp camera will produce a better image then a 6Mp camera.
I will also argue the virtues of the FF digital body. If the 1Ds would never have been released I would probably still be shooting film with a Nikon body and through Nikon lenses. Being able to use all of that great glass the way it was intended to be used was the main selling point for me and the reason I swithched from film to digital - from Nikon to Canon.
|
|
|
|
08/24/2005 05:22:32 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
I have no argument with you that Nikon makes a solid product and that the are in good shape financially.
I will argue, all other factors being the same, that an 8Mp camera will produce a better image then a 6Mp camera. |
Only at the limits of print size will any difference be slightly noticable. Anything under 11x14 there will be no difference.
Originally posted by nsbca7:
I will also argue the virtues of the FF digital body. If the 1Ds would never have been released I would probably still be shooting film with a Nikon body and through Nikon lenses. Being able to use all of that great glass the way it was intended to be used was the main selling point for me and the reason I swithched from film to digital - from Nikon to Canon. |
I won't argue that a FF camera would be convenient to use older glass, but what needs to happen is that manufacturers need to build and design new glass for the DX sized sensor. I wouldn’t put my Super-Angulon 90mm/5.6 on my D70, because it was designed for 4x5 so why put glass designed for 35mm on a digital? My point is that that great glass can be made smaller (cheaper!) for digital.
|
|
|
|
08/24/2005 05:37:27 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
But the point is they do not take up a reasonable amount of market share to be a threat to Canon any time in the near future. |
Quite right.
The potential for these companies to innovate is Canon's biggest threat.
Great oaks from little acorns grow.
|
|
|
|
08/24/2005 05:45:53 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by hyperfocal:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
I have no argument with you that Nikon makes a solid product and that the are in good shape financially.
I will argue, all other factors being the same, that an 8Mp camera will produce a better image then a 6Mp camera. |
Only at the limits of print size will any difference be slightly noticable. Anything under 11x14 there will be no difference. |
I have to love your logic. Ok, so I'll agree. There is no noticable difference between a 2Mp camera and an 8Mp camera at thumbnail size. Now if we could just get everyone to print 1"x2" images we can be done with all this madness and just go back to 2Mp cameras.
Originally posted by hyperfocal:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
I will also argue the virtues of the FF digital body. If the 1Ds would never have been released I would probably still be shooting film with a Nikon body and through Nikon lenses. Being able to use all of that great glass the way it was intended to be used was the main selling point for me and the reason I swithched from film to digital - from Nikon to Canon. |
I won't argue that a FF camera would be convenient to use older glass, but what needs to happen is that manufacturers need to build and design new glass for the DX sized sensor. I wouldn’t put my Super-Angulon 90mm/5.6 on my D70, because it was designed for 4x5 so why put glass designed for 35mm on a digital? My point is that that great glass can be made smaller (cheaper!) for digital. |
No I wouldn't put any Super-Angulon 90mm/5.6 on my 1Ds Mark II either. I would use the glass that was designed for it. It's called Canon EF glass. It is readily available both new and used and as of yet there is no suitable replacement for it.
Message edited by author 2005-08-24 17:49:50.
|
|
|
|
08/24/2005 05:49:06 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
But the point is they do not take up a reasonable amount of market share to be a threat to Canon any time in the near future. |
Quite right.
The potential for these companies to innovate is Canon's biggest threat.
|
And hopefully Canon's greatest motivation to improve and lower prices.
|
|
|
|
08/24/2005 05:55:51 PM · #23 |
I'm not sure nikon cares about digital FF...
|
|
|
|
08/24/2005 06:35:48 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by kyebosh:
I'm not sure nikon cares about digital FF... |
They don't.
Reference: this interview with Nikon R&D Director Tomino Naoki at Photokina 2004 (which took place from 27/Sep - 3/Oct, so less than a year ago). Quoting a particularly relevant question here:
R: You said during Photokina 2004 press release that a full frame product can be developed if there is customer requirement. Specifically, is there a related research going on?
TN: Regarding 35mm full frame we are going through a study of possibility. However, full frame is definitely not cheap. How many customers are going to purchase such over 1 million Yen camera? This is a business issue. Thus we want to wait for a while. Last year we release DX lenses, now we announce the intention of "at least three year development with DX standard", that's what we are going to...
So don't expect any FF bodies from Nikon any time soon, they are still "studying the possibility" (note the use of the word "possibility", meaning that maybe there are some issues they have to address first), they "want to wait for a while" and think it will cost a lot of money to engineer ("definitely not cheap" and "is a business issue"). Instead, look for more and more DX glass and 1.5X crop-factor bodies for the next couple years at least... |
|
|
|
08/24/2005 07:54:07 PM · #25 |
[quote=nsbca7]
I have to love your logic. Ok, so I'll agree. There is no noticable difference between a 2Mp camera and an 8Mp camera at thumbnail size. Now if we could just get everyone to print 1"x2" images we can be done with all this madness and just go back to 2Mp cameras.
[quote=nsbca7]
I never mentioned a 2mp camera or thumbnail views, get real. Digital cameras reached a point around 5mp that 95% of all photography needs can be acomplished. There is very little difference between 6mp and 8mp. Infact the 16.6mp sensor of the EOS-1Ds Mark II is not even twice the resoultion of the D70.
Even the medium format digital such as the Hasselbald, mamiya, etc use sensors smaller than their roll film format size. It is because digital sensors can create more resoulution per square milimeter than film. And we are still in a transition time. When the manafacturer catch up, we will have glass comparable to much larger & more expensive glass at a fraction of the size (and possible cost).
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/19/2025 07:55:27 PM EDT.
