The D3, D700 and Canon

Interesting read. I think I see a pattern building here. Over at TWIPPHOTO.com Scott Bourne (of MacBreakWeekly-fame) has announced that he is switching to Nikon after 17 years of continious Canon use. If some of the most vocal photobloggers are switching (or even just thinking about switching) this could be a serious threat to Canon in the long run. Mindshare matters!

Yeah, I completely agree with your perspective on this. I held off on the 1dmkIII purchase for a while until getting a blue dot version last November. While the performance has been adequate, there have been irreplaceable shots that were quite simply not in focus.

I can only hope that the 1DmkIIIn or 1DmkIV followup comes soon and that it rectifies the focus problem. If they can fix the focus problem, improve the rear LCD and move the 1D to a full frame (even at 10-12MP), that will satisfy me enough to pick one up.

Otherwise, I will have to seriously consider Nikon.... I hate to say that, but Canon does have to step up here and if they were *smart*, Canon would offer purchasers of the 1DmkIII a substantial incentive to purchase the replacement model.

I'm not completely dependent on my camera for income right now, but as that income ratchets up, I definitely have my eye on going to a pro-body. A year ago I would have said I'd be a loyal Canon customer to the death (I still haven't seen anything in the 30D or 40D that makes me long to replace my 20D). Now, I am really weighing even investments in more glass with an eye on having to replace it with the Nikon equivalent. Between the lack of a 5D replacement, and all the issues I keep hearing on the Mk3, I have to agree that the new D700 and the D3 are very tempting and that if Canon doesn't get their act together, they're going to lose people.

Hiya Duncs,

Now I have a lot to ruminate. I had assumed that when I get back in the *D*SLR game it would be Canon again. Now I'm awash in ambivalence. Then again, I'd have to buy new glass and deal with two separate systems (my Canon film SLR vs. a Nikon DSLR getup). I'm not sure I could deal with that.

Ah, well, it's all moot. I don't have the budget for at least a few months, so I'll sit back and watch Canon's next move.

My $0.02: I think what happened with the 1D III is that Canon rolled out a new autofocus system - something that was a major change from what they'd done before, rather than incremental improvements. I also think that what we're seeing with the 1D III is real-world issues with the new system that Canon simply didn't anticipate.

Assuming this is accurate, then the relative silence from Canon would almost certainly be because the designers are scrambling to fix the problems behind the scenes - regression testing, extra test cases, the whole kit and kaboodle.

One of my friends summarised the difference between Canon and Nikon as being that Canon likes to live on the bleeding edge, while Nikon plays it a bit safer. Canon reaped the rewards of this attitude for a number of years, but it's biting them now.

If they do get the kinks all worked out, I suspect the new AF system will whomp all over the other systems that are out there now. But they have to get the kinks worked out - or they have to go back to the old system (which will also cause egg on their face.)

For most users - those that aren't going to go out and buy a pro series body - I don't see the difference between Nikon and Canon as being all that significant. Both have good glass and good bodies; the issues Canon's having at the high end aren't (yet) concerns at the consumer end.

But - as a Canon shooter myself - I'm pleased to see Nikon stepping up and taking the lead from Canon. I don't see Canon fading away completely, but they're going to come back much hungrier, and that is going to be good in the long term for everybody.

"If the 5D replacement is just a freshen up of the 30D to 40D variety and which doesn’t meet the challenge that the D700 brings, then Canon will be telegraphing that they’re happy with their market position selling the crap out of the Rebel XSi without worrying about the higher end."

This statement is frankly overblown. It could easily be the case that Canon rested on its laurels, Nikon's resurgence (and the D700 in particular) has caught Canon off-guard, and now it is UNABLE to come out with a 5D replacement to blow the market's socks off. If that is the case, Canon probably is NOT happy about it and is NOT happy about their market position.

I think people are overblowing this "the world is going to end" if the 5D is not an amazing rejoinder to the D3 and D700. It may take Canon years to get back to where they want to be. They could be cooking up something technologically that will (they think) put them back in the driver's seat.

Bottom line, it's great to see Nikon back but it's going to take a few more years at least before we can "write off" Canon (which seems odd to even be saying that, although nothing is impossible).

Also, devoid from this post is any discussion of Nikon glass. It seems that Canon still has a more rounded, extensive collection of glass, with a range of prices.

My only concern that I rarely see addressed is after-purchase servicing.

I've heard discouraging stories about visits to a crowded Nikon service centre. Yet my experiences with the Canon service centre were fairly sublime.

My perception is that Nikon cameras are feature rich and technically wonderful, but poorly constructed.

As such, I'm not so concerned about the spec. sheet, but the reliability of the product, and the accessibility and competency of the support.

Any insights?

