Re: Why buy 5D II Over D700?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by John McWilliams, Dec 23, 2008.

  1. 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
    John McWilliams, Dec 23, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. John McWilliams

    Pete D Guest

    "Stephen Bishop" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 14:20:54 -0800, John McWilliams
    > <> 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.
    Pete D, Dec 24, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Pete D wrote:
    > "Stephen Bishop" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> 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, Dec 24, 2008
    #3
  4. Stephen Bishop wrote:
    > On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 08:00:49 -0800, John McWilliams
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Pete D wrote:
    >>> "Stephen Bishop" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> 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, Dec 24, 2008
    #4
  5. Stephen Bishop wrote:
    > On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 12:44:57 -0800, John McWilliams
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Stephen Bishop wrote:
    >>> On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 08:00:49 -0800, John McWilliams
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Pete D wrote:
    >>>>> "Stephen Bishop" <> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:...
    >>>>>> 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
    John McWilliams, Dec 24, 2008
    #5
  6. Stephen Bishop <> 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
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 25, 2008
    #6
  7. Stephen Bishop wrote:
    > On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 14:10:34 -0800, John McWilliams
    > <> 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, Dec 25, 2008
    #7
  8. Stephen Bishop wrote:
    > On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 07:54:36 -0800, John McWilliams
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Stephen Bishop wrote:
    >>> On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 14:10:34 -0800, John McWilliams
    >>> <> 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/2008/01/nikon-1-in-dslrs-in-japan-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, Dec 26, 2008
    #8
  9. David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > "John Navas" <> wrote:
    >> John McWilliams <>:
    >>> 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/PRODS/E5D2/E5D2IMAGING.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, Dec 26, 2008
    #9
  10. David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > "John McWilliams" <> 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
    John McWilliams, Dec 26, 2008
    #10
  11. John McWilliams

    Cynicor Guest

    David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > "John McWilliams" <> 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.


    YES. I have red channel problems with both flowers (I have to go into
    the RAW and dial down the red a bit) and club concerts! They often use
    red lights to light players, which blows out the sensor pretty quickly
    at higher ISOs.
    Cynicor, Dec 26, 2008
    #11
  12. Stephen Bishop <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 16:15:18 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>Stephen Bishop <> 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.


    > But to your point, if I had a bag full of L glass, I would have been
    > reluctant to jump ship


    and hence the 5D2 won't be history.

    > even though the Nikon bodies were clearly superior.


    A claim that's a very good recipe for a religious war,
    especially as you leave out the important pieces like
    superior ... for whom and superior ... doing what. :)

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 27, 2008
    #12
  13. John McWilliams

    John Sheehy Guest

    Cynicor <> wrote in news:49553892$0$4881
    $:

    > YES. I have red channel problems with both flowers (I have to go into
    > the RAW and dial down the red a bit) and club concerts! They often use
    > red lights to light players, which blows out the sensor pretty quickly
    > at higher ISOs.


    That's often the converters. The red channel is the weakest in the RAW
    data, in most cases, except with very warm lighting (red objects in
    incandescent lighting). Red flowers are almost always unclipped in the RAW
    data when they are blown out and/or the wrong color in conversions (unless
    they are shot against a mostly dark background).

    Most converters are braindead, and do not have a simple, linear trim
    control to scale the RAW levels before conversion. They usually engage in
    non-linear distortions in their "exposure" controls. Otherwise, you could
    expose your red flower to the right without issue.
    John Sheehy, Dec 28, 2008
    #13
  14. Stephen Bishop <> wrote:
    > On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 11:49:07 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>Stephen Bishop <> wrote:


    >>> even though the Nikon bodies were clearly superior.


    >>A claim that's a very good recipe for a religious war,
    >>especially as you leave out the important pieces like
    >>superior ... for whom and superior ... doing what. :)


    > Camera brand fanatacism aside, it is generally regarded that Nikon
    > bodies have the better ergonomics


    Which depend a lot on what you are used to right now. I have
    used Nikon gear (I'm a Canon person), it was quite different and
    I had to 'get used to' to it. It'd be the same the other way
    around.

