 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / October 2006Canon screwed themselves (or did they?)
The consensus seems to be a jump from the 350 to the 400 isn't worth it from an image improvement perspective, and may actually be a bad idea if the lowest noise is your goal. However, there are other things the camera has that might swing the pendulum. However, Nikon, Pentax and Sony-Minolta's 10 megs have clear advantages over their 6 megapixel predecessors. Nikon, was the smartest concerning this because the D80 body is identical to the D50! They didn't even go the extra mile to adopt the superior D70 body for the D80. This has allowed them to keep costs at a bare minimum, only allowing for a new sensor. For that they get a nice price increase and it's possible and likely the new D80 is cheaper to build than the D70! The sensor's physical size remained the same, only the pixel count changed. Look for Nikon's profits to increase substantially because of this. Meanwhile, Olympus keeps (IMO) shooting themselves in the foot with their incoherent marketing, once again a step-behind the competition by releasing a 10 meg with refinements, to the European and Asian markets only. Nikon have lost a huge amount of users. Although good manufactures, Canon is the DSLR market share leader by far and there is a reason for that. > The consensus seems to be a jump from the 350 to the 400 isn't worth it > from an image improvement perspective, and may actually be a bad idea [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > releasing a 10 meg with refinements, to the European and Asian markets > only. > Nikon have lost a huge amount of users. Although good manufactures, Canon > is the DSLR market share leader by far and there is a reason for that. I know Nikon has lost a lot of pro photographers, one pro can't be disadvantaged relative to another or it can cost them money. The D2Xs does not compare to the 1DsMkII or 5D image wise. But I wonder how many non-pro enthusiast Nikon users have actually jumped ship? > Nikon have lost a huge amount of users. Although good manufactures, Canon > is the DSLR market share leader by far and there is a reason for that. I was chatting to a sports photographer in Melbourne after the Grand Final, and she (Yes, 'she') confirmed that Canon had taken the pro sports market from Nikon. Eddie >> Nikon have lost a huge amount of users. Although good manufactures, Canon >> is the DSLR market share leader by far and there is a reason for that. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Eddie They did that long before DSLRs. Good marketing when the cameras with distinctive white lenses are so visible in TV coverage etc - even if some are now not Canon lenses. On the back of it they rule the cheap end of the market for dslrs and compacts with comparatively poorly specified products. > > EddieThey did that long before DSLRs. > Good marketing when the cameras with distinctive white lenses are so > visible in TV coverage etc - even if some are now not Canon lenses. > On the back of it they rule the cheap end of the market for dslrs and > compacts with comparatively poorly specified products. Canon also loaned lenses to registered pros, where Nikon doesn't seem to. Lets see buy a $6K 400mm lens or have it loaned to you for a sporting event. Guess what most photographers would do. These are no money asked loans, not rentals. You just have to prove that you are a published pro. Tom > They did that long before DSLRs. > Good marketing when the cameras with distinctive white lenses are so > visible in TV coverage etc - even if some are now not Canon lenses. > On the back of it they rule the cheap end of the market for dslrs and > compacts with comparatively poorly specified products. I'm not entirely sure what you mean to imply here. Canon owns pro 35mm digital because they're offering cameras with great performance, with low noise, and with 35mm sensors. All of these factors come into play in the pro market, and Canon's definitely outperforming the competition on all of these fronts. They own and control both their (less expensive than others') chip production as well as their whole "DiGiC" image-processing unit... and the interplay between the two of these is key to their low noise success. That they own both means they can keep prices down for consumers without having to pay a fixed price to another company for chips. It's a smart business model, that they've funded well, and it is working for them. As for their consumer cameras, I don't know how "well-specified" they are, but everytime I help a friend pick a point and shoot digital, I find that Canon's offerings deliver better pictures. As sexy and interesting as some of, say, Panasonic's new offerings are, they're just too noisy. Sony's got some decent gear, but even Nikon's point and shoots aren't really impressing. Meanwhile, people need to stop pretending like the Digital Rebel line is pretending to be something it isn't. I'm not the kind of photographer who would have bought a film Rebel, and I never did. The Digital Rebel line is the same camera with digital guts. If you were the kind of photographer that had an Elan, then you're out of luck if you're expecting that the Rebel is the camera you're looking for... you want the 20d or 30d. People can call it plasticy, cheap, or whatever the Hell they please... but it still delivers beautiful pictures, better than most of the competition in this price segment, at a low price in a body that hasn't changed much from the time it was a film camera. The target market for the camera doesn't care, and they aren't the consumers you'd expect to care. The more serious photographers that would care aren't meant to consider the Rebel. It's as simple as that. Will > The consensus seems to be a jump from the 350 to the 400 isn't worth it > from an image improvement perspective, and may actually be a bad idea [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > releasing a 10 meg with refinements, to the European and Asian markets > only. not all is in pixels. If you ask me, Canon could even stay at 8M and still gain. Maybe even more if that would casue lower noise. For majority 8M is too much still. But then again, that move would kill more expensive 30D... Other things matter. 