I wouldn't consider the 12-24mm a reason to go ga-ga over Nikon. It doesn't work fullframe, so it's equivalent to an 18-36mm lens. For crop sensors, Canon sells the 10-22mm (16-35mm equivalent), which even Nikon shooter Ken Rockwell says is superior to the Nikon 12-24mm. For full-frame and 1.3x Canons, the 17-40mm f/4L is roughly equivalent, and the 16-35mm f/2.8L is vastly superior (as its price suggests).

This isn't to suggest Nikon doesn't have advantages, but the 12-24mm isn't one of them.

I wouldn't consider the 12-24mm a reason to go ga-ga over Nikon. It doesn't work fullframe, so it's equivalent to an 18-36mm lens. For crop sensors, Canon sells the 10-22mm (16-35mm equivalent), which even Nikon shooter Ken Rockwell says is superior to the Nikon 12-24mm. For full-frame and 1.3x Canons, the 17-40mm f/4L is roughly equivalent, and the 16-35mm f/2.8L is vastly superior (as its price suggests).

This isn't to suggest Nikon doesn't have advantages, but the 12-24mm isn't one of them.

Putting aside bells and whistles and the genetic need to have the latest and greatest.

Fine, these are DSLR's and no one will do that. Moving on.

The Image Quality of the FF Nikons and the long in the tooth 5D are equal up to ISO 1600. I'll take the 5D at ISO 100- 200 over the Nikons. This is as much about perception than it is about picture taking.

The 1Dm3 launch was a mess but as someone that owned and used one, the problems were substantially gone with the "blue dot" fix and subsequent firmware upgrades. I've thought for some time that, while not perfect, the real problem with the 1Dm3 autofocus system was that the interface to it, which is fiddled with in several custom functions, was more complex than some folks could master.

And Canon's Irvine, CA service facility is just exemplary. Everything from simple cleaning to warranty repairs on the 1Dm3 and other interactions have been great.

Aaron -- I've heard similar tales of woe about Nikon service centers, but I've also heard very disparaging things about Canon's build quality.

Honestly, I'd love to see REAL failure statistics from both DSLR lines, but I doubt either company will release them. You can find stories from people which lean both ways.

All the blowup about "Nikon vs. Canon" seems a bit much to me -- is there anything that a Canon photographer could do just a few weeks before the D700 was announced (it is of course, not available yet) that he can't do today? With the mkIII AF issues, is it terrible to revert to the mkII? Would a pro with a D3 "beat" you with his AF?

I sympathize with your frustration regarding the mkIII glitches that don't seem to get fixed appropriately, but it's like anyone is out of luck shooting older/less-pro Canon bodies. To turn this around, many pro Nikon shooters caught great images on totally dated hardware (D2HS) while Canon had all the great bodies.

With the 5D and now the D700, it just seems that we really can't go that much further with the returns from technology (all of this in mid-sized body too). Both cameras deliver (at least we expect the D700 to) images with qualities that rival that of MF film -- what more do we need? Do we need tech that can produce images so deep they rival 8x10 view cameras -- and at 8fps?

To me at least, digital technology has reached a point of maturity in the last few years that following these new advances seems far less interesting than it did when DSLRs were emerging, and things were all over the map. My $0.02.

I have always been a Nikon user. My first was a Nikon F. I bought a D3 as soon as I could get my hands on one and have loved it. Shots at ISO 6400 look as good as older Nikons at 1000. I have never been a Canon fan, I just didn't like the way it felt in my hands. I will get a D700 to replace a D200 as soon as I can round up the funds.

As a Canon employee, I can honestly say that it is interesting that many in the world of photography have shown little patience with regards to how quickly Canon responds to Nikon's releases. For many years now, Canon has been eating Nikon's lunch in regards to high-ISO, low noise shooting. Now Nikon catches up (after 5 years of trailing) and everyone is claiming that there is a new king in town.

Knowing what I know to be true (which I can not reveal here), all I can do is snicker at the attention that the D700 is getting lately. This article leads us to believe that Canon is long overdue for an update, but truth is, Nikon has been long overdue for an update to get back in the game for years.

Let's not jump the gun here, people. Nikon is about to have their brief time in the limelight stolen from them again. And anyone who is considering switching from Canon to Nikon simply due to the D3 or D700 is an impulsive fool. We're only talking about a couple of months here. The huge benefit that Canon has over Nikon is that they have much more R&D dollars than the smaller Nikon. I like rooting for the underdog as well, but when it comes to investing big bucks in quality glass and cameras, I can't see loosing thousands of dollars (like Scott Bourne did) by switching to a smaller company with a smaller R&D budget. I think Nikon makes fine gear. But Canon never lies dormant. If you are a Canon shooter, don't loose your investment in your glass simply due to a brief moment where Nikon catches up. That's just pure stupidity. Give it a month or two and then decide if you want to switch. Somehow, I bet your decision will be much easier by then. :-)

I completely agree with JDD. I stuck with Nikon since the glory F3 days, and I am a happy D3 owner now. The D700 is an amazing Package for a nice price, and Canon/Nikon was always like Win/Mac for me. For anybody interested in jazz, this is what I did with an D3 and an 85/1,4 last night at Jazz Baltica…

http://thorstenwulff.com/baltica/index.html

Just wanted to make some corrections:

Nikon has an older 12-24 f/4 lens for DX which is confusing for some of the commenters. The NEW 14-24 f/2.8 for FX is the prime killer that everyone should be talking about: http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon_14_24mm_1/nikon14_24mm_a.html

Also, some misinformation on "crowded service centers". My personal, first-hand experience at the Nikon El Segundo service center: I've never seen more than 1 other customer. They have performed out of warrantee work for free.

