Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Best Digital SLRs--Canon Leaving Nikon in Dust?

Reply
Thread Tools

Best Digital SLRs--Canon Leaving Nikon in Dust?

 
 
Larry R Harrison Jr
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2003
Oh boy. I'm going to stir up a hornet's nest with this thread, huh?
Not my intention at all.

I'm a huge Nikon fan in the film world. That said, it looks as though
Canon is leaving Nikon in the dust with digital SLRs. The D100 has
been good but I'm hearing the EOS10D is better, and the D1x was great
but now it looks as though the EOS-1Ds leaves it in the dust.

It seems to be sort of how, say, Nikon did this themselves in the film
world when they introduced the F5. Until Canon upgraded their EOS-1n
to the EOS-1v, the impression was that the F5 was ***the*** camera, no
contest.

Then again, I've noticed how Kodak's 14n and Fuji's S2--highly
regarded DSLRs themselves--use Nikon-mount lenses and obviously are
based somewhat on the D100. So obviously a lot of companies are
betting on Nikon's ability to rebound (if they do in fact have a need
to "rebound.")

Tips?

LRH
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
ralford
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2003
and is there a question here or simply waving a red flag at a bunch of bored
bulls?

looks like a thread that needs to be killfilled.

rma

"Larry R Harrison Jr" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
> Oh boy. I'm going to stir up a hornet's nest with this thread, huh?
> Not my intention at all.
>
> I'm a huge Nikon fan in the film world. That said, it looks as though
> Canon is leaving Nikon in the dust with digital SLRs. The D100 has
> been good but I'm hearing the EOS10D is better, and the D1x was great
> but now it looks as though the EOS-1Ds leaves it in the dust.
>
> It seems to be sort of how, say, Nikon did this themselves in the film
> world when they introduced the F5. Until Canon upgraded their EOS-1n
> to the EOS-1v, the impression was that the F5 was ***the*** camera, no
> contest.
>
> Then again, I've noticed how Kodak's 14n and Fuji's S2--highly
> regarded DSLRs themselves--use Nikon-mount lenses and obviously are
> based somewhat on the D100. So obviously a lot of companies are
> betting on Nikon's ability to rebound (if they do in fact have a need
> to "rebound.")
>
> Tips?
>
> LRH



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Rafe B.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2003
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 00:21:12 GMT, "ralford" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>and is there a question here or simply waving a red flag at a bunch of bored
>bulls?
>
>looks like a thread that needs to be killfilled.
>
>rma



No, I don't agree with that. It's a serious issue for those
of us who've been using Nikon gear for years, waiting
for the right "moment" to go for a digital SLR.

Let's say -- for example -- I've got a collection of Nikon
lenses worth (in total) roughly the cost of a Canon L 24-70.

What do do? Pay the extra dough for the D100 or
the S2, to leverage some old Nikon glass, or ditch the
Nikon and start fresh?

I chose the latter.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
MarkH
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2003
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) (Larry R Harrison Jr) wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed) om:

> I'm a huge Nikon fan in the film world. That said, it looks as though
> Canon is leaving Nikon in the dust with digital SLRs. The D100 has
> been good but I'm hearing the EOS10D is better, and the D1x was great
> but now it looks as though the EOS-1Ds leaves it in the dust.


I have never used a D100, I have a Canon 10D. I think that the 10D is a
little better in the ways that matter to me. But my understanding is that
the Nikon D100 is not far behind. I doubt that many Nikon fans that
already have some good lenses would bother changing to Canon.

I was thinking that the pros had good reason to change camps, but the newly
announced Nikon D2h should keep a lot of sports shooters from changing to
the Canon 1D.

The 1Ds is indeed superior to anything Nikon currently has, but surely
after the D2h there will be a new model to replace the D1x as well?

Canon may be ahead of Nikon at the moment, but Nikon is not far behind. I
don't really think it is accurate to say that Nikon has been left in the
dust, more like snapping at the heels.

