Nikon losing ground to Canon?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Stefan Patric on 24 Apr 2010 13:09 On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 00:37:50 -0700, RichA wrote: > Nikon did an impressive thing, came back from way behind Canon a few > years back to take arguably the number 1 spot in-terms of performance. > But, because they've refused to augment new models at lower prices with > the same attributes of newer Canons, they are losing the ground they'd > gained. They still produce the lowest noise professional camera, but > they lack a lower price high megapixel camera, and a lower priced high > megapixel FF camera. In addition, the mid-level is aging and needs > replacement. Nikon has and has always had a different development and marketing philosophy than Canon. Or anyone else for that matter. Today, they have more DSLR choices than they've ever had. Back in the all mechanical/film days, they had only two camera bodies: the F and the Nikkormat; and that was all anyone needed to take great photos. So, don't worry about Nikon. They have never really concerned themselves too much with the triviality of rankings. Quality, durability, longevity and system compatibility have been their mantra. Stef
From: Bowser on 24 Apr 2010 19:55 On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 08:37:54 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Apr 24, 8:34�am, "Peter" <peter...(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >> "RichA" <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:3e0d4602-a316-4fdd-897a-2a998ce92533(a)n5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... >> >> > Nikon did an impressive thing, came back from way behind Canon a few >> > years back to take arguably the number 1 spot in-terms of >> > performance. �But, because they've refused to augment new models at >> > lower prices with the same attributes of newer Canons, they are losing >> > the ground they'd gained. �They still produce the lowest noise >> > professional camera, but they lack a lower price high megapixel >> > camera, and a lower priced high megapixel FF camera. �In addition, the >> > mid-level is aging and needs replacement. >> >> So buy the low noise professional model. >> >> -- >> Peter > >Though I love the pro Nikon bodies for their egonomics, I think the >days of huge pro cameras are coming to an end. What about medium size? I never super size mine.
From: Rich on 25 Apr 2010 03:49 On Apr 24, 12:37 pm, "Nomen Nescio" <normanne...(a)lycos.com> wrote: > "RichA" <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:3e0d4602-a316-4fdd-897a-2a998ce92533(a)n5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > > > Nikon did an impressive thing, came back from way behind Canon a few > > years back to take arguably the number 1 spot in-terms of > > performance. But, because they've refused to augment new models at > > lower prices with the same attributes of newer Canons, they are losing > > the ground they'd gained. They still produce the lowest noise > > professional camera, but they lack a lower price high megapixel > > camera, and a lower priced high megapixel FF camera. In addition, the > > mid-level is aging and needs replacement. > > Virtually all experts say that megapixels aren't really all that important. > Sony has a couple "high megapixel" dSLR that don't perform that well against > Nikon or Canon. In the pro market Nikon D3x vs. Canon 1Ds mk.III are about > equal. Need any more than that, then you really should look into > medium-format. > > For an average hobbyist, why do you need more than 12 mp? Technically, more megapixels means you can use shorter lens focal lengths because you can crop. So, a high megapixel camera could save on things like lens cost.
From: 11:11 on 25 Apr 2010 18:56 "RichA" <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:3e0d4602-a316-4fdd-897a-2a998ce92533(a)n5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > Nikon did an impressive thing, came back from way behind Canon a few > years back to take arguably the number 1 spot in-terms of > performance. But, because they've refused to augment new models at > lower prices with the same attributes of newer Canons, they are losing > the ground they'd gained. They still produce the lowest noise > professional camera, but they lack a lower price high megapixel > camera, and a lower priced high megapixel FF camera. In addition, the > mid-level is aging and needs replacement. Na. Canon released the 7D, which is what the 40D should have been. But it makes no difference, let them faux fight. At the end of the day, don't just buy a new body, unless it has something you need. I would imagine the second hand 1D-II market is doing pretty well, and rightly so.
From: 11:11 on 29 Apr 2010 14:03
"11:11" <1112(a)1113.com> wrote in message news:PuqdnUGUouFEVUnWnZ2dnUVZ8lqdnZ2d(a)pipex.net... > "RichA" <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:3e0d4602-a316-4fdd-897a-2a998ce92533(a)n5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... >> Nikon did an impressive thing, came back from way behind Canon a few >> years back to take arguably the number 1 spot in-terms of >> performance. But, because they've refused to augment new models at >> lower prices with the same attributes of newer Canons, they are losing >> the ground they'd gained. They still produce the lowest noise >> professional camera, but they lack a lower price high megapixel >> camera, and a lower priced high megapixel FF camera. In addition, the >> mid-level is aging and needs replacement. > > > > Na. Canon released the 7D, which is what the 40D should have been. But > it makes no difference, let them faux fight. 40D - would have been minus the video obviously. Video would have come with the 50D. This is of course if Canon were remotely interested in competing with Nikon. It's no secret that the D3, D700 and D300 were very well received. But, let's face it, between the two of them they are untouchable, so it doesn't make sense for them to brutally compete with each other. To be honest, I quite like the fact that they aren't aggressively attacking each other and have their own different niches. I also admire Adobe for their ability to continuously pull a rabbit out of the bag, despite having no real competition. As for the likes of Apple... Err, no comment, because I'm sure I'll ruffle a few feathers. |