I'm a long time Nikon user that was considering a Canon switch during the D2x/D200 days, but my glass kept me from that decision. I'm not a Nikon loyalist or forum fanboy type, but disinformation helps no one.

I've been in the photo world since this argument was being made by both of these companies' F series cameras.

I'm staying with Canon for a variety of reasons. Nikon is the current king of the technology heap (good for them). But , they do have problems with scale (see above) to successfully stay ahead.

Quality is a toss up. Each of these mfgs. manages to get ahead of each other at one time or another. But, there's more to it than that. Currently, you guys are all touting the zooms from both of these mfgs. But when you're looking for other lenses and accessories for your system (macros, shifts, scientific) you'll find that Nikon cannot reliably ship items in sufficient quantity to satisfy a world wide pro market. I abandoned Nikon in 1900 and never looked back. Also, Nikon service takes longer if you're not a NIKON PRO.

BTW- I never had an art director ask me the brand of equipment I use... :)

Re Canon Employee's comments: with all that R&D available Canon still managed to underwhelm with updates and botch the 1D MKIII (which also took many months to establish fixes that may or may not work). Time and strategic options are limited with only the new 5D(s)placed to hold on to existing customers against very stiff opposition. I cannot see Canon releasing 1D N updates as that would devalue the existing (flawed) MKIII dramatically. Which leaves the new 5D which has be at the cutting edge as it was 3 years ago. But it also needs at least to match Nikon for weathersealing while upping resolution more cleanly at high ISO. There's a sense of complacency in the employee's tone which I hope does not reflect his employer's attitude. I had 2 MKIIIs (returned) and now have a D3. I still use a 5D and have hung onto my Canon lenses for the new 5D cameras. We'll see if this is justified, and in weeks not months.
Tony

1) Nikon has done well last year and this.
2) Why Canon NEEDS to make the 1D3 successor full-frame, is beyond me. A 300mm lens on the 1.3 crop is like the 400mm on the full-frame, at only 60% of cost.
3) I have had no problems with the 1D3, but would love a lighter but pro-built camera for travel etc. The 5D never quite fit that bill, and I do hope that the successor will have sealing and many-point AF.
4) If Nikon had not been so behind, the D3 would not have gotten so much hype. It does smear detail at high ISO, and has very little pixel density for sports and wildlife where focal length is often not enough to fill the frame, or where a fast-moving object may get cut off if too closely framed.

For the anonymous Canon Employee:

I think the negative tone of your comments are one of the reasons people are switching.

My view:

I have a 5D and an EOS-3. Except for the fact the 5D is digital, the EOS-3 is a better camera to use. Why did it take Nikon to put these two together? Why didn't we have this camera 3 years ago? To say that Canon was caught off guard by Nikon is simply to say Canon thought they could keep features it already had out of a 5D replacement because they thought Nikon couldn't produce a better camera. Oops.

Instead, Canon wants to extract more money out of me using feature creep - holding back minor features to induce me to spend many more dollars. 20D, 30D, 40D - really what is the difference? Canon cameras is run by the marketing department, currently Nikon cameras is run by photographers.

Yes my 5D still takes better pictures than my D300, but my 40D auto-focus sucks and the 5D has the worst auto-flash I have seen in 20 years. The D300 works great and can be set up to get the best picture possible with the least amount of fuss.

Differences in sensors is dimishing. I don't really care if a lousy 12000 ISO picture from Canon is a little better than a lousy 12000 ISO picture from Nikon, but I really it like when the camera gets the focus right, I really like it when the camera can select a more appropriate ISO so my shot doesn't blur. I really like it when the flash always works and doesn't need a three day course on how to use it. I really like when I can buy a camera that has the best features for the money rather than the least features they can sell it for.

Nikon has some serious deficiencies in it's lens linup. But equpiment evolves and digital cameras have a short shelf life. The questions I have: who is more likely to build the camera I want? Who is more likley to build the lenses that I want?

I think Nikon gave it's answer to these questions. What is Canon's answer?

You fools, the camera does not matter. Read Ken Rockwell's treatise on the subject.

Ahem ... if Anonymous Coward is indeed a Canon Employee, all I can say is: I'm glad I'm using a Nikon! Flashing a snotty attitude and calling people stupid for choosing a product by your competitor isn't going to win you many friends ...