    > and overall feature set compared to the comparable Canon rivals.


    Again, that depends a lot on what you want or need. Compare
    the 20D to the Nikon cameras at it's time. I was buying the
    camera specifically because I needed (and still need) high
    ISO performance.

    I've learned a lot about RAW converters in the days since, about
    noise supression, about pushing images, about colour targets
    and mixed light environments and calibrating monitors and how
    temperature & tint white balance is far from enough ...

    Does it surprise you that I am eyeing the 5D2 for it's high
    ISO performance? (It's got the same pixel size as the 20D,
    but a couple of years better electronics and colour array
    filters, less read noise, 14 bit, ...)

    I also use longer lenses far more than wide angle --- and I
    buy a system, not just a camera body.

    > Nikon's control layout and menus are simply better, to me, anyway.


    See, now you are filling the dots: what and for whom.

    > But to the overall point, do you think the 5D2 will attract people
    > away from Nikon, either? Hardly.


    Canon already has poached most Nikonists that might be poached
    --- a situation which is good for neither Canon nor Nikon nor
    customers --- and only recently Nikon manages to get back some
    of their customers. Both of which is noticeable because
    changing the body also means changing lenses, and many people
    have more than just the usual plastic kit lens.

    So whom could the 5D2 draw?

    Except for independent filmmakers who work with focus pullers
    anyway that may have eyed Nikon for a few days. For all the many
    warts the video mode has --- it seems to get the fundamentals
    right. (Unlike Nikon, I dare say. No, both cameras absolutely
    cannot replace camcorders for those who don't work with a focus
    puller already.)

    > But what about those who are not invested in either system at the
    > moment? That's where the new market growth will come from.


    That's mostly and unfairly a question of marketing.

    > By history, of course I don't mean that it will just go away. I
    > should have been more clear. What will be history is its current
    > position as the best "affordable" high megapixel dslr on the market.
    > Those kinds of lofty perches are very short-lived.


    It'll stay as the first full-HD DSLR (and will probably be
    remembered as the first video-capable DSLR, over which flame
    wars will break out in this very place). :)

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 29, 2008
    #14
  15. Stephen Bishop wrote:
    > On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:14:22 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg


    >>
    >>> Nikon's control layout and menus are simply better, to me, anyway.

    >> See, now you are filling the dots: what and for whom.

    >
    > If we disregard camera brand loyalty, I think most photographers find
    > the ergonomics and general construction quality of Nikons to be
    > better.


    Clearly you do, and no one's quarreling with that. But what supports the
    "most photographers" bit?

    [Even if every regular poster here stated his preference, it wouldn't be
    statistically significant.]

    --
    john mcwilliams
    John McWilliams, Dec 30, 2008
    #15
  16. Stephen Bishop <> wrote:

    > This isn't a flame, but I personally don't see the point to a video
    > capable dslr no matter who makes it.


    .... but IF you insist on including the capability, do it
    The Right Way.

    > As you noted, they cannot
    > replace a camcorder. IMO, if you want video, get a video camera... a
    > dslr isn't a Swiss army knife. LOL


    I understand that a shallow DOF is rather hard to
    archive with payable gear (payable as in: $10.000 is not expensive)
    in the movie world. Low light shooting is similar, I understand,
    and usually solved by a couple huge trucks with lighting gear.
    A (by comparison) dirt cheap tool that allows that must be grand
    to that audience. All that for a slightly souped up life
    view mode ... sounds like a win for everyone but Nikon.

    Wasn't it you who said that growth will come from current
    non-DSLR users? :)

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 30, 2008
    #16
  17. John McWilliams

    measekite Guest

    On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 05:47:06 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote:

    > On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:14:22 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>Stephen Bishop <> wrote:
    >>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 11:49:07 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>>>Stephen Bishop <> wrote:

    >>
    >>>>> even though the Nikon bodies were clearly superior.