Canon 10D = Good Camera
Nikon D100 = Good Camera
Canon 1D = Good Camera
Nikon D2h = Good Camera (from what I know so far)
Canon 1Ds = Good Camera
Nikon errr D2x or something? = Good Camera (bound to be, surely)

Plenty of good cameras available, and soon to be available. Just because I
have a Canon does not entitle me to put down other brands.

different people = different priorities.

Canon suits me, Nikon suits others. Without the competition Canon would
not be as good, and would cost more. So thanks to all you Nikon owners.



--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~markh/
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"

 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul Rubin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2003
MarkH <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> I have never used a D100, I have a Canon 10D. I think that the 10D is a
> little better in the ways that matter to me. But my understanding is that
> the Nikon D100 is not far behind. I doubt that many Nikon fans that
> already have some good lenses would bother changing to Canon.


Nikon screwed itself using the F80 platform for the D100, because it
won't meter with manual focus Nikkors. So many Nikon fans with lots
of good lenses STILL find themselves with no good reason not to switch
to Canon.

> The 1Ds is indeed superior to anything Nikon currently has, but surely
> after the D2h there will be a new model to replace the D1x as well?


Nikon's DX lens line makes some people think Nikon is resisting full
frame sensors and sticking with 1.5x. I hope they're wrong.

> Canon may be ahead of Nikon at the moment, but Nikon is not far behind. I
> don't really think it is accurate to say that Nikon has been left in the
> dust, more like snapping at the heels.


Let's not forget the Fuji S2 Pro and the Kodak 14n, both Nikon-mount
cameras, though apparently the 14n leaves some things to be desired.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Gavin Cato
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2003
Your subject is a bit provocative.

A few facts ;

1)

For the pro sector, when Nikon released the D1 it took Canon a bloody long
time to match it. This is similar to what is happening at the moment, the
two companies are playing leapfrog. Nikon is about to do it's own leapfrog
again.

2)

It took Canon 2 attempts with their 6mp entry level DSLR's to match the
D100.

The D60 was given a woefully inadequate AF module (as was the D30, but I'm
leaving it out) and very limited (and bad quality) high ISO support. The 10D
fixed the AF and gained excellent high iso performance, however the camera
is still not as fast as the D100.

The D100 still has faster AF, particularly in low light. It has instant
power on, has better battery usage, you can view images *before* and during
the writing to the CF card, it has a spot meter, much better RAW support.
I'll agree the 10D CMOS sensor is better than the D100 CCD, however the
difference is more something you see when viewing the image at 100% or more
in photoshop, not so much on print.

Considering the D100 had already been out for 8-10 months when the 10D came
out, the 10D should have spanked it. It's a note of just how good the D100
is that it didn't.

3)

Nikon's answer to the 1Ds hasn't arrived yet. In the same way as it took
Canon a while to reply to the D1, it's taking Nikon a while to reply to the
1Ds.

btw don't be so sure that the 1Ds "leaves the d1x in the dust". Have you
used both side by side to be able to say that? The 1Ds is a fine camera, but
the D1x is also an extremely good camera. Certainly the 1Ds would be better
for larger prints but the D1x still produces extremely good images,
particularly when it is producing the 10.5mp images via the "quirk" in it's
odd shaped sensor arrangement in conjunction with nikon capture 3.

4)

Nikon are the only DSLR where you can get true wide angle available at a
affordable price. A D100 with the DX 12-24mm lens is realistic for most DSLR
owners, and gives you 18mm wide angle. You simply cannot get 18mm on the 10D
without resorting to a fisheye (hardly suitable). The 1D with it's 1.3x
sensor can give you wide angle but it's a very expensive camera and you'll
need an expensive lens (i.e. 14mm). The 1Ds of course will give you wide
angle but at an insane price.

And, the 1Ds when paired with wide angle lenses such as the 16-35 exhibits
severe chromatic abberration. The Kodak 14N, whilst being a bit of a
dissapointment generally, when paired with the Nikon 17-35/2.8 lens does not
suffer from this.