That said, his whole rethoric kinda reminds me of Microsoft's reaction to the iPhone: "Bah - too expensive and just wait what we have in store for Windows 7". Folks, people want to buy their gear now, not in a mythical "month or two" that, for all we know, might never come!

On the other hand, Scott Bourne has said that so far he has received three death threats, for changing his camera system!!!! Given the amount of crackpots out there, Anonymous Canon Employee may turn out to be just another proof for John Gabriel's Greater Internet Dickward Theory ...

What makes canon or nikon a better system for each of us is not a mere pixel count, sensor size or weathersealing/body build; but also the lines of sub-products and accessories and how well it serves the photographers' need to get the job done.

I'm a canon user since day-1 and have never looked otherwise.

My job requires me to utilize flash strobe and triggers on location a lot, canon's aging trigger the ST-E2 is due for replacement long ago, as well as the flagship strobe that no longer stands out. Nikon's announcement of the SB-900, the macro flash system along with 2 tilt-shift lens is a move that puts nikon back in the game, other than the D3 and the D700, the release of Capture NX2 is a nice bonus to that end.

On the other hand, how the camera works and feel is another issue; nikon has updated its menu with a beautifully designed layout and typography, which reminds one of the beautiful menus of the mac, whereas canon is more linux like for that end, while it works nicely often times, beautifully designed interface can be a quite muse to our creative edge, at least the mac's OS X proves that.

I met a canon regional rep a while ago, he told me about someone who made a very good suggestion of adding a custom function to 1) zoom to 100% in one touch and 2) custom adjustable gradual increment of the zoom button during image view (10x, 20x, 30x.....1:1) this is one example of how such a detail can make a camera system personal. Have you guys ever looked at Nikon's viewfinder? Obviously they have a feature to display grids (or not) in composition to help us frame, we--canon users--must opt for a 3rd party, or original viewfinder accessories and pay for such a simple feature.

And let's have a look at the wireless system. Canon users will have to buy an ST-E2, or 540 or up speedlite and a second one to build a wireless flash system, nikon can have a quick fix with only an SB-600 (or up, correct me if i'm wrong) and a built-in flash to have it triggered wirelessly with TTL. And you can buy the latest model--SB-900 and use the older/smaller one to be used as master. To me it sounds very friendly, and economically sound rather than canon's solution.

Canon needs to make radical changes and think out of the box; rather than racing side by side with nikon, they should think and act like a leading company with a much R&D budget rather than a neighbor who wants a bigger tv. At heart, both canon and nikon are serving their loyal customers, not a child ego; and competition is good when they start to respond smart.

Have you guys seen the alien looking flash sony announces a while ago? Have you guys give much thought to the design? I have. I think it's bold, brilliant, and serves well for the customers. I just wish that canon has the guts and the will to be bold and lead the race like a multimillion dollar business should.

Dear canon employee, leaving my may 07 1DMKIII after 5 returns to canon service for a D3 this month was not an impulsive move. Canon finally replaced my 505xx with a new 575xxx that showed the same type of problems so I sold it all the day after a new mkIII arrived. I became acquainted with most of the fine canon service personal at Virginia & NJ but I only wanted to enjoy photography. The people who run the company and create the poor policy that was directed at the consumers are the ones to blame. We were lied to, canon said the camera was fine after the sub mirror fix but that wasn’t true. I meet two employees from Lake Success cps a few weeks back who told me canon has not yet corrected the focus flaws and that’s obvious. I didn’t want to leave, sell my L primes and take a beating but I just want to get back to photography so I did. No regrets except Nikons crummy mid range primes... My D3 focus's when I point it at sometime, that’s all I wanted. Not lies and requests to send my entire lens collection in to be calibrated time after time, white papers how to get the most out of my markIII…lol. What a sad mess that was. Good luck to canon, they really messed up their reputation and stole a year from me in the process

It's always interesting to hear people talk about DSLR camera technology as though something new must always be better, thus producing better images. As this post mentioned, the autofocus problems with the last 1D Canon camera show that's just not the case.

Even more amusing is that so-called professional photographers would rather give up control of making an image to technology. Spending many thousands of dollars more for DSLR cameras and lenses is folly, even if you make a living from it. Film captures far more detail than a digital image, which is why medium- large-format and so-called fine art photographers still use film. Even National Geographic photographers use film -- lots of it, for every assignment and the images they capture cannot be duplicated with digital technology.

It's a travesty for everyone that DSLRs have reduced the art of photography in the minds of amateurs and professionals to nothing more than point and shoot, which isn't art at all. It's even worse that camera manufacturers have abandoned making a full range of manual focus lenses, and replaced virtually all of them with overpriced, substandard autofocus lenses. I'll take my Nikon film camera and lenses any day over a DSLR.

Maybe if the "professionals" were more discriminating, we wouldn't have this sad state of affairs today.

