< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

Nikon D4 vs. Canon EOS 1Dx specs comparison

Here is a another quick comparison between the Nikon D4 and Canon 1Dx cameras based on the specifications provided by the manufacturers (please note that not all specs were directly comparable):

 Nikon D4 Canon EOS-1Dx
Announced January, 2012
(availability: February 2012)
October, 2011
(availability: March 2012)
Lens Mount Nikon F bayonet mount Canon EF mount
Effective Pixels 16.2 million 18.1 million
Sensor Size 36.0 x 23.9mm 36 mm x 24mm
Image Sensor Format FX full frame
File Format Still Images JPEG
NEF (RAW)
NEF (RAW) + JPEG
TIFF (RGB)
JPEG, RAW (14-bit Canon Original)
M-RAW
S-RAW
RAW+JPEG
M-RAW+JPEG
S-RAW+JPEG
Picture Control Landscape
Monochrome
Neutral
Portrait
Standard
User-customizable S
Vivid
Auto
Standard
Portrait
Landscape
Neutral
Faithful
Monochrome
User Defined 1-3
Storage Media CompactFlash© (CF) (Type I, compliant with UDMA)
XQD Type Memory
Compatible with UDMA 7 CF cards
Card Slot 1 CompactFlash© (CF) card and 1 XQD memory type card  Dual CF Cards (Type I or II)
Viewfinder Frame Coverage  FX (36x24): 100% Horizontal and 100% Vertical Approx.
1.2x (30x20): 97% Horizontal and 97% Vertical Approx.
DX (24x16): 97% Horizontal and 97% Vertical Approx.
5:4 (30x24): 97% horizontal and 100% vertical Approx.
Vertical/Horizontal approx. 100%
Viewfinder Magnification 0.70x Approx. Approx. 0.76x
Fastest Shutter Speed 1/8000 sec.  1/8000 sec.
Slowest Shutter Speed 30 sec.  30 sec.
Top Continuous Shooting Speed at full resolution 10 frames per second
11 frames per second (AE/AF Locked)
Super High-speed: 14 shots/sec.
High-speed: 12 shots/sec.
Low-speed: 3 shots/sec.
Exposure Compensation ±5 EV in increments of 1/3, 1/2 or 1 EV ±3 stops in 1/3- or 1/2-stop increments
ISO Sensitivity ISO 100 - 12,800
Lo-1 (ISO 50)
Hi-4 (ISO 204,800)
ISO 100-51200
Extension settable: ISO 50; 102,400 and 204,800
Dynamic AF Mode Number of AF points: 9, 21, 51 and 51 (3D-tracking) One to five cross-type AF points at f/2.8
10 to 20 cross-type AF points at f/4, and 15 to 21 cross-type AF points at f/5.6. (The number of cross-type AF points will differ depending on the lens.)
Focus Modes Auto AF-S/AF-C selection (AF-A)
Continuous-servo (AF-C)
Face-Priority AF available in Live View only and D-Movie only
Full-time Servo (AF-A) available in Live View only
Manual (M) with electronic rangefinder
Normal area
Single-servo AF (AF-S)
Wide area
Single-point AF (Manual selection)
Auto selection 61-point AF
Single-point Spot AF (Manual selection)
AF point expansion (Manual selection, 4 points: up, down, left, and right)
AF point expansion (Manual selection, surrounding 8 points)
Zone AF (Manual zone selection)
Maximum Autofocus Areas/Points 51 61
Built-in Flash -- --
Flash Compensation -3 to +1 EV in increments of 1/3, 1/2 or 1 EV ±3 stops in 1/3- or 1/2-stop increments
White Balance Auto (2 types)
Choose color temperature (2500K–10000K)
Cloudy
Direct Sunlight
Flash
Fluorescent (7 types)
Incandescent
Preset manual (up to 4 values can be stored)
Shade
Auto
Daylight
ShadeCloudy
Tungsten Light
White Fluorescent Light
Flash
Custom
Color Temperature setting
Movie HD 1,920x1,080 / 30 fps
HD 1,920×1,080 / 24 fps
HD 1,280×720 / 30 fps
HD 1,280x720 / 60 fps
 1920 x 1080: 30 fps / 25 fps / 24 fps
1280 x 720: 60 fps / 50 fps
640 x 480: 30 fps / 25 fps
Monitor Size 3.2 in. diagonal 3.2-inches
Monitor Resolution 921,000 Dots  Approx. 1.04 million dots
Monitor Type Wide Viewing Angle TFT-LCD TFT color, liquid-crystal monitor
Battery Life (shots per charge) 2,600 Battery Life (shots per charge) (CIPA) TBA
Approx. Dimensions Width 6.3 in. (160mm)
Height 6.2 in. (156.5mm)
Depth 3.6 in. (90.5mm)
6.2 x 6.4 x 3.3 in.
(158 x 163.6 x 82.7 mm)
Approx. Weight 41.6 oz. (1180g)camera body only TBA
 Price $5,999.95  $6,800.00
This entry was posted in Nikon D4. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • FX DX

    These cameras look very similar. I don’t think anyone from Canon will switch to Nikon for D4 and vice versa.

    • Robert Falconer

      No. Either of these cameras will produce stellar images in the hands of a competent photographer.

      One area missed here was metering. In both metering and flash control, the Nikon wins handily.

      • http://linconnu24.devianart.com L’Inconnu

        Yeah, you’re right to this point, but I see that Canon wins for number of images per second, in number of points for autofocus, in details for the monitor (yeah, I know that the Nikon monitor is better than the D3S now), and I have some doubts about the battery… Nikon and Canon give us a very hard battle…

        • http://haroldellis4444@gmail.com Harold Ellis

          canon is hands down better, especially much bigger viewfinder but really all that much to force people switch.

          • http://haroldellis4444@gmail.com Harold Ellis

            *not all that much*

        • Not Surprised

          I think what’s being missed here is that Canon actually improved their last camera.

          Whereas Nikon is sitting on its hands and selling you the exact same camera it made in the D3S.

          The D4 is neither a successor to the D3S, nor a successor to the D700. Its just a D3S MII. And the D700 will be abandoned all together.

          The irony is that if they had made this this D800 and dropped $2K off the price, it would probably sell 3 times as many copies.

          • goldaccess

            You have no clue.

