Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Digital Photography (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f37-digital-photography.html)
-   -   Re: Why buy 5D II Over D700? (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t649855-re-why-buy-5d-ii-over-d700.html)

John McWilliams 12-23-2008 10:20 PM

Re: Why buy 5D II Over D700?
 
Alan Smithee wrote:
> Just an observation, but why would anyone buy a 5D II over a D700? The
> only reason I can see is the Canon lens choice. If Canon didn't have
> monopoly over lens choice, they would be really screwed at the moment.


Nah. Neither Nikon nor Canon has produced a camera that's so compelling
that it'd drive any significant numbers of folks to the other brand.
Attrition over the long haul may have happened until Nikon caught up
within the last year. They may be ahead in NR at high ISOs, whereas
Canon had a lock on that until the past year or so.

--
john mcwilliams

Pete D 12-24-2008 11:13 AM

Re: Why buy 5D II Over D700?
 

"Stephen Bishop" <nospamplease@now.com> wrote in message
news:kq54l49btb61ng6pbaqrbcsg7u7c4tuuc0@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 14:20:54 -0800, John McWilliams
> <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Alan Smithee wrote:
>>> Just an observation, but why would anyone buy a 5D II over a D700? The
>>> only reason I can see is the Canon lens choice. If Canon didn't have
>>> monopoly over lens choice, they would be really screwed at the moment.

>>
>>Nah. Neither Nikon nor Canon has produced a camera that's so compelling
>>that it'd drive any significant numbers of folks to the other brand.
>>Attrition over the long haul may have happened until Nikon caught up
>>within the last year. They may be ahead in NR at high ISOs, whereas
>>Canon had a lock on that until the past year or so.

>
> IMO if Nikon introduces a 24MP version of the D700 at a price anywhere
> near the 5D2, then the 5D2 will be history.
>

If the D3x is anything to go on they might miss the mark and shoot
themselves in the foot.



John McWilliams 12-24-2008 04:00 PM

Re: Why buy 5D II Over D700?
 
Pete D wrote:
> "Stephen Bishop" <nospamplease@now.com> wrote in message
> news:kq54l49btb61ng6pbaqrbcsg7u7c4tuuc0@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 14:20:54 -0800, John McWilliams


>>> Nah. Neither Nikon nor Canon has produced a camera that's so compelling
>>> that it'd drive any significant numbers of folks to the other brand.
>>> Attrition over the long haul may have happened until Nikon caught up
>>> within the last year. They may be ahead in NR at high ISOs, whereas
>>> Canon had a lock on that until the past year or so.

>> IMO if Nikon introduces a 24MP version of the D700 at a price anywhere
>> near the 5D2, then the 5D2 will be history.


Nyet!

> If the D3x is anything to go on they might miss the mark and shoot
> themselves in the foot.


In any and all events: Neither Canon nor Nikon is going to make the
other "history", and that applies to all models that have been released.

--
john mcwilliams

John McWilliams 12-24-2008 08:44 PM

Re: Why buy 5D II Over D700?
 
Stephen Bishop wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 08:00:49 -0800, John McWilliams
> <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Pete D wrote:
>>> "Stephen Bishop" <nospamplease@now.com> wrote in message
>>> news:kq54l49btb61ng6pbaqrbcsg7u7c4tuuc0@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 14:20:54 -0800, John McWilliams
>>>>> Nah. Neither Nikon nor Canon has produced a camera that's so compelling
>>>>> that it'd drive any significant numbers of folks to the other brand.
>>>>> Attrition over the long haul may have happened until Nikon caught up
>>>>> within the last year. They may be ahead in NR at high ISOs, whereas
>>>>> Canon had a lock on that until the past year or so.
>>>> IMO if Nikon introduces a 24MP version of the D700 at a price anywhere
>>>> near the 5D2, then the 5D2 will be history.

>> Nyet!
>>
>>> If the D3x is anything to go on they might miss the mark and shoot
>>> themselves in the foot.

>> In any and all events: Neither Canon nor Nikon is going to make the
>> other "history", and that applies to all models that have been released.

>
> Hyperbole on my part. Of course Canon will go not under, but a D700x
> priced competitively to the 5D2 will seriously undercut sales of that
> camera. If nothing else, its price will fall like a rock like the
> original 5D.


Still hyperbole. At least you didn't say "kicks its ass" or "kills", or
a number of other pseudo-macho phrases.

If you can demo cause and effect here, with more than 5% price
variation, I'll be the first to crown you as a friggin' genius.....

--
john mcwilliams

We used to be troubled by multiple personalities, but we're O.K. now....


John McWilliams 12-24-2008 10:10 PM

Re: Why buy 5D II Over D700?
 