Yes, the successor to the 5D is coming out very soon. Canon has been aware of Nikon's work on the D3, D300 and the D700 well before their official announcements because we have insiders who keep us up to date on their product road map. I am also certain that Nikon has insiders that keep them up to date about our product road map even though that is suppose to be trade secrets. With that said, I can tell you that you will be very surprise at the new 5D and its capabilities. I am not allowed to release the new 5D specifications here, but I can guarantee you that you will be very pleased, if not jubilant. I hope you will be patient and wait before making a quick decision to jump ship.

Here in *** (a north european country), Canon is currently doing a Nikon smear campaign while talking to resellers. They are not focusing on their products, just telling what's so bad about Nikon compared to Canon. It's embarrassing really.

I'm really rooting for Nikon, they are friendly, service minded and come in to the store every other week to check out if there's anything we need in terms of education or equipment to make it easier to sell their cameras.

I love the 5D. It is by far the best camera I've ever had and used and while its AF isn't perfect, I work around that the best I can. No camera is perfect but the 5D has been a great camera for me and for many others.

What the anonymous Canon employee got right is that it's a big deal to make a sea change if you have a lot of high end glass and are comfortable with your current brand and body. It's not about having the latest and greatest gear, it's about using the gear you have to make great photographs.

Just because the D3 and D700 came out, doesn't mean that all 5Ds stopped working or that the photographs they take are somehow now noisier than they ever were before.

The thing that bothers me is that Canon has gone the megapixel route with the 40D and G9 and that's a problem. Nikon got this piece completely right: go for the sweet spot of resolution on a given sensor size and don't cram more pixels on no matter what the competition is doing. If the next 5D jumps in resolution to the point where the files it makes aren't as clean as the current model, I'll buy another current model and be happy.

i have to agree the nikon D700

Canon Employee, I sit here and laugh at your ridiculous messages. I am a Nikon user and I am proud to be so. I associate with many hundreds of photographers, of which many are Canon users. The reality is that whether you use Canon or Nikon equipment or even a small player for that fact, today’s digital SLR's are all producing outstanding results. It is about being fit for use, not so much the brand name that appears on the front of the camera.

I sit here and think about your so called comments about what is to come next from Canon. I could also sit here and write extensively about what is coming next from Nikon, and how great it will be. At the end of the day the pendulum will continue to swing back and forth and with Canon and Nikon having in excess of 80% of the market and about equal share, then I am sure this will continue. Go and read the Nikon forums. If you believe all the rumours, Nikon will soon release a D3x which will be around 24 megapixels and there is a belief that a D90 will be released to replace the D80. Who knows, but I am sure that Nikon has new models in the pipeline. This is the nature of the beast we now live with. I learned my photographic skill with an Olympus OM1. This camera was released in the early 70’s I believe and I used it well into the 90’s producing outstanding results. That was the great thing about film camera’s, the media did not change all that much, even if camera technology changed. To sit here and think that I am about to purchase my third DSLR in a little over three years is ridiculous. But sadly this is the nature of the technological beast that we now live with.

Lets for arguments sake go with your idea that the 5D replacement will come out before the end of the year. This is great, and from what I have read long overdue. But at the same time the D300 which has been a hugely successful camera for Nikon is 1 year old. Based on past observations, we could see a replacement for this camera late next year and who knows what the specification will be. If the 5D replacement has upped the ante and improved in leaps and bounds (which I think is highly doubtful) then great for photography and photographers, but I am sure that Nikon will not be all that far behind with their own improved technology. At the end of the day I believe that Nikon and Canon should continue to have HEALTHY competition with each other and hopefully they will retain their respective market share well into the future. Personally, I believe that Nikon and Canon should be watching players like Panasonic and Sony to ensure they keep well ahead of them in the technology game. You might sit there and write about Canon’s R&D capabilities, but I am sure that even Canon would pale into insignificance compared to players like Sony and Panasonic.

Canon and Nikon both have their pro’s and con’s. I can tell you from personal experience, whenever I am out doing flash photography in a group, I cannot help but laugh at the Canon users sitting at a table struggling to work out how to use their flashes. The Nikon flash system is simple and outstanding, yet there are strengths that Canon has. You might comment about the extensive range of lenses that Canon has, but I have lost count of how many times I have heard Canon users say that they want to be able to use Nikon lenses on their Canon bodies. For me personally, I sit there and wonder what the point is because at the end of the day I look at the images that are presented to me in photographic competitions, and I am unable to determine lens type and camera body. The reality is that with the continuous swinging of the pendulum, photographers and photography are the winners, even though our wallets are somewhat lighter.

For me, I say “Happy Photography”. Grab your camera’s, no matter what they are and just go out and take photographs. Don’t get so preoccupied with the technology changes that you forget the main joy is actually being able to catch that special image. Hey, I can pull out my 6 megapixel Nikon D70 and do that. Remember “fit for use”. As always, I will sit back and continue to be amazed at the technology improvements that are being released and just hope for my wallets sake that it begins to slow down soon.