Theres other stuff I can go on about but thats probably more than enough for
now

cheers

Gav





"Larry R Harrison Jr" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
> Oh boy. I'm going to stir up a hornet's nest with this thread, huh?
> Not my intention at all.
>
> I'm a huge Nikon fan in the film world. That said, it looks as though
> Canon is leaving Nikon in the dust with digital SLRs. The D100 has
> been good but I'm hearing the EOS10D is better, and the D1x was great
> but now it looks as though the EOS-1Ds leaves it in the dust.
>
> It seems to be sort of how, say, Nikon did this themselves in the film
> world when they introduced the F5. Until Canon upgraded their EOS-1n
> to the EOS-1v, the impression was that the F5 was ***the*** camera, no
> contest.
>
> Then again, I've noticed how Kodak's 14n and Fuji's S2--highly
> regarded DSLRs themselves--use Nikon-mount lenses and obviously are
> based somewhat on the D100. So obviously a lot of companies are
> betting on Nikon's ability to rebound (if they do in fact have a need
> to "rebound.")
>
> Tips?
>
> LRH



 
Reply With Quote
 
Surfworx Photography
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2003
I'd say it depends on what application you intend to use the camera, what
market if any you'll service, how much you want to spend, and what glass you
intend to use.

Derrick

"Larry R Harrison Jr" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
> Oh boy. I'm going to stir up a hornet's nest with this thread, huh?
> Not my intention at all.
>
> I'm a huge Nikon fan in the film world. That said, it looks as though
> Canon is leaving Nikon in the dust with digital SLRs. The D100 has
> been good but I'm hearing the EOS10D is better, and the D1x was great
> but now it looks as though the EOS-1Ds leaves it in the dust.
>
> It seems to be sort of how, say, Nikon did this themselves in the film
> world when they introduced the F5. Until Canon upgraded their EOS-1n
> to the EOS-1v, the impression was that the F5 was ***the*** camera, no
> contest.
>
> Then again, I've noticed how Kodak's 14n and Fuji's S2--highly
> regarded DSLRs themselves--use Nikon-mount lenses and obviously are
> based somewhat on the D100. So obviously a lot of companies are
> betting on Nikon's ability to rebound (if they do in fact have a need
> to "rebound.")
>
> Tips?
>
> LRH



 
Reply With Quote
 
Bernhard Mayer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2003
(E-Mail Removed) (Larry R Harrison Jr) wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed). com>...

> I'm a huge Nikon fan in the film world. That said, it looks as though
> Canon is leaving Nikon in the dust with digital SLRs. The D100 has
> been good but I'm hearing the EOS10D is better, and the D1x was great
> but now it looks as though the EOS-1Ds leaves it in the dust.


The 10D (which I now happily own) is not necessarily a better camera.
In fact there is not much difference in the pictures of a D100, 10D
and Fuji S2. As far as I see it (having played with all three of them
and having rented the Nikon, now owning the 10D), there are no big
reasons to go either system. There is a lot of press around the 10D
simply because it is a darn good camera and it is brand new. The
Nikon, on the other hand, has been on the market for several month, is
still a very good camera but just plain expensive.

> It seems to be sort of how, say, Nikon did this themselves in the film
> world when they introduced the F5. Until Canon upgraded their EOS-1n
> to the EOS-1v, the impression was that the F5 was ***the*** camera, no
> contest.


There is a lot of pro shooters switching from Nikon to Canon and most
do it for reasons other than comparing camera bodies. Some of these
reasons include Canon's CPS support especially at big events, Canon's
more innovative way of introducing new technologies in their
equipment. A lot of pros complain about the F5 and its "pathetic"
autofocus as compared to the nearly perfect EOS 1V, but a lot of
amateurs say it is a lot better than Canon's midrange line of cameras.
Whatever.

All I can say is that a professional photographer's decision is not
based on public opinion or emotions, but rather on a specific business
case that causes him to pretty much dump 45k$ worth of equipment to
shell out another 45k$ for that other brand.