    >>
    >>>>A claim that's a very good recipe for a religious war,
    >>>>especially as you leave out the important pieces like
    >>>>superior ... for whom and superior ... doing what. :)

    >>
    >>> Camera brand fanatacism aside, it is generally regarded that Nikon
    >>> bodies have the better ergonomics

    >>
    >>Which depend a lot on what you are used to right now. I have
    >>used Nikon gear (I'm a Canon person), it was quite different and
    >>I had to 'get used to' to it. It'd be the same the other way
    >>around.

    >
    > Yes, personal preference has a lot to do with it.
    >
    >>
    >>> and overall feature set compared to the comparable Canon rivals.

    >>
    >>Again, that depends a lot on what you want or need. Compare
    >>the 20D to the Nikon cameras at it's time. I was buying the
    >>camera specifically because I needed (and still need) high
    >>ISO performance.

    >
    > At the time of the 20D and 30D, there was no question that Canon had a
    > significant edge with high ISO performance. However, with the D700
    > Nikon has the advantage, even beating out the 5D2 in that regard.
    >
    >>
    >>I've learned a lot about RAW converters in the days since, about
    >>noise supression, about pushing images, about colour targets
    >>and mixed light environments and calibrating monitors and how
    >>temperature & tint white balance is far from enough ...
    >>
    >>Does it surprise you that I am eyeing the 5D2 for it's high
    >>ISO performance? (It's got the same pixel size as the 20D,
    >>but a couple of years better electronics and colour array
    >>filters, less read noise, 14 bit, ...)
    >>
    >>I also use longer lenses far more than wide angle --- and I
    >>buy a system, not just a camera body.
    >>
    >>> Nikon's control layout and menus are simply better, to me, anyway.

    >>
    >>See, now you are filling the dots: what and for whom.

    >
    > If we disregard camera brand loyalty, I think most photographers find
    > the ergonomics and general construction quality of Nikons to be
    > better.
    >
    >
    >
    >>> But to the overall point, do you think the 5D2 will attract people
    >>> away from Nikon, either? Hardly.

    >>
    >>Canon already has poached most Nikonists that might be poached
    >>--- a situation which is good for neither Canon nor Nikon nor
    >>customers --- and only recently Nikon manages to get back some
    >>of their customers. Both of which is noticeable because
    >>changing the body also means changing lenses, and many people
    >>have more than just the usual plastic kit lens.

    >
    > True, Nikon lost a lot of customers, particularly wedding
    > photographers, during the time when Canon basically owned the low
    > noise high ISO market.
    >
    >
    >>So whom could the 5D2 draw?
    >>
    >>Except for independent filmmakers who work with focus pullers
    >>anyway that may have eyed Nikon for a few days. For all the many
    >>warts the video mode has --- it seems to get the fundamentals
    >>right. (Unlike Nikon, I dare say. No, both cameras absolutely
    >>cannot replace camcorders for those who don't work with a focus
    >>puller already.)
    >>
    >>> But what about those who are not invested in either system at the
    >>> moment? That's where the new market growth will come from.

    >>
    >>That's mostly and unfairly a question of marketing.
    >>
    >>> By history, of course I don't mean that it will just go away. I
    >>> should have been more clear. What will be history is its current
    >>> position as the best "affordable" high megapixel dslr on the market.
    >>> Those kinds of lofty perches are very short-lived.