Compare cameras at similar prices and Nikon have often beaten Canon on many points except one. Image Quality (read high ISO/long exposure performance, since Canon colour is often accused of appearing plastic)

Derek Commented above that the 30D and 40D are yet to convince him to upgrade his 20D.
In the same period Nikon have gone from the D70 and D100 to the D200, D300 and now the D700 with compelling reasons to have each and every one.

The 5D was little more than a 30D with a great sensor and the 40D is the camera the 30D should have been.

As for lenses. Do Canon have great glass? Undoubtedly.
Do they also have a confusing mount system and a lack of modern wide, fisheye and Tilt Shift lenses for the full frame sensor.

You might compare the price and performance of the full frame compatible 60mm Micro Nikkor to the Cheapest Full Frame compatible 100mm EF Macro (60mm Canon doesn't count because it's EF-S)

What about field of view of the Nikon 14-24 versus the Canon 16-35

Nikons 10.5mm is DX, but will mount on the full frame and automatically crop to DX. Lower resolution? Yes, but EF-S cannot and never will do this.

For consumers or Pros on holiday Nikon have the 18-200VR while Canon users can only buy the 28-300 Tamron VC, 18-200 Sigma OS or Tamron 18-250

Finally Nikon recently announced a raft of new lenses including a couple of Tilt/Shift models.

Whatever comes next from Nikon is only going to be more exciting.
Lets hope for their own sake that Canon really do have something equally wonderful up their sleeves.

Dear Canon Employee:

Canon is three times the size of Nikon but manufactures a different portfolio or products including copiers, printers and video equipment. Comparing Canon's and Nikon's R&D budgets and attempting to draw conclusions about the area where they overlap in products is idiotic.

AG

TWIP Host Scott Bourne Switching to Nikon:
http://twipphoto.com/index.php/archives/545

The Differences Between the Nikon and Canon Brands:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/nikon-d3-d300.shtml

Photographer Discusses His Decision To Make 'The Switch':
http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/1967

Silly Wabbit, Trix are for kids.

I am a freelance photographer. I shoot Olympic eligable figure skating for International Figure Skating Magazine, and I shoot weddings, portraits, headshots, magazine cover stories, etc. I switched from Nikon to Canon in 2003 when I went digital. Canon had the best high ISO image quality at the time. I hated Canon's flash system and hated their zooms, but overall it was the best system for me at the time. Now, five years later, I am dismayed at Canon's screw-ups with the MkIII, and lack of innovation. I decided to skip the MkIII itteration and stick with my MkII which I'm very happy with (other than a premature shutter failure). I have enough invested in Canon glass to make switching over not a possibility. But if Canon continues its slide into mediocrity while Nikon continues to introduce superior products, I may just get fed up enough with the Canon minuses and Nikon pluses to finally take the hit and switch over.

In my opinion, there is no excuse for Canon screwing up the MkIII autofocus, and then not admitting that there's a problem. They used to field test their new products with the world's most respected professional photographers. Have they grown so complacent or arrogant that they no longer feel they need anyone else's input? And what happens if they finally fix the AF problem by replacing the MkIII with an "N" version or a MkIV? Many people will feel angry and betrayed either way. It's a loose-loose situation.

Canon also needs to fix their inferior flash system. Yes, it can be made to work, but you have to be on top of it all the time and constantly outsmarting it. If you've ever tried the Nikon system, it's so much better and easier.

And what about those crummy low-res LCD's Canon uses? They are now the worst in the industry. Why didn't Canon introduce high-res LCD's at the same time as Nikon? Canon needs to start listening to its customers and not simply following what other companies are doing.

I could spend hours discussing how wrong some comments here are, but I'll just pick my favorite one out for a moment:

Do Canon have great glass? Undoubtedly.
Do they also have a confusing mount system and a lack of modern wide, fisheye and Tilt Shift lenses for the full frame sensor.

Now, ignoring the release of the mkII versions of the 14mm and 16-35mm and the fact that the 24/45/90 T/S lineup is quite 'modern', I was laughing pretty hard about Canon's "confusing mount system". There are two mounts - EF and EF-s. That's it. EF works on everything, EF-s only on crop cameras. (I'm ignoring the 4 speciality lenses which aren't EF in that they don't have the F(ocus) part).

Compare that to Nikon's Non-Ai? AI? AI'd? AI-S? AI-P? AF-I? AF? F-S? AF-N? CPU? D? G? etc. It's all stuff you can figure out, but calling it 'confusing'? You gotta be kidding me.

2) Why Canon NEEDS to make the 1D3 successor full-frame, is beyond me. A 300mm lens on the 1.3 crop is like the 400mm on the full-frame, at only 60% of cost.

Its very simple; Nikon has a FF low noise sensor capable of high frame rates in two bodies, the D3 and the D700 (with grip). If you shoot action, either of these bodies are more appealing than the Canon alternatives. Besides speed, action shooters often shoot in low light and up until now, only FF sensors are capable of delivering class leading high ISO performance.