          • Ralph

            Agreed, if you look at the specs from D3s to D4, the gap between the D4 and the 1DX is similar which implies a generation behind.. It’s certainly slow progress. Fortunately specs mean almost nothing and I await actual image comparisons.

          • Bob Your Thing

            You got no clue about Nikon and Canon.

            i can well say Canon drop their ball by introducing a lower res camera so its a backward step.

            1DsMkiii 21mp – 1dx 18mp

            If you have been reading things properly, you will know D4 has got so much new improvement that it is the new standard for a flagship DLSR.

            • Jamie Oliver

              How stupid can you be?

              1D MK IV was an APS-H camera while the 1D X is a full frame camera. 1Ds MKIII is only 3.5 FPS or so not 12!

              If you want to compare, then compare the 1Ds MKIII to the D3x and this camera should be treated as such!

          • Zeke

            If Nikon reduced the price by $2K and sold three times as many, that’s twice the gross revenue. But if the $2K cut reduces the margin by more than half, it’s a reduction in net profit. _That_ would be ironic.

      • jo1

        you’re right – in the hands of a good craftsman the best quality can be expected. But you miss the point that the lenses are the most important factor and not the cameras.

        And here Canon has the much more interesting selection and as the paper values of the camera are slightly better in almost every aspect the same applies for most lenses.

        Nikon is again slightly behind – not much but the skilled hand will take advantage of that including the better lenses e.g a 85 f/1.2 vs 85 f/1.4

        There are many lenses that will be used on these cameras and while I am not intending to buy one I feel very comfortable to be in a position to “load my lenses” with such an ISO beast in stations were I need one – rental service is an option and cheaper for this two or three occasions in 5 years where I might need ISO 50 k

        • Kurgan

          2j01: You’re forgetting that these are paper specs. What good will 61 AF points do if they’re too slow or not accurate enough? Let’s wait until the first real reviews come out. I laugh when people say that a camera is “better”, when I ask them “Better at what?” I usually only get silence…

          And as for Canon having better lenses: I’ve shot Canon for years before switching to Nikon. I’ve used a lot of L-lenses and there’s precise ONE Canon lens I miss: the 70-200 f/4L. Canon lenses are cheaper and less heavy but Nikons are more consistent in quality and stronger in construction. Take your pick.

          • Rob

            @jo1 Are you referring to the 1/3 stop better f-stop when saying the Canon lens is better than the Nikon lens? I’d like to see some more examples that backup you statement, along with some conclusive evidence. Then I might agree with you.

          • http://StevenGeorges@mac.com Steven Georges

            I agree with you.
            It will be the quality and feel of auto-focus, grain and sharpness at high ISO, details in highlights and shadows, how often electronics and other stuff break down, color accuracy in weird and mixed lighting situations, TTL flash accuracy, how well it survives when dropped, and I didn’t even get started with video.

            The specs are close enough (I do appreciate the D4 costing less) where it really comes down to how it feels and do I get the moment with quality.

            Well, I’m looking forward to this. It should be a blast! :-)

        • R!

          evrybody knows that Nikon lenses are the best ,that is why videographer use it on Canon.

          • G

            It was correct probably 20 years ago. World changed since.

        • guiri

          As much as I am/was a canon fan I bought the D3 for the spectacular camera it was when it came out. I didn’t have any camera at the time so it didn’t matter to me what brand I bought.

          I must say however that I did NOT like the 85/1.4 at all, whereas I LOVED my 85/1.2L that I had on my F1-N cameras in 83.
          Personally, I think canon has the better lenses but that’s me.

    • Ruben

      Pff.. 40% of the canon shooters are gonna switch. “OOOOH pretty glowing buttons”

      • R!

        yep , I dont understand why all these pro body didnt have It already, only the 4/3 cheep E620 had this feature before!?..

    • Mock Kenwell

      I can’t help but think, we waited 4 years for this? Both companies have hit the wall technologically.

      • No Name

        Mock Kenwell +1

      • http://www.intersiteimaging.com/ BrettA

        + 1 more… Yeah, I’m disappointed on this one, too. Even with the welcome MPx increase, I’d have hoped for more improvement in the ISO range *sigh*. Now my question is wait for D4s to help, or cough up 6 big ones.

        I’m likely gonna have the same question of whether my D3x gets replaced with a D800 or not, but in both cases, I’ll wait to see the DxO tests…

      • Douglas Adams

        You’re right! All this for 30% increase in pixel number accompanied with even a STOP better high ISO noise performance and most probably better DR. In one generation (or iteration, generation seems to be Ken Rockwell’s proprietary)!? I guess you should’ve sent NIKON your on prints and ideas, since it is so obvious to you that engineers at NIKON have hit the limits of their expertize!

        It’s like a new BMW 5 series comes 4 years after the last, it goes 30% faster, and spends 10% less fuel to do that.

        As for you that ingenuously discovered that NIKON will lose some followers after CANON has 10 more auto-focus points? And thus completely ignored the fact that is speed and precision of the auto-focus, and definitely not number of focus points, that represents one’s camera advantage one over the other. Let me also remind you that this is ine of the areas where NIKON has kept it’s prominent dominance over Canon in years. For me, there os little doubt that things will change here.

        You guys should just pick up your rebels with kit lenses and go shoot some lady hostess at the local motor show!

        My opinion is that this is one truly great camera, clearly designed to follow on the success of D3s. The strategy that was clearly adopted also by Canon.

        • Mock Kenwell

          What a fanboi. Clearly it’s a great camera. It just doesn’t feel like the quantum leap forward and the clear winner against the Canon as the last two major upgrades have. Then again, Nikon is typically conservative on paper and Canon aggressive. So the difference may be wider than it appears. I’m not familiar with the 5 series, but if it gets 30% faster and 10% more fuel efficient every 4 years (which I doubt), THAT is a bit more impressive than 2MP and 1 stop low light gain.

          A quantum leap would be a brand new sensor type, 2-3x MP, or 20% DR increase. Nikon upgrades have spoiled us all of late, so our expectations are high. They thing that is hard to get used to is Nikon is cheaper! Who knew?

          BTW, I have purchased over a dozen FX cameras in the last 4 years. You?

