Comments on: Nikon doing well, better than Canon in the past two years (2008 vs 2006)

By: Jack Lim

Jack Lim — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 05:09:03 +0000

I believe the term ‘design’ can be a little misleading. My impression is that this is purely from a configuration perspective. An instruction to manufacturers on the specs of the sensor.

There were reports that the D3/D700 sensors are not from Sony but manufactured by another semiconductor company, Renesas.

I believe Nikon does not have a foundry for producing sensors.

Sensor development is largely a semiconductor research. From what I know, Nikon does not have as comprehensive semiconductor capabilities as Sony or Canon. I don’t think I have heard of Nikon filing for semiconductor patents for image sensors like Sony, Canon or Panasonic.

Besides, I cannot imagine Nikon selling this sensor to anyone.

By: Blake

Blake — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:52:03 +0000

I think the headline might be a little bit confusing. “doing…better than Canon” implies they sold more or made more money, doesn’t it? The headline should have been “gained market share from Canon” or something. I don’t know the absolute sales figures, but I assume that Canon still sells more – isn’t that correct? It’s the same thing when people say that Apple had a better year than Microsoft, when MS still has an overwhelming market share to Apple.

By: Sanford

Sanford — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 08:07:54 +0000

Nikon can get better is not because of D300/D700 overrun 5D/50D series. The chart is based on “Units”. Most DSLR units selling is on the beginner class.

It is the success of the Nikon Market strategy. Make D40->D5000->D3000 using the price factor to beat the 350D to 500D. Canon only gives out the 1000D to counter them. It is clearly that 1000D is not enough to beat D5000 & D3000

On the other hand of beginner unit, Nikon uses D80->D90 to focus on quality side. They are obviously better than 350D to 500D. To counter it now canon make a new line 7D to against D300s, lower the price of 500D(price factor)/50D/60D(quality factor) to against D90.

7D’s spec is good, may be better than D300s. However, D300s 80-90% design is from the old D300 design – that is already proved its reliability. But more than half of 7D is the new design – there may be problems we don’t know as on the 5D2(black spot) & 1D3 (focusing). To prove 7D’s superiority, 7D has to pass the test in the real market first.

However, 7D will not boost on the number of Canon “units” sold. Canon needs to make some much more attractive beginner DSLRs to achieve it.

By: Gustav

Gustav — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 18:36:57 +0000

It won’t matter as it seems all the Canon fanboys are here anyway.

By: rhodium

rhodium — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 15:31:45 +0000

And might I say, they are mighty fine sensors.

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 06:16:01 +0000

They already did, the Ds and D700 sensors are not Sony sensors.

By: zeeGerman

zeeGerman — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:30:10 +0000

You’re right, I didn’t know that. But still, this doesn’t mean that it is out of the loop, just like Opel, which belongs to GM, is practically bought by Magma these days.

By: Zograf

Zograf — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 17:59:36 +0000

Nikon, As far I remember, is already part of Mitsubishi Group companies(or similar big one) so it won’t be easy to be absorbed by Sony.

By: arz

arz — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 17:18:34 +0000

You mean how? By inventing their own sensors?

By: EG

EG — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 10:50:06 +0000

Since my kid doesn’t play in slow motion the tripod is useless for taking pictures of him. Or do you mean that the tripod is for hitting him over the head until he is moving slow enough for photos with a tripod?

My point is that I want:
1) Less megapixels and more DR and sensitivity.
2) Less parental control over how high the sensitivity can be pushed when taking jpg’s.

By: zeeGerman

zeeGerman — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 06:59:50 +0000

I only know the Zeiss ones, and they are really fine. But I didn’t expect anything else from Zeiss. In fact I wish they would add auto focus to their line of ZF/ZE mount lenses.

I think you’re right about Sony, they already offer a good lineup. Right now at least their bodies are fairly cheap, but that will change. Non the less, for newcomers they are a serious option in the meantime, and of course for all those that believe that 24mp makes their pictures better.
Me personally, I wouldn’t jump on the Sony train, as I don’t like their general proprietary policy/strategy.