@wiseman

The old bromide about National Geographic photographers using film is just that. If you look at:

http://photography.nationalgeographic.com/photography/photographers/ask-photographer-answers-july08.html#q1

The staff photographer says he uses a Canon 5D. He might use film too (probably does) but it does show that digital is good enough for "real" pictures. Even with that said I think we'd all agree that it is mostly the photographer.

Jedrek

It's not confusing to you (obviously), but confusing to consumers.
I have seen many disappointed that an 'upgrade' from the #00D or #0D to the 5D would require them to replace their 17-85 EF-S IS USM, their 10-22 and their 60mm Macro (those who only have 18-55 EF-S are easier to convince for some reason)

I didn't say Canon are rubbish because of it, so get a grip.
I merely stated that Nikon lenses are usable on all their cameras except for the most ancient lenses (and even though they can't autofocus the D40 and D60 series are included).

The Canon mount system, by the way, comprises 2 mounts and 3 sensor sizes.
It's quite difficult (confusing even) to choose a group of 3 or 4 lenses that will suit a 1.6 crop body now and a 1.3 or so called FF body later
I guess if you are happy to pay anything anytime you buy a new body then it is not confusing at all.
I agree that EF lenses will work, but are they all great on every sensor size?

As for all the different Nikon terminology, most of it really does not need to be known since it merely means that there is some level of backward/forward compatibility. The main thing that can confuse on the Nikon system is when the aperture is not reported on the display, usually this is because the lens has an aperture ring which is not locked to the auto position. (Interestingly, the D40 and D60 will actually tell you what might be wrong when this happens)

Regarding your comment about TS lenses Both Nikon and Canon have them.
Canon have three. Perhaps I missed the announcement, but weren't they introduced in 1991?
When Nikon introduced their FX sensor they also announced three brand new Tilt and Shift Lenses

It seems as if I offended quite a few people with my previous post. My apologies for coming across so negatively. After re-reading what I posted, I can see how it could have come across more strongly than intended.

But I do need to clarify one thing....

I did not say that people are stupid for buying a different brand. I actually have a lot of respect for Nikon and Nikon shooters. What I did say was...

"If you are a Canon shooter, don't loose your investment in your glass simply due to a brief moment where Nikon catches up. That's just pure stupidity. Give it a month or two and then decide if you want to switch. Somehow, I bet your decision will be much easier by then. :-)"

As you can see, the two statements are nowhere near the same thing.

My point is that if you are a shooter that has a lot of money invested in a certain brands glass, then it is stupid (yes, I said it again...sorry) to switch systems simply because the other brand comes out with a camera or two that give them the advantage momentarily.

I never said people were stupid for shooting Nikon. I said people are stupid for wasting their investments in glass simply because of an impulse to buy the latest offering from the competition.

If your decision is based on more than that, than I understand the move. But lately, it seems as if there are people who are jumping ship and selling their L glass at a loss simply because of the D3, D300, and D700 releases.

Sorry if I offended anyone, but loosing a lot of money is always a stupid thing to me.

BTW, I would say the same thing to a Nikon shooter who looses their investment in Nikon glass as well.

As a last point, I do want to say that it should be obvious to most readers why I am posting anonymously. Even thought I have not revealed anything significant about Canon's future plans, I certainly do not want to take too many chances and jeopardize my ability to pay rent. :-) Happy shooting and I apologize for the previous post.

"2) Why Canon NEEDS to make the 1D3 successor full-frame, is beyond me. A 300mm lens on the 1.3 crop is like the 400mm on the full-frame, at only 60% of cost."

That is a lie! You dont come closer to the subject just because the sensor is smaller!!
It does NOT act as a 400mm!
It acts like a 300mm but the edges on the pictures are gone!!
I cant belive people still thinks that the lens acts like it is a longer lens only because you get a more narrow field of view.. Wake up!!

Robert writes:

> I cant belive people still thinks that the lens
> acts like it is a longer lens only because you get a
> more narrow field of view.. Wake up!!

Yet that's exactly what a longer lens provides: a narrower field of view. If the same quality pictures (resolution, lack of noise) can be achieved with a shorter focal length and smaller sensor then the framing, the size of the subject within the frame and the field of view are identical to the use of a longer lens on a full-frame format, assuming you're standing at the same place. And that's exactly what a lens of a longer focal length does on a full-frame format - the reason people think it is because it's true, whether you believe it or not.

Imagine that someone looks at a 12MP print of an uncropped image from a Nikon D300 at 300mm and compares it to a 12MP print of an uncropped image taken on a full-frame D3, at the same place and of the same subject but with a 450mm lens. The results have the same field of view and the same framing. Right now, the quality of the Nikon D300 and the Canon 40D are easily rivalling full-frame 35mm film with very best film loaded under the best conditions. Under most real-life conditions, digital easily wins.

The equivalent of a longer focal length is achieved, and the fact that "the edges of the picture are gone" is neither here nor there if the quality of what remains is high.