          • http://Www.novumlucis.com Dr SCSI

            @Mock Kenwell, I think that is partially your problem, your expectations are not too high, they are astronomically insane! It is amazing that you wait four years for this, but in those same four years you bought over a dozen FX camera bodies. BTW, Nikon released the D3, D3S, D3X, and now the D4 in just four years and three months! If it were not for a national disaster, they may have released the D4 a lot sooner. I find it to be quite normal that their progress is evolutionary and not revolutionary as some have come to expect. If automobiles made the same kind of progress, we would all be driving 10,000 horse power cars which used mini nuclear engines. As for the 20% gain in DR, I think you might be pleasently surprised by the forth coming test results. And if the D800 really comes out with a 36MP sensor next month, then you will get your three fold increase in pixels you so desire, albeit sans 200k+ ISO.

          • Douglas Adams

            @Mock Kenwell. Listen man, if you bought over dozen of FX cameras in last 4 years, probably the problem is in you…not in those cameras.
            Dr DCSI has told you right,when he compared the progress of Photo cameras to that of automotive industry. It’s very simple when you think of it….Increasing performance which D3s had on 12MP on the new sensor that is 30% bigger in size for a full stop – IS A QUANTUM LEAP FORWARD!

            • Mock Kenwell

              Unmm. Those were not my personal cameras. I run a design and video dept. Our work is such that we need video and still capabilities in the same camera. The D3s is a great camera, but we could not justify the cost once we saw the D700. So we waited for the D700s. And we’re still waiting. Now we have two more cameras coming that still don’t fit the “affordable FX” bill. So yeah, if it doesn’t melt gold and predict the future, we’re not dropping 6K for an incremental upgrade.

      • http://leicaglow.com Axel

        I agree that people are not going to switch, and it has been a long time coming. But pro journalists and sports photogs are wearing out cameras at a faster rate than most others, and it makes sense to offer updates according to the latest technology. I still can’t help but think we are senselessly mixing motion and still photography, on a pro level camera.

    • http://www.russbarnes.co.uk RussB

      The Canon will be 13% more expensive at launch. I actually think that Nikon have enough of a price advantage here to make those who are serious about buying one of these think more carefully than you might give credit for at first glance…

    • Dotty

      This was the same thing I was thinking!!!
      http://karlgrobl.com/blog/advice/equipment/retiring-my-canon-mark-ii/
      now canon shooters have no excuse – camera wise :):)

  • DD

    Canon rocks!

    • iShoot

      Canon makes rocks now?

      • Yrsued

        Ya, they started making Rocks with the MKIII, that is what the MKIII was good for, Boat Anchor!!

        • iShoot

          Ha! LMAO. I actually shoot both Nikon and Canon and although initially I couldn’t fathom working with Canon equipment (due to the ergonomics) I have learned to appreciate some things about them. I don’t prefer my 5dmk2 to my d700 but I use them in totally different circumstances. But “Boat anchor” is probably the funniest thing I have heard. I don’t understand why they made the 5dmk2 with the same sensor as the 1dmk3. Anyways… there is not much left for Nikon or Canon to do. I truly think they have exhausted their innovative possibilities at this point. And what more do I need anyway???

          • A blah

            Try telling Sony that

            The big one I see is that Canon will probably win high ISO performance based off their native range.

            • Johnny Robinson

              Yeah canon will win this time, I think theyve won the low light crown.

            • guiri

              Maybe you guys should wait for actual samples before giving the crown to Canon…?

            • Mock Kenwell

              No, don’t wait for actual samples, that’ no fun. Just start handing out crowns.

          • cpm5280

            > ” I truly think they have exhausted their innovative
            > possibilities at this point. ”

            The phrase “nothing new under the sun” dates from biblical times. I suspect that they hadn’t seen any changes in chariot wheels and bronze working technology for a long time, and so figured that’s all there was.

            • iShoot

              @cpm5280 that is why I said “at this point” The advances are just not that great AT THIS POINT. Don’t get it confused, I am sure that there will be some game changer again… but truthfully, what more do you want from an image? If the images that you are getting aren’t good enough for you now, there is no technological advance that will make you a better photographer.

          • http://www.intersiteimaging.com/ BrettA

            RU kiddin’ with “What more do I need”? There’s always more to come and if it does, to keep up with your competition – if you’re a professional – you’ll need it. I’m thinking things like:

            – Still better low light capabilities.
            – Still better dynamic range!!!
            – Better battery life – very topical with the D4.
            – Still higher MPx so the medium format boys don’t have a leg up.
            – Native format (or at least 4K) motion… in RAW.

            • Mock Kenwell

              Correct, but you can’t have all of those things. Low light performance is low enough. I’d like to see the DR increase at this point.

            • iShoot

              damn… You will never be content. As soon as you get all of that then what? HarryPotter-esque interactive moving still images? I was just like that and it was just my excuse to not be creative and stay lazy. By no means am I saying that this is your case. I am truthfully speaking about my personal experience. As soon as I stopped worrying about the latest and greatest, my productivity shot up and I was happier than ever. I still keep my ear to the ground, I would love some things but I have not had a client complain about my dynamic range or lack thereof.

          • http://techprolet.com/ Pavlos

            Firmware plugins. Who’s gonna give it to us?

        • R!

          no theys makes bricks ,red one!!!!!!lol!

  • http://www.sdphoto.com.au Sam

    I’ll be very curious to hear the difference in real world use. AF performance, dynamic range, etc.

    • Bynkan

      I think where they need to step up is dynamic range and maybe a 16 bit color dep. That is what I am waiting for now…

  • Yarrus

    Similar, but Canon not named a new camara 2DX …like D4..

    • GD

      So you’re saying your opinion of the relative merits of these two cameras would change if they were named differently from the way they are?

      OK, then. Your critical analysis is umm… interesting.

  • PixelBrine

    These camera are both superb. It will take some tome to show the comparisons of dynamic range and high iso quality (Canon claims higher native but we will see what the actual quality looks like) but I agree that I can not see either committed Canon or Nikon users jumping ship.

  • Sam

    On paper it looks like the Canon edges it with more focus points, faster shooting speed, greater ISO range and higher resolution screen. On the other hand for video Nikon edges it on paper although Canon in the past have been better for video so that’s in the air until we see samples appear.

    • Dave

      Canon has more AF points, but the Nikon now explicitly autofocuses with f8 max aperture combos and the AF sensitivity has been expanded down to -2EV.

    • Rob

      Yes, on paper. But all of us seasoned veterans know that it’s the actually real life performance of those things that truly counts. Lots of AF points are virtually useless if the autofocus system is shite. Same as ISO range, etc.