Stephen Bishop wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 12:44:57 -0800, John McWilliams
> <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Stephen Bishop wrote:
>>> On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 08:00:49 -0800, John McWilliams
>>> <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Pete D wrote:
>>>>> "Stephen Bishop" <nospamplease@now.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:kq54l49btb61ng6pbaqrbcsg7u7c4tuuc0@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 14:20:54 -0800, John McWilliams
>>>>>>> Nah. Neither Nikon nor Canon has produced a camera that's so compelling
>>>>>>> that it'd drive any significant numbers of folks to the other brand.
>>>>>>> Attrition over the long haul may have happened until Nikon caught up
>>>>>>> within the last year. They may be ahead in NR at high ISOs, whereas
>>>>>>> Canon had a lock on that until the past year or so.
>>>>>> IMO if Nikon introduces a 24MP version of the D700 at a price anywhere
>>>>>> near the 5D2, then the 5D2 will be history.
>>>> Nyet!
>>>>
>>>>> If the D3x is anything to go on they might miss the mark and shoot
>>>>> themselves in the foot.
>>>> In any and all events: Neither Canon nor Nikon is going to make the
>>>> other "history", and that applies to all models that have been released.
>>> Hyperbole on my part. Of course Canon will go not under, but a D700x
>>> priced competitively to the 5D2 will seriously undercut sales of that
>>> camera. If nothing else, its price will fall like a rock like the
>>> original 5D.

>> Still hyperbole. At least you didn't say "kicks its ass" or "kills", or
>> a number of other pseudo-macho phrases.
>>
>> If you can demo cause and effect here, with more than 5% price
>> variation, I'll be the first to crown you as a friggin' genius.....

>
>
> I don't claim to be a genius, but it is common sense. Of course it
> probably wouldn't cause someone invested in a lot of Canon glass to
> switch, but for those looking to buy into a system, the handling and
> other features of the D700 is so much better than the 5D2. Just
> looking at history, the D200/D80/D40/D300 onslaught from Nikon has
> seriously eroded Canon's market share. As to whatever macho phrase
> is appropriate, I don't have a clue.


What figures or sources can you cite to show what that erosion was, if any?


--
john mcwilliams

Max thought the night-time burglary at the California surfing museum
would be a safe caper, but that was before he spotted the security cop
riding a bull mastiff, blond hair blowing in the wind, and noticed the
blue-and-white sign wired to the cyclone fence, "Guard dude on
doggy."2:10:16 PM

Wolfgang Weisselberg 12-25-2008 03:15 PM

Re: Why buy 5D II Over D700?
 
Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:

> IMO if Nikon introduces a 24MP version of the D700 at a price anywhere
> near the 5D2, then the 5D2 will be history.


Surely you jest. Unless you want to tell every Canon shooter to
sell their glass, buy every lens they need anew and get used to
a completely different system.

-Wolfgang

John McWilliams 12-25-2008 03:54 PM

Re: Why buy 5D II Over D700?
 
Stephen Bishop wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 14:10:34 -0800, John McWilliams
> <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I don't claim to be a genius, but it is common sense. Of course it
>>> probably wouldn't cause someone invested in a lot of Canon glass to
>>> switch, but for those looking to buy into a system, the handling and
>>> other features of the D700 is so much better than the 5D2. Just
>>> looking at history, the D200/D80/D40/D300 onslaught from Nikon has
>>> seriously eroded Canon's market share. As to whatever macho phrase
>>> is appropriate, I don't have a clue.


>> What figures or sources can you cite to show what that erosion was, if any?

>
> Do you doubt this? Check any industry reports that show the sales of
> cameras over the past few years.
>
> It really doesn't matter, but it is what it is. Nikon was asleep at
> the wheel for a long time, but they've woken up.


Now, Stephen, you know when one makes an assertion it's incumbent on
them to back it up when asked nicely. I can find figures on the net
that'd indicate just about anything.

What, please, from a somewhat credible source, shows what you assert?

--
John McWilliams

John McWilliams 12-26-2008 04:51 AM

Re: Why buy 5D II Over D700?
 
Stephen Bishop wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 07:54:36 -0800, John McWilliams
> <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Stephen Bishop wrote:
>>> On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 14:10:34 -0800, John McWilliams
>>> <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I don't claim to be a genius, but it is common sense. Of course it
>>>>> probably wouldn't cause someone invested in a lot of Canon glass to
>>>>> switch, but for those looking to buy into a system, the handling and
>>>>> other features of the D700 is so much better than the 5D2. Just
>>>>> looking at history, the D200/D80/D40/D300 onslaught from Nikon has
>>>>> seriously eroded Canon's market share. As to whatever macho phrase
>>>>> is appropriate, I don't have a clue.
>>>> What figures or sources can you cite to show what that erosion was, if any?
>>> Do you doubt this? Check any industry reports that show the sales of
>>> cameras over the past few years.
>>>
>>> It really doesn't matter, but it is what it is. Nikon was asleep at
>>> the wheel for a long time, but they've woken up.