    >>
    >>It'll stay as the first full-HD DSLR (and will probably be
    >>remembered as the first video-capable DSLR, over which flame
    >>wars will break out in this very place). :)

    >
    > This isn't a flame, but I personally don't see the point to a video
    > capable dslr no matter who makes it. As you noted, they cannot
    > replace a camcorder. IMO, if you want video, get a video camera... a
    > dslr isn't a Swiss army knife. LOL


    I do not think it is very valuable but there is a market for it. Someone
    who has young kids and does not particularly want a cam cord-er but does
    want a still camera for all of the right reasons. He would on occasion
    use the video capability to record short clips of his kids for documentary
    purposes.
    measekite, Dec 31, 2008
    #17
  18. John McWilliams

    measekite Guest

    On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 12:09:28 -0800, John McWilliams wrote:

    > Stephen Bishop wrote:
    >> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:14:22 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg

    >
    >>>
    >>>> Nikon's control layout and menus are simply better, to me, anyway.
    >>> See, now you are filling the dots: what and for whom.

    >>
    >> If we disregard camera brand loyalty, I think most photographers find
    >> the ergonomics and general construction quality of Nikons to be
    >> better.

    >
    > Clearly you do, and no one's quarreling with that. But what supports the
    > "most photographers" bit?
    >
    > [Even if every regular poster here stated his preference, it wouldn't be
    > statistically significant.]
    >


    One never knows. It might be.
    measekite, Dec 31, 2008
    #18
  19. John McWilliams

    Cynicor Guest

    measekite wrote:
    > On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 12:09:28 -0800, John McWilliams wrote:
    >
    >> Stephen Bishop wrote:
    >>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:14:22 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>>>> Nikon's control layout and menus are simply better, to me, anyway.
    >>>> See, now you are filling the dots: what and for whom.
    >>> If we disregard camera brand loyalty, I think most photographers find
    >>> the ergonomics and general construction quality of Nikons to be
    >>> better.

    >> Clearly you do, and no one's quarreling with that. But what supports the
    >> "most photographers" bit?
    >>
    >> [Even if every regular poster here stated his preference, it wouldn't be
    >> statistically significant.]

    >
    > One never knows. It might be.


    In what way would the results of an uncontrolled Internet poll ever be
    statistically significant or accurate? I notice that Ron Paul is not the
    incoming president!
    Cynicor, Dec 31, 2008
    #19
  20. John Navas wrote:
    > On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 06:02:00 GMT, measekite <> wrote
    > in <sVD6l.11826$>:
    >
    >> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 12:09:28 -0800, John McWilliams wrote:
    >>
    >>> Stephen Bishop wrote:
    >>>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:14:22 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>>>>> Nikon's control layout and menus are simply better, to me, anyway.
    >>>>> See, now you are filling the dots: what and for whom.
    >>>> If we disregard camera brand loyalty, I think most photographers find
    >>>> the ergonomics and general construction quality of Nikons to be
    >>>> better.
    >>> Clearly you do, and no one's quarreling with that. But what supports the
    >>> "most photographers" bit?
    >>>
    >>> [Even if every regular poster here stated his preference, it wouldn't be
    >>> statistically significant.]

    >> One never knows. It might be.

    >
    > I can think of several reasons why it wouldn't be, like sample bias,
    > self-selection, small sample size, authentication, ballot box stuffing,
    > etc.


    Indeed. I submit there are no more than three dozen regular posters. [I
    do exclude the pests, trolls and wannabes.]

    --
    john mcwilliams
    John McWilliams, Dec 31, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Theo Markettos

    VOIP over VPN over TCP over WAP over 3G

    Theo Markettos, Feb 3, 2008, in forum: UK VOIP
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    826
    Theo Markettos
    Feb 14, 2008
  2. Paul Furman

    Re: Nikon Announces Another Must Have Camera, The D700!!

    Paul Furman, Jul 1, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    928
    Alotta Fagina
    Jul 3, 2008
  3. Cynicor

    OFFICIAL: Nikon D700 and SB-900

    Cynicor, Jul 1, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    566
    JufĂ­
    Jul 1, 2008
  4. ASAAR

    Re: Why buy 5D II Over D700?

    ASAAR, Dec 23, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    539
    Paul Furman
    Jan 2, 2009
  5. RichA

    Why do we need cameras like the D700 or D3s?

    RichA, Feb 18, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    735
    Eric Stevens
    Feb 19, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page