  • MarkH

    Okay, the Canon has higher ISO and shots per second. It is also $800 more in cost.

    Realistically, is there a significant difference?

    My Nikon glass is my real investment. My FM, F3hp, and D700, and my eventual D4, will suit me fine.

    I assume, had I Canon glass and cameras, I would be saying the same.

    The question is how do I use the equipment, not what equipment I have.

    By the way, video is not important, at least to me.

    Bottom line – heart of hearts – I simply like the way Nikon works in my hands.

    MarkH

    • The Manatee

      I don’t think we can assume higher ISO. Canon SAYS 51200 “native” but let’s see real world tests. In the past their high ISO has been completely useless and paled in comparison to the D3S. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the D4 with better high ISO performance notwithstanding what Canon says its native ISO is.

      • Not Nikon

        You’re young, and new to digital, right?

        The D3 is where Nikon popped ahead. Before that, Canon used to dominate ISO.. they made Nikon DSLRs look like Coolpix.

      • gt

        canon and nikon define “native” / “default” iso differently.

        “native iso” in nikon speak means the unprocessed signal direct from the sensor. ISOs beyond “native” iso, use the processor to push signal further. It’s not a reference to NOISE, whatsoever. ISO 25,600 could be perfectly clean on the D4 — even though its not within the “native ISO.”

        MEANWHILE
        Canon defines “default ISO” as any ISO that has “low enough” noise by canon’s standards. The Canon people believe that ISO 100-51,200 is “acceptably clean” and everything beyond that is unacceptable. That’s why they define their ISO that way.

        The problem with Canon’s method is 1) we have no idea at what point they start pushing the analog signal and 2) what is “acceptable noise” to canon may not be “acceptable” to ME or you or mr. pro-photographer. “acceptable noise” is a subjective choice.

        The point: Canon does NOT necessarily have “higher ISO” than the D4, they just have different naming standards.

      • Keith

        ” In the past their high ISO has been completely useless and paled in comparison to the D3S.”

        Seriously – that’s a lot of manatee crap.

      • MarkH

        @ Manatee

        I agree. I’ve lived film all my life. The digital world is so full of stats that mean nothing as there do not yet appear to be agreed-upon standards for all of the most important criteria.

        I look forward to seeing real world tests. I’ve decided to await those tests to determine whether a D4 is sufficiently better in those results to my D700 before I decide to buy the D4.

        MarkH

  • ennan

    I predict that the canon will still handle like a pile of ass and elbows.

    • Mock Kenwell

      My favorite comment.

  • http://ronscubadiver.wordpress.com Ron Scubadiver

    It is clear these two bodies are meant to compete head to head. The hard part is both are not yet in the hands of the general public. It is the battle for the Olympics.

    • John Richardson

      I see at least they are both black. And yet, no mention of the awesome take your photography to the next level shoulder strap…..

  • EvanK

    Of course, the D4 will obliterate the Canon in flash, metering and probably AF.

    What I’m most interested in seeing is video, generally that’s been Canon’s turf, but on paper it looks like the D4 has the edge. We’ll just have to wait and see…

    However, I am envious of the 1Dx’s 14 FPS.

    • Adrian

      It’s only 14 FPS on AF/metering lock, 11 on the D4. I’ve never been in a situation where a 10/12 difference would be particularly substantial. Discipline and knowing when to start said machinegun burst is probably more important.

      • Dave

        Regarding the 1DX’s 14fps, in addition to AF and AE Lock, it also requires mirror lock and JPEG mode.

      • http://eleventhphotograph.com elph

        One note on that 14 fps, it’ll only do it in JPEG, not RAW. (What I remember reading)
        11fps vs. 12fps RAW shooting.

        • nir.exe

          D4 shoots 24 fps in small 2.5mp jpg mode,
          (froknowsphoto talks about it) so?

      • R!

        It makes a diference at the finish line of an 100M dash,not at weddings!!!!!

        • nir.exe

          The shutter lag will make the difference not the fps

          • Cheddar Cheese

            Right…. You know that the 1D X has needs even less time to release the shutter then the Nikon? (unfortunately)

      • FM2Fan

        The key is not FPS, but the number of images you can record in such burst. It is the actual property to be compared betwee the models.

  • https://frisianphotography.wordpress.com/ FrisianPhotography

    As expected, in most areas these cameras are very similar on paper. It will be down to actual performance to see how good they really are and even then it will be mostly down to the (non-basic) features to distinguish them. As far as the basic features go (the ones for which you actually buy a camera!), I think many photographers are eagerly awaiting high ISO comparisons to see if Canon has caught up.

    Either way, two great cameras that will do the job. However, it seems that with the current path of camera improvements the manufacturers are only able to make minor improvements… until a new technological breakthrough is made (e.g in the field of FX mirrorless/translucent tech) , after which the race starts once again.

    • ennan

      Very true. I was saying earlier today that the technology has got to a point where it can’t really get much better without some major new idea to shake everything up. Both these cameras will be excellent. I’m also interested to see the high ISO comparisons although to be honest I’m perfectly happy with the D3.
      I’d never switch to Canon though – can’t stand how they work. Nikon makes a lot more sense to me.

    • The Manatee

      Agreed, I think we’ve maxed out the current DSLR generation. Any improvements now will be simply incremental unless there is a shift to a different format like mirrorless full frames (excluding Leica which is already a mirrorless full frame).

    • Jesse

      I’ve always wondered if comparing the 5dII/1dsIII against the D3s was fair. 12mp vs 21? aren’t we all on the page that more MP means more noise?

      • Mock Kenwell

        No, not necessarily. That’s the Reverse Megapixel Myth. But the cameras you mention did clearly have different strategic approaches.

  • The Manatee

    It’s a shame that Canon and Nikon seem to have agreed some sort of unwritten cabal to produce nearly identical tehnology. Where is the real innovation? It’s like they provide each other with a basic outline of what their next model will be and they each build a model to a similar spec. It’s pathetic.

    • http://davidjpcd.blogspot.com/ long david

      Its really a shame if that was the case. But Canon 1DX is the unification of their Pro Line, Which means this is the best they will offer for all their Pro line be it Studio, Sports, Photojourn etc. On the other hand Nikon is yet to release D4S/X yet.