>> Now, Stephen, you know when one makes an assertion it's incumbent on
>> them to back it up when asked nicely. I can find figures on the net
>> that'd indicate just about anything.
>>
>> What, please, from a somewhat credible source, shows what you assert?

>
> That's reasonable. For starters:
>
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13580_3-9882670-39.html
>
> Or
>
> http://blog2.1001noisycameras.com/20...-for-2007.html
>
> Like I said, you can choose to believe it or not, but it really isn't
> important.
>
> But do your own research and you'll find that Nikon shook up their
> management; and the result was the rapid introduction of a series of
> cameras that began to give Canon a serious run for their money, and
> the trend doesn't seem to be slowing down yet.


No, I agree on this: It's clear Nikon moved fast and well over the last
18 months or so. There was a lot of pent up demand for new Nikon bodies,
and so market share was gained by Nikon in that period. To whit:

> When it comes to the strategically important and fast-growing market of SLR cameras, Canon remained No. 1 worldwide in 2007 but lost share to Nikon, new statistics show.
> Canon sold 3.18 million single-lens reflex cameras in 2007 compared with Nikon's 2.98 million, according to a study released Tuesday by market researcher IDC. That represents a 42.7 percent and 40 percent share, respectively, of the 2007 SLR market. It's a much narrower margin for Canon than in 2006, when it had 46.7 percent of the market, compared with Nikon's 33 percent.


I don't think a 4 percentage point shift in MS is major erosion, given
esp. the wait by many Nikon fans.

--
john mcwilliams

John McWilliams 12-26-2008 04:54 AM

Re: Why buy 5D II Over D700?
 
David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net>:
>>> What, please, from a somewhat credible source, shows what you assert?

>> Sources? We ain't got no sources. We don't need no sources! I don't have
>> to show you any stinkin' sources! [with apologies to John Huston]

>
> http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD...5D2IMAGING.HTM
>
> "We kept running out of superlatives to describe the Canon 5D Mark II's
> printed output: These are some of the cleanest, highest-quality images we've
> seen yet from a digital camera."
>
> (Although they panned the in-camera jpegs and say: "Adobe Camera Raw (our
> default RAW converter, due to its wide availability and very broad support
> for different camera models) reveals significantly more fine detail,
> particularly in areas of subtle subject contrast.")
>
> Also, something I worry about:
>
> "Hue. The Canon 5D Mark II showed a few small color shifts relative to the
> correct mathematical translation of colors in its subjects, but had really
> excellent accuracy overall. (It's one of the most hue-accurate cameras we've
> tested to date.) "


Worry? T.I.C.? Could there have been a smiley there? Or were you serious?

IAE, Lightroom, and presumably ACR, allow a custom Profile for fine
tuning hue, shooting a MacBeath=Gretag chart and running the results in
software to produce a custom setting at each ISO you wish.

--
John McWilliams

John McWilliams 12-26-2008 04:02 PM

Re: Why buy 5D II Over D700?
 
David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> asked:
>> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>> Also, something I worry about:
>>>
>>> "Hue. The Canon 5D Mark II showed a few small color shifts relative to
>>> the correct mathematical translation of colors in its subjects, but had
>>> really excellent accuracy overall. (It's one of the most hue-accurate
>>> cameras we've tested to date.) "

>> Worry? T.I.C.? Could there have been a smiley there? Or were you serious?

>
> Canon claims they reduced the saturation of the Bayer filters, so I was
> wondering how it would do. More generally, dcams have problems with extreme
> colors: especially bright deep reds (exposing flowers so the red channel
> doesn't blow is often a challenge). And I have had trouble getting those
> bright electric Velvia greens landscape types love so much.


Are you talking just about the video above?
>
>> IAE, Lightroom, and presumably ACR, allow a custom Profile for fine tuning
>> hue, shooting a MacBeath=Gretag chart and running the results in software
>> to produce a custom setting at each ISO you wish.

>
> Yes, but I'm not convinced that you can completely fix color rendition
> problems after the fact. You may be able to futz with the stuff in the
> middle of the gamut, but the stuff at the edges will be determined by the
> camera.



I am pretty sure with RAW you can fix them. Does not DPP do all right
with them?

If you can send me an sample image or link to same with that problem,
I'll have a go at the colors.

--
John McWilliams


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:15 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.