> Then again, I've noticed how Kodak's 14n and Fuji's S2--highly
> regarded DSLRs themselves--use Nikon-mount lenses and obviously are
> based somewhat on the D100. So obviously a lot of companies are
> betting on Nikon's ability to rebound (if they do in fact have a need
> to "rebound.")


Both Kodak and Fuji chose Nikon analogue bodies to build their digital
stuff around. They may as well have chosen Canon or Minolta bodies for
that matter, in fact I believe some have (just take the D2000 and so
on)
This is purely a business decision that unlike the professional
photographer's business decision is not necessarily about getting
perfect results. Kodak's and Fuji's profit is a direct result of
camera sales; the pro's profit is a direct result of pictures taken.

The choice is simply. If you have Nikon glass, get a Nikon. If you
have Canon glass, get a Canon. If you have neither, get whatever you
like. If you feel like having a Nikon because you'll get a boner, for
christ's sake get a Nikon. What use is a potentially technically
better camera if you're emotionally attached to something else?

And I wouldn't give too much on Nikon's DX lenses. First of all, they
ARE expensive and second it's a matter of months until Canon has
something similar... as usual, it is a matter of months for the other
one to have the same offering

Now, I would, however, stay clear of Sigma and Minolta. I have yet to
see a Minolta strategy that includes digital SLR because right now
they are missing the boat and proud of it. As far as Sigma goes, I
hated the body for several reasons when I played with the SD9 and
there is only a few good pieces of Sigma glass out there. I miss the
truly outstanding lenses, which both Nikon and Canon have (and Minolta
and Pentax) but Sigma doesn't. Their 70-200/2.8 for instance is very
nice, but the Canon 70-200 is still better.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bernhard Mayer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2003
Andrew McDonald <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<zdZVa.165$(E-Mail Removed) .net>...

> The 10D is not "better", it's about comparable. Both cameras have their
> strengths and weaknesses. And as far as I can tell the 10D was a quick
> fix replacement for the D60 which had some "issues".


well, replacing the D60 with an all new body with different AF
technology and a pro camera magnesium frame (which not even the D100
has) is hardly a patch

but a redesigned camera to address the D60 shortcomings, match and in
some aspects top the D100 - agreed
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bernhard Mayer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-31-2003
Paul Rubin <http://(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed)>...

> Nikon screwed itself using the F80 platform for the D100, because it
> won't meter with manual focus Nikkors. So many Nikon fans with lots
> of good lenses STILL find themselves with no good reason not to switch
> to Canon.


I have been camera shopping lately (quite long period of time
actually) trying to settle for either Fuji S2, Nikon D100 or Canon
10D.

What I have seen in the shops is - quite interesting - exactly what
you are telling us here. I have met people who have been with Nikon
for ages and whose FA or F3 or FM2 or whatever has just recently broke
down. They are now 10-20 years older and seriously consider autofocus,
but of course would like to use that wide angle they bought on the
same day they asked their wifes to marry them. They are now faced with
the decision to either buy a second hand F90 (or older) or a brand new
but top of the line camera in order to be able to meter with old
lenses.

Quite frankly, I don't know what the hell the issue is with metering
with old lenses. It is obviously possible (see F5), it is obviously
not a matter of price (see older lower range cameras) and yet...

I'd say, 2 out of three actually went for a different system (mostly
Canon) and the third goes home in anger.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
January 2007 - The Nikon D80 digital slr is still Nikon's most popular camera george@dpmac.com Digital Photography 1 01-08-2007 10:06 AM
Best mini digital camera : Nikon coolpix S9, Canon SD400, Pentax S7 aniramca@yahoo.com Digital Photography 42 11-28-2006 06:55 AM
Nikon 8800 vs Nikon 990 vs Canon 8MP Rebel vs Nikon D70 fj40rockcrawler@gmail.com Digital Photography 10 06-07-2005 06:53 PM
HAVE NIKON F3 - WANT NIKON DIGITAL Richard Evans Digital Photography 21 05-13-2004 06:44 AM
Digital prices coming down for Nikon digital? Phil Stripling Digital Photography 11 01-10-2004 12:57 PM



Advertisments