      • Canon Photographer

        Wrong!

        Canon has not yet released a follow up on the 1Ds MKIII.
        All 1Ds series have gold plated logo’s, while all 1D series have silver plated logo’s.

        1D X has a silver plated logo, so we can still expect to see a high MP professional camera.

    • Almond

      Wasnt there a post on this site a couple years ago suggesting just that- that Nikon and Canon had back room deals agreeing to basically release the same products with minor leapfrogs?

      • http://nikonrumors.com/ [NR] admin

        Yes, I believe that.

        • zoetMB

          I hope you’re being sarcastic because I think this is an insane, paranoid notion.

          What would be their motivation for doing so? Especially in the case for Canon, which is a much larger company overall than Nikon, there would be no reason for them to agree to this.

          • Lensshifter

            What would be their motivation for not doing so? If you read all comments on this side, think about the amount of effort it would take to get somebody to change from one to the other. Everyone is locked in by ergonomics and glass. Also, while everyone hope for a stepchange in development, nobody here comes up with any ideas of what to change.
            Agree with admin, Fuji and Sony are the real innovators, as their strategy seems to propose different products to attract customers (x series) and sony, who seems to generalise costly technologies (nex7 etc). They are surely not yet as performant as Canikon, but they probably don’t have to be either as it is the photographer who makes the image.

          • http://haroldellis4444@gmail.com Harold Ellis

            it is not paranoid.
            look at the release history and what market does.
            and you know what was best proof that nikon and canon can do whatever they want? Sony A850. Cheap, perfect, with amazing glass and flash available. Lots of accessories. reliable. Still nobody bought them.
            so why give us full frame mini body, or D700s or D4 with more megapixels and better spread AF points. all people will buy those minor updates like crazy anyway, for whatever moneys. People bought D3x for god sake. Crap as hell. (ok now they are probably pulling their hairs out, but it is paid, just their profit is lower).
            Well i went medium format and buy nikon just as docu cameras. i am not gearhead anymore, save LOT of moneys and get way better image quality now, not some day later.

            • R!

              YOU DONT SHOOT SPORT OR WILDLIFE SO STAY IN THE STUDIO OR AT HOME IN FRONT OF TV DISPLAYING OUR IMAGES !!!!

            • http://haroldellis4444@gmail.com Harold Ellis

              sport is boring and all of wildlife is already on flickr or NG

              and fix your capslock :-9

    • http://nikonrumors.com/ [NR] admin

      I think the real innovator is Fuji.

      • Steve

        Fuji? I thought the real innovator was Sony, but each to their own, I guess.

        The Sony imaging products feel too much like consumer electronics, not tools for photography. The Fuji products I have not evaluated yet.

        • St.

          Sony bought Minolta….
          So even from the start they used someone else’s technology.
          Yes they are innovative, but as Samsung they are more like “Everybody is doing it, I also can do it”.
          Fujifilm are specialized in Photography since the world was created.
          :-)
          Big respect to Fuji that they still keep Film industry as well.

      • St.

        I couldn’t agree more with you, Admin!!!!
        Fuji continue to impress the world – see the X series, see the medium formats GF670 and GF670W.
        It’s interesting how they looked almost before bankruptcy when they stopped to make DSLRs, but in fact they keep innovating.
        Bravo Fuji!!!!

      • ennan

        I love Fuji. Their approach to development is unique. Their sensor designs are ourside the box for sure. I’m dying to see the x-pro 1 in the flesh. Wish fuji and Nikon were still producing SLR’s – a full frame fuji mega sensor in a Nikon body would be unreal.

        • http://dundermifflin.com dwight shrute

          Are you talking about film SLRs or D(digital)SLRs? Since you’re talking about sensors, I can assume you mean DSLR because Nikon is certainly still producing those.

      • Sahaja

        The bug leaps and bounds now seem to come from sensor technology.

      • http://www.del-uks.com Del-Uks

        Finally, a Nikon D800 AND a Fuji X-Pro 1 + XF 35mm f/1.4 R instead of (just) a Nikon D4 sounds good to me… ;-p

  • JonMcG

    Yeah, this just proves how silly the Canon vs Nikon argument is, just as it was silly between PC & Mac. Both products are undeniably going to be great tools and while I’m sure gadget geeks will find slight pro’s and con’s on certains aspects of each, both of these cameras just flat out rock. You simply can’t go wrong with either one…

    • ishoot

      I think that this is even sillier than the Mac/PC debates. I feel that there were very valid concerns with the Mac vs. PC thing. I haven’t really heard any valid reason why one camera is better than the other beyond personal preference. Which is a perfectly fine reason but other than that, there are tons of true artists producing pure beauty from Nikon and Canon… and Mamiya and Hasselblad… and Leica for that matter. Time place and circumstance.

      • Andrew

        The bottom line is that some cameras are indeed better than other cameras. That does not mean you cannot take award winning pictures with an inferior camera. If you have a camera that is having a hard time focusing (or slow to lock focus) in dim lighting environments, you can lose the opportunity to take a great picture. If you are taking a wedding picture in a candlelit room, a camera with an ISO of 12800 will give you a better quality picture than one with an ISO of 3200. The list goes on.

        One of the unique things the D4 can do (from one of the early reports) is to lock focus on a part of an object, for example on a single person’s face in a crowd, and if the person moves, the camera will continue to automatically track the person and readjust the focus on that person’s face. If you are buying a camera that will last you for the next three to five years, having the new XQD Type Memory slot helps preserve your investment. And apparently the new video capabilities are stunning. There are just too many reasons why this is a better camera. But that is to be expected with the current pace of technological advancement. Getting excited about this camera does not mean that it suddenly makes every other camera obsolete. What it does is it sets a new standard. That is to be expected from a flagship DSLR camera from the likes of Nikon. We should celebrate such accomplishments. This is not the time to put water on the flames.

        • iShoot

          In my honest opinion, and that is all it is so please forgive me, I don’t think that face focus tracking and XQD memory are worth spending $6000 in adding a new camera to my already overgrown inventory. I have my own studio and I am doing quite well and I have quite a few friends that are tremendously successful and the first advice they give people is learn how to shoot and stop chasing the technology. I am excited to see what these cameras are capable of but honestly none of the things aforementioned are ever issues that I have had a problem with. Furthermore, I am celebrating both Canon and Nikon, I am not putting water on anyone’s flames. I just think the debates are silly. I have worked with great photographers that have used all different brands and the images are stunning because the photog was great. This is back before the D3 and the Mk3. Don’t invalidate someone else’s preference because of your own. Both companies make amazing cameras. I am excited about both and will probably have the privilege of shooting with both.