By: Jack Lim

Jack Lim — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 05:17:36 +0000

If you have been a photographer since the 80′s it would be strange to hear people talking about Nikon catching up with Canon. It was Canon trying to catch up to Nikon at that time. Nikon was the undisputed champs and Canon was second fiddle.

Come the digital age and everything changed. But Nikon is back and looking good.

However, I see a few major risks with Nikon. They are purely dependent on Sony for the sensor technology and recently they are struggling with profit . Their business is mostly centered around digital camera and they are not as well diversified as Canon and Sony. Their market cap is about 7x smaller than Canon and also smaller than Sony. The last few points may mean they may have less to spare for R&D and be a technology provider.

We all know, in business, it is never the maker of the best product who wins but whoever can hold the balls of most other partners and competitors. Microsoft & Intel are great examples, they hold the balls of PC manufacturers for decades.

So look at Sony, they may not be the best camera manufacturer but they make money from every Nikon dSLR sold and every Canon PnS (which uses Sony CCD sensor). If we include PnS, I think Canon is still the biggest overall digital camera manufacturers, but no doubt, Sony benefits the most. If they don’t lose it all in PS3 and Sony Ericsson, that is.

So my point is, Nikon ought to diversify and start creating technologies that can make then more money.

By: msb29

msb29 — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 01:01:41 +0000

I’ve been looking at thousands and thousands of samples on the internet for the past 3 months…Nikon is the best and by far. The final result is what we’re interested in, not what’s on paper…
Even if some Canon cameras are great, I have yet to find one image with the same quality as we can get from Nikon.

By: arz

arz — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 22:04:47 +0000

He’s talking about Canon 70-200 F4L, not the 70-200 F2.8 L IS.

Yes, you can say that 70-200/2.8L IS is on par to the new Nikon 70-200 VR II, the problem is, Nikon’s 70-200VR cost like $2000, where Canon’s 70-200 IS is only $1500. Not only that, you can buy a Canon 70-200/2.8 with no IS for only $1000, and it has USM. Nikon has nothing else – AF-D version?

By: AS

AS — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 22:04:41 +0000

Start learning how to use a tripod and stop dreaming about fairy tales…LOL

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 20:26:28 +0000

Not sure how you think that the Canon 70-200 is superior to the Nikon offerings. In the same range, but with 2.8 aperture, Nikon has beaten Canono in all the tests I have seen. I think that both lenses and bodies are mor or less equal, I would find it very surprising if switching made you a significantly better photographer.

By: Sony Lenses

Sony Lenses — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 19:51:36 +0000

By the way, have any of you played with Sony’s lenses in Best Buy or places like that? They are wonderfully smooth with a very precise feeling of control. By contrast, my Nikon 24-70 almost feels like it spins and the control is not that great, despite comparisons to even worse feeling lenses (Canon’s included).

I’m just saying that Sony is making gear that feels very good. I’ll stick with Nikon because of the investment. But if I had known Sony was all in, I definitely would have considered it.

By: HDZ

HDZ — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 18:31:04 +0000

I have 70-180 micro, please look the price in eBay now.

Just sold 28 1.4D and HK-7 in triple double price that I pay, can Canon do this?

By: NikoDoby

NikoDoby — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 16:01:55 +0000

Nope, the sole purpose of any business venture is to make money. You don’t invest or start up a business to make people like you. You do it to make more money! Toyota’s perceived goody goody image goes only as far as the return per dollar they get out of it. If people believe your product is better then you charge more for it. Look at Apple. Business is strictly about the money.

By: Ken Elliott

Ken Elliott — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 10:37:36 +0000

Actually, I’d have to disagree with this. Serving customer needs come first. Profit is an indicator as to how well you meet customer needs.

Example: GM focused on increasing profits by cutting costs of their cars, and have seen a huge decline in market share over the last 30 years. Toyota has focused on improving their cars, and becoming more responsive to customer needs. They have had a huge gain in market share and profitability.

Like eating, it is important, but if it become your prime focus, you tend to self destruct. It leads you to make bad decisions.