20D and 30D were still very similar. Yet 30 is selling. Because 20D doesn't anymore. Same here. They (or will) stopped manufacturing 350D. It's an improvement. Not to replace existing 350 with it. But it's because development goes on. And, since, new, improved model MUST come out every year or so. Cars get more and more advanced. WIth more power. Yet many of us don't sell our existing and buy a new one jsut because new one have 8 HP more than ours. >The consensus seems to be a jump from the 350 to the 400 isn't worth it >from an image improvement perspective, This is true for almost any single product jump. Most people don't jump to a newer model (of anything) until there are 2 (or more) model upgrades. E.g. most camera owners didn't jump from 10d to 20d, but some did jump from 10d to 30d. Most didn't jump from 300d to 350d, but some did jump from 300d to 400d. Most didn't jump from G1 to G2, but some did jump from G1 to G3. Etc. (I don't know the Nikon product line well enough to give similar examples but I'm sure they exist there as well.) I own a Canon 1DMII, I'm not jumping to a 1DMIIN. That doesn't mean the N isn't a good camera - it is selling like hotcakes but I bet that most buyers are either A) replacing an older (than the 1DMII) body or B) are first-time buyers in the DSLR market. jc  Signature"The nice thing about a mare is you get to ride a lot of different horses without having to own that many." ~ Eileen Morgan of The Mare's Nest, PA I have to agree "JC Dill". > This is true for almost any single product jump. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > jc >> The consensus seems to be a jump from the 350 to the 400 isn't worth it >>from an image improvement perspective, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > replacing an older (than the 1DMII) body or B) are first-time buyers > in the DSLR market. There are still several millions of people who will buy their first DSLR. Many of them, and some of us existing Canon shooters, are impressed by pixel counts. SignatureJohn McWilliams > >The consensus seems to be a jump from the 350 to the 400 isn't worth it > >from an image improvement perspective, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > replacing an older (than the 1DMII) body or B) are first-time buyers > in the DSLR market. I think you are exactly right on this and it should be noted that the DSLR market is growing very fast and most sales are to first time buyers. So Canon is not so much competing with its own last years model as with the other companies offering. Scott >> >The consensus seems to be a jump from the 350 to the 400 isn't worth it >> >from an image improvement perspective, [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Scott I waited for a couple/few years till I saw a DSLR that I could afford and was happy with, which was the XT. And I'll continue using it till Canon releases a FF for around $1500, then I make the next jump. SignatureSlack >>The consensus seems to be a jump from the 350 to the 400 isn't worth it >>from an image improvement perspective, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > replacing an older (than the 1DMII) body or B) are first-time buyers > in the DSLR market. Interesting you say that because I know two Canon users that went from 10D to 20D for the faster handling. One bought a 350D first but took it back and swapped it for the 20D. In article <452a2175$0$1449$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, Pete D <no@email.com> writes >>>The consensus seems to be a jump from the 350 to the 400 isn't worth it >>>from an image improvement perspective, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >to 20D for the faster handling. One bought a 350D first but took it back and >swapped it for the 20D. There is probably a bigger value jump going from 10D to 20D than from most other one-generation hops - the 10D was the last Canon APS-C DSLR that would not take EF-S lenses. David SignatureDavid Littlewood Why don't you go screw yourself? > Nikon, was the smartest > concerning this because the D80 body is identical to the D50! They [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > changed. Look for Nikon's profits to increase substantially because of > this. You have obviously never looked at a D50 and D80 side by side. > > Nikon, was the smartest > > concerning this because the D80 body is identical to the D50! They [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > You have obviously never looked at a D50 and D80 side by side. Bigger LCD? http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond80/page3.asp http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond50/page3.asp >>> Nikon, was the smartest >>> concerning this because the D80 body is identical to the D50! They [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond50/page3.asp Look closer, and name two parts that are the same. You could start with the mirror/prism system. It's clearly different from the D50. > You could start with the mirror/prism system. It's clearly different from the D50. I wasn't even thinking of anything so fundamental as the circuit prism, sensor, shutter, circuit boards, LCD. I was hoping that RichA might be able to name a part that was the same. Despite superficial similarities (same colour - similar dimensions?) they are actually completely different with few if any obviously "shared components". But even reviewers who should know better refer to the D80 as "D200 internals in a D50 body". It isn't. > Meanwhile, Olympus keeps (IMO) shooting themselves in the foot with > their incoherent marketing, once again a step-behind the competition by > releasing a 10 meg with refinements, to the European and Asian markets > only. Olympus shot themselves in the foot by deciding on 4/3, then by sticking to that decision. 10mp 4/3 will probably suck - even if you are prepared to go and buy outrageously priced - so called fast - Zuiko glass. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.