        • Keith

          “One of the unique things the D4 can do (from one of the early reports) is to lock focus on a part of an object, for example on a single person’s face in a crowd, and if the person moves, the camera will continue to automatically track the person and readjust the focus on that person’s face”

          SUCH a gimmick!

          If a photographer can’t do that AT LEAST as well as a camera can, he has no business owning anything more sophisticated than a crayon.

          • iShoot

            I agree. It sounds very gimmicky. It may optimize workflow for some but I don’t know many pros that can’t figure out how to focus. It sounds like a feature that should have been introduced on the p7100.

    • zoetMB

      One of the mistakes that people make when comparing Macs vs PCs are evaluating processor specs, hard disk speeds, amount of memory, etc. That’s not what makes the machines different. What makes them different is the operating system and in the case of the Mac, the tight integration between hardware and software, even though the Mac now uses pretty standard parts designed by third parties. But I think most people would agree that the Mac OS has always had a certain elegance that Windows lacks, even acknowledging that there are certain things that Windows does better (like the mini-finder).

      The same is true when comparing Nikon vs. Canon. From a technical specification perspective, they’re pretty much the same (at least the bodies are — the glass is another matter). But the ergonomics of these cameras are quite different. While it’s true that any good photographer can work around the tools and get great results, you shouldn’t have to. Any camera should be intuitive and feel natural to use. I find that I can pick up any Nikon and use it immediately and feel fairly comfortable that I know what I’m doing, but I don’t feel that way with a Canon. Having said that, I’m sure there are people who feel more comfortable using a Canon.

      That’s not to say that Nikon is perfect. Their menu system is a mess that any good UI designer and usability expert who understands how photographers want to work could make far better.

      The bigger question is why has Nikon given us this camera, which aside possibly from improvements in video, only seems to have incremental benefits (and one big step back: battery life) for an extra $800 beyond the D3s price. The problem is that it seems like this camera only exists because it’s been two years since the D3s and it’s a way for Nikon to get a price increase that doesn’t look like a price increase.

      I’m not the market for such a camera anyway. Even if it had been priced at $4000, I still wouldn’t be buying it as I don’t make my prime living from photography. Luckily, while Nikon’s highest-end cameras do have an operational elegance that the lower models don’t have, most of the functionality does find its way down to the midline and I would expect the D800 and the D400, whenever released, to be much better bang for the buck.

      • AXV

        Difference with mac vs. pc is that mac buyers are retards and think that because they have a mac they are now better artists. Useless pieces of shit, they still use the same adobe software in their overpriced dumbputers.

        • Mock Kenwell

          Ignorant statement. When the design industry was turned on its ear in the late 80s, it was because of Macs and Adobe. PCs ignored this segment, and it was nearly 20 years before the graphics cards, color space and font issues were worked out. So should we all jump ship now because PCs finally decided to stop making crap? Go back to your IT troll hut.

        • iShoot

          “dumdputers” really???? lmfao!!!!

  • http://www.victorpanlilio.com Victor Panlilio

    They’re tools, people. For a lot of folks, Camera+ and Filmic Pro on iOS will suffice (just ask Annie Leibovitz). Even the NYT is now handing out iPhone 4’s to their reporters. Sometimes, that’s really all you need. And if you think either the D4 or the 1DX is pricey, a Leica M9 body is about $7K, the demure M9-P is $8K, and a 50/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH will set you back yet another $4K. For even greater sticker shock, price out a Leica S2-P, a Hasselblad H4D-60, or a PhaseOne 645DF+IQ180+V-Grip Air, or (for video) a fully-tricked out RED Epic. Different tools, for different uses.

    • Johnny Robinson

      +1000

    • http://www.modelmayhem.com/richfehrman Rich

      I don’t understand what your point is or that it even needed to be stated. Lots of photographers rely on good quality and high performing equipment. Maybe to the untrained eye that might be the case, but for trained professional that is seeking perfection that expensive tool that you so talk about makes all the difference. It kills me when people like you make these type of comments, like you’re talking to a bunch of children wanting the lasted toy. Maybe to some that might be the case, but your comment is kind of insulting to people that need those expensive tool.

    • Mock Kenwell

      I love that no matter how many times it’s been said, every poster who comes on NR to tell people cameras are tools invariably says it like it’s a revelation we’ve all heard for the very first time. Giant duh.

      These sound like 2 great cameras on paper. Let’s see real life images now.

    • RossGeller

      +1338

  • Roeder

    Is it just me or do both Nikon and Canon (and most other camera makers) seem to be hitting the wall with what a DSLR can actually do? It’s down to ancillary features, ergonomics and personal preference now. If you can’t take a stunning pic with any of these, you simply are not able to take a stunning pic.

    • Andrew

      I think you are missing the point (i.e. how the features and implementation of a high-end camera can enable a professional photographer to take better pictures). These cameras are becoming marvels of engineering perfection. A camera is not just a tool you point and shoot. There are capabilities that makes one camera better than another for the intended job. Yes – you can take a great picture with a cheap $100 camera, but in most cases, a professional DSLR will outperform that cheap camera. Think about a regular DVD player. Now think about an up-converted DVD or Blu-ray player that provides high definition video. The quality of the picture is clearly better. I know you still need to have a good story, good casting, good acting, and so on. But technology does make a difference. The same goes with stereo systems, speakers, and so many things we use in daily life.

      The Nikon D4 is a great camera. The little we have seen is pointing to this fact, and I am confident that the reviews will speak the same. I can always change my mind, though I think it is unlikely given Nikon’s history, recent performance, and the images and videos that are coming out on the new Nikon D4 camera.

  • https://www.facebook.com/KSquared.Images Photography?

    I SHOOT WITH A NIKON…you know what that means, right?

    ..absolutely nothing, and the same applies if I was a Canon-shooter, Sony-shooter, Olympus-shooter or Glock-shooter..