As for brand rivalry, though I shoot Nikon and am relieved that it's finally getting its sensor technology together (the moment is definitely akin to a languishing Apple finally releasing OS X), I'd be very surprised if Canon doesn't hit back hard. It's a great time to be a photographer.

"Yet that's exactly what a longer lens provides: a narrower field of view"

Thats not ONLY what you get from a longer lens! You also get a "enlarging factor" You "get closer" with a longer lens not only a more narrow field of view..
The subject is "not as big" with a 300mm on a cropped camera as with a 400mm on a fullframe.. are you following? What if you cropped down the fullframe even more with a really small sensor so that the 300mm lens gets a FOV that is like a 800mm?? come on you cant say it acts like a 800mm because you get a FOV that is like a 800mm.. it can never be the same! FOV is the same but the thing you are taking pictures of will be soo much smaller on the cropped 300mm vs the fullframe 400mm. Ok?
FOV is one thing but you have to take the other aspects into count too.. Enlarging factor! If what you are saying is true we would not need tele lenses at all! Just make really small sensors... and use a 70mm..

/Robert

Bahi wrote:
"If the same quality pictures (resolution, lack of noise) can be achieved"

But it cant!! and it will never be achieved!
The pixels can be made smaller and smaller with the same quality but at the same time if you make them a little bigger it will be even better!! Always!
I am NOT taking about film!!! Why did you start talking about film??
I am talking about Fullframe digital sensors of course.
You get less noise (especially at higher ISO if the pixels on the sensor are bigger.. Thats why the D3 and D700 works good in low light at higher ISO!
So you really cant compare!
Its like pears and apples.
If you have a really small sensor that crops the 300mm lens down so it gets the same FOV as a 1200mm then the pixels would be so small that the quality of the picture would be awful.. And it is the same thing with Fullformat and APS size sensors.. The quality is better on the sensor with bigger pixels. And if it is darker and you have to use ISO 6400?? How would that be with the extremely small pixels on the cropped camera if you compare it with the one with perhaps twice as big pixels?? (As the D3 or D700)

You have to put together ALL the parameters if you are going to compare the two alternatives.
But as i said its like pears and.......

I understand what you are saying though..
and i know how you think..

/Robert

Nikon has made the EOS3 in digital form in all but eye controlled focus in the D300. Canon gave us the 40D. Nice, competent but not up to snuff with what Nikon has.

Nikon has the 200-400 and Canon does not.

With Canons years long lead in big fast glass many of us switched to be competitive in the sports photo world. Nikon has caught up and now takes the lead. If Canon can't get up to speed more of us will switch back simply because we need AF capability that works in warm weather and bright light. Nothing quite like an editor questioning your competence when he sees a baseball game in "Perfect Baseball Weather" that is just a bit out of focus in almost every frame. Then a dealer who doesn't want to refund my $9000 for two camera bodies that just won't do the job I bought them for.

Nikon is slow but got it right. Canon is faster but now lags behind, and lags big time.

Sony & Pentax and Olympus are bit players on the edge, picking up crumbs.

Come on Canon, hit it big with the digital EOS 3 in features, with performance in low light and high ISO's that will knock our socks off and cameras that lead the pack, not that 'catch up' to the competition.

Better yet, take the Sigma foveon sensor idea and make bigger chips with excellent performance for even better color while doing so.

Can people PLEASE learn the difference between "lose/loose" and "losing/loosing"? Is really that hard to keep LOOSER and LOSER straight??

Yes, I am a LOSER because I read all these comments and this was my take-away.

@ Bahi,

One comment about lenses and cropping on non-ff cameras. There is a reason DX lenses are made... it's because lenses that are designed for the full 35mm frame arn't optimized for a DX sized sensor. With wide lenses, Barrel distortion, chromatic abortions, and vignetting (at the corners) are reduced. For these improvements to be maximized, the sensor size must be taken into account in the design. These improvements are pointless if the image is cropped.

The cropping does not simply change the focal length of the lens, it crops the image to make the lens "act" like a longer lens, but the lens is not designed to be used that way.

I guess my point is that if it's better to buy a DX lens for a DX camera and an FX lens for an FX camera, than the cropping isn't just making the lens longer.

All this said, if you like longer lenses, and you want to save money, by using a DX body with an FX lend you already own to get a narrower FOV. But you can also get a faster lens with the same FOV if you buy a DX lens. Because it's designed to gather light for a smaller sensor.

jimmy

Bahi!

The "perspective" will also be different between fullframe and cropped..
50mm fullframe will not look identical as 31mm on a cropped camera..
DOF will ALSO be different between Fullframe and cropped... Fullframe 50mm at F2,0 will have much "shorter" DOF then 31mm at F2,0 on a cropped sensor. Depth of field (at the image plane of the camera) is a function of the focal length/aperture of the lens and the distance to the subject.
So it`s impossible to compare the 2 alternatives.

/Robert