    In the end it’s the photographer that makes the decisions and makes the shot. Both “good” shots and “bad” shots are produced by the person, and never the machine. The camera is a tool and no matter how well designed that tool may be, it is left to its’ user to determine how well the outcome will be. If you can somehow argue with this logic, you might as well go bury your camera because you are not a photographer, you’re just along for the ride. So stop reading specifications, turn off your computer, go buy a camera that suits your pocket, and go shoot, but most of all do it for fun, do it as a hobby, but never a profession (even if you do make a living off of it ).

    Remember Chase Jarvis, “The best camera is the one you have with you.”

    • http://n.a. Bert Dol

      Score. Best comment in this long line of clutter.
      All this talk about specs is useless unless we see real life results and real life comparisons. And even THEN: its the MAN behind the camera that takes the photo. Not the machine. I own a great camera (d300s) with great glass. In 99% of the cases it is ME that misses the shot or moment, not the odd ‘AF was a bit off’ or other excuse i hear all the time.

    • I_ROUTE

      Glock makes cameras now?

      Only one chance at that shot…

      Does it have Hi ISO? I bet it is manual focus.

      Tee Hee!

      • Nicole

        I understand that in ‘Glock’ terminology, ISO stands for ‘Inadvertent Shot Option.’ and is rated as very high if you leave the safety off. :)

        Autofocus is achieved by a miniature camera in the bullets. At some point between leaving the barrel and reaching the target it will be in perfect focus. However they decided that ‘Smile detection’ was not needed, as few targets tended to smile with a bullet heading straight for them. :(

    • http://www.sidelineshooter.smugmug.com Keith Cline

      PERSONAL PREFERENCE

      I have been shooting with Nikon since the early 70’s (40 years), and that is before Canon really made a professional camera (the F1 was their early attempt). I have never gone to the other side nor have I ever wanted to. It is all about personal preference and Nikon has always been my preference. I have been a loyal Nikon user and at this stage in my life I can’t see any reason to change.

      • https://www.facebook.com/KSquared.Images Photography?

        Yes sir, you are most definitely correct,

        If it fits right, feels right, looks right, and (most importantly) fits the pocket right, than it’s the camera that will work perfectly fine for you.

        Because if the picture sucks, it’s your fault, not the cameras’.

    • Mock Kenwell

      Another brilliant epiphany. Thank God you said it, because I think everyone here prior to your statement thought it was the camera that took the picture.

  • http://mike.heller.ca/2012/01/nikon-d4-versus-the- Mike

    Both good cameras, neither body will make once side switch to the other. The tools are so good, it’s really up to the photographer at this point. You can’t blame the gear in either case.

  • PAL

    The Nikon video modes are not friendly to European or other areas that use PAL (25fps at 50hz) vs NTSC (30fps at 60hz). Although the shift to digital TV is making this difference less meaningful, it is still important to some.

    • BornOptimist

      D4 supports 30p, 25p, 24p in 1920×1080, so the spec listing here is wrong.

  • Coach Hines

    Has canon released any sample shots from the 1DX? What I’m trying to say is, yeah they have the seemingly better native ISO. I don’t care if a camera has a native ISO of 1,ooo,ooo if it’s not usable.

  • Nelis

    I’m curious to see what the battery life will be on the Canon with all those processors, likely not as good as the D4. The D4 only has a single(?) Exceed3 processor as apposed to 1Dx’s 3 (2 x Digi5 & 1 x Digi4).

  • CoolWHip

    Canon seems to have a slight upper hand but it’s reflected in the price…even though I don’t think the “advantages” are worth the price difference. I guess we’ll see when the real tests and real world samples start pouring out. But still, that tethering option Nikon has is the tits.

  • http://na dino

    Now, if only Nikon would come out with a F7 to exploit at most the new and performing Portra’s films as long as Kodak may produce them…

  • per

    As some have said, the traditional dslr seems to have reached its technical limits. To break new ground there seems to be two ways forward:
    1) put the Nikon 1 sensor in the pro bodies. A limiting feature of current full frame dslrs is that autofocus is limited to the center of the frame. What’s the point with 50+ focus points if they are all crowded in the middle?
    2) Put the full frame sensor in a smaller camera.

  • Cameramm

    I will Love m Next d4, but looking at the specs I would like to have 12 fps instead of 10fps! Shooting boxing for example it can Be the difference punch in the face or Not, in These situations you can Not get it without a fast Camera, and Canon means 20 percent more Chance! Second question here: Nobody complained about Nikon colors? I think Canon was always better in that! I always shoot with Minimum 5 other agencies sitting Next to me, so i Know something about competition …

  • http://dundermifflin.com dwight shrute

    The design of the D4 looks more modern than the 1DX.

    • Not Nikon

      hahaha what a noob comment.

      • http://dundermifflin.com dwight shrute

        What a troll comment.

        • Ross Geller

          -1736

  • Groosome

    Notice the light sensor on the back of the D4 and D800. I’m assuming auto adjusting LCD brightness and perhaps the illuminated buttons on the D800 too. I don’t suppose there has been any word on that rumour about combining pixels for a lower res/better quality photo on the D800 I saw somewhere?

  • Anonymus

    Nikon D900
    US $2.999.00
    Key Features
    16.9 megapixel 36 x 23.9 mm CMOS sensor (effective 16.9 megapixel)
    FX format
    ISO 50 – 6400 ( exp. up to ISO 12800, 16000, 25600 and 32000)
    Without an AA Filter
    Improved Multi-CAM3500FX (51-point, 15 cross-type, more vertical coverage)
    Kevlar/carbon fibre composite shutter with 200.000 exposure durability
    91K-pixel RGB sensor
    12/14-bit A/D conversion
    Nikon “EXPEED 3″ image processor
    NEF (12-bit or 14-bit, compressed or lossless compressed RAW)
    NEF + JPEG
    Auto-focus calibration now available (fixed body or up to 20 separate lens settings)
    Vignetting control in-camera
    Automatic chromatic aberration correction
    Virtual horizon
    Using DX lenses
    Live View with either phase detect (mirror up/down) or contrast-detect AF, face detection
    4.0″ LCD monitor
    Picture Control: Landscape, Monochrome, Neutral, Portrait, Standard, Vivid, User-customizable
    ‘Active D-Lighting’ (adjusts metering as well as applying D-Lighting curve)
    HDMI HD video output and Hi-Speed USB 3.0
    Movie capture at up to 1080p 30 fps with stereo sound (H.264/MPEG-4 Advanced Video Coding)
    Buttons sealed against moisture
    Magnesium alloy body with connections and buttons sealed against moisture
    Li-ion battery EN-EL16
    1 XQD memory type card

    • PixPix

      This is surely your whish list for next X-Mas

  • grumps

    At this level, the specs are quite minor when compared, however, Nikon definitely wins for price :)

  • http://www.jstudio.sk razvan

    movie: D4 from nikon.com
    1,920 x 1,080; 30p (progressive), 25p, 24p, (D4 has 25p too…)
    1,920 x 1,080 crop; 30p, 25p, 24p (using DX lens…)
    1,280 x 720; 60p, 50p, 30p, 25p
    640 x 424; 30p, 25p
    Actual frame rates for 60p, 50p, 30p, 25p, and 24p are 59.94, 50, 29.97, 25, and 23.976 fps respectively; all options support both high and normal image quality

    • BornOptimist

      The 1920×1080 crop has nothing to do with DX lenses. It is a 1:1 pixelcrop of 1920×1080 from the sensor, giving it a 2.7x crop factor.

  • Groosome

    That’s a very detailed list you have there Anonymous… no mention of 100% viewfinder or whether it has a flash if it exists though. Would be nice if ISO 12800 was part of the native lineup too.

  • roland

    what people seem to have missed talking about is the improved work flow and the awesome remote tethering ability of the new nikon. being able to shoot many consecutive RAW images, the 4:4:4 hdmi out. like others i look forward with interest to see the DxO labs test on this.

    personally ive shot on both systems, but have to say nikon has always been the best handling. canon make awesome gadgets and nikon usually make awesome cameras and lenses!

  • lagranz

    d800 Battery grip with a xqd slot inside :-)

  • Pwsonline

    Here’s a thought:

    Yeah indeed, the CURRENT technology seems developed to its limits.
    That’s OK, but if we want to go further, one path could be a new sensor technology developed all together.

    Current:
    The Bayer-sensor pattern layout involves “calculating” image data which cannot be “actually” seen by sensors. So, in fact, they “make an educated guess only”….!
    And then we add a “anti alias”filter, which is really simply a BLUR-filter. Then we add digital USM filter to mask the smudging……

    Heck, thinking about this, I’m surprised we even GET these awesome picture quality we are used to today.
    But I am 200% SURE that this is a definite possibility to achieve improvement. So far only Fuji and Foveon/Sigma have been exploring this path with relative limited funds.

    Do we remember that in the beginning the CCD was superior to the CMOS, now it’s changed, Everything changes when money shines on it.

    Is there a camera manufacturer listening (reading)?????

  • Thai Tom

    Nikon product line can expand into filmmaking……not just photography…actually i think they don’t have a choice…..it has to be in their pipeline in the future.

  • Chikasok

    the specs are so similar that they should merge to become Nikanon !!

    • Toecutter

      Or Canon ?

  • photonut

    Aside from the size and weight, both cams look good on paper. I wonder if Canon managed to catch up with the Nikon ISO noise performance.

  • Unyil

    Guys actually I am looking forward more to second hand D3s, D3 and D700…..its coming to ebay like a tsunami…

    • Jade

      not sure you will have a tsunami..unless you need video improvement i see no point in upgrading from D3S to D4. Even D700 to D#…better to look for a second hand D3S

      • Nicole

        Well, you won’t be seeing my D3S for sale. :) With that, I can already take a picture of a black cat in a coal cellar at night with the light off, and that’s good enough for me. :)

  • neversink

    Come on Nikon… Let’s get real….

    I was expecting:
    *100 mp
    *100 fps
    * infinite DR
    * iso from 1 to 1,000,000 (expandable to 0.25 to 10,000,000
    * and most importantly — one of those stunning Japanese models to teach me all the nuances about how the D4 works….

    Until then Nikon, I am disappointed…

    • Akon14

      trollll

      • I_ROUTE

        sar·casm
          sarcasm pronunciation [sahr-kaz-uhm]
        noun
        1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
        2. a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a review full of sarcasms.

        Origin:
        1570–80; < Late Latin sarcasmus < Greek sarkasmós, derivative of sarkázein to rend (flesh), sneer

        Your eyes, open them…

  • Marcello

    As usual Canon runs runs runs …. she’s going to arrive where Nikon is waiting for…… do you remember Canon T90? Nikon steps up only when it needs…..

  • TC123

    Both products are technological masterpieces. I am sure that with these cameras in the hands of top class photographers, we will some amazing shots of the Olympics this year, shots that may not have been possible at the last games.

  • I_ROUTE

    I am wondering about handling with the bigger bodies. I have larger hands and find the D7000 small for me. Sometimes it is a PITA trying to find the right grip.

    After thinking about it, one of those stunning Japanese models could hold the camera for me and I could use the iPad app to direct her…Off to Google…

    :-)

    Later,
    Jeff

    • luca

      I also have big hands, with Nikon MB-D11 can always be fitted to wield it much better without it is almost unusable! unless you do not have 11 years …

      • Ren Kockwell

        My hands are absolutely huge. We should meet.

  • luca

    in my bag with canon 5dmkii (fx) and Nikon D7000 (right) do not feel the need for a better body, I can take pictures with these bodies that could potentially be exposed to the Guggenheim if only I were a better artist …. or perhaps a artist with the most money … the money is better spend for the critical judge your work!
    sorry for bad english

  • nir.exe

    I think the one thing the D4 will not do (b/s of this 1DX) and the D3 did,
    is to make a canon uses switch to Nikon.
    e.g.
    http://karlgrobl.com/blog/advice/equipment/retiring-my-canon-mark-ii/

  • alex

    why did you forget to list that 1dx can’t focus at f/8?

  • jeantro

    canon is always the best for all point

    and I’m happy to switch to canon

    • fo2re

      You may have a great case getting some school money back…

  • fo2re

    Guess over 90 % av you whining girls cant afford none of them anyway, just talking about something you dont now nothing about since none of this are TESTET yet !

    A real PRO couldent care less because they are out shooting pictures and dont waste time here…

  • http://Ariaaryana.blogspot.com Aria Aryana

    I think Nikon slightly better built and quality than Canon (Bodies or Lenses). I am Canon user since 2011. Before that I used Nikon. I actually changed into Canon because of that image quality. Never mind of the specs or the built quality, the most important thing is the result of the image.

  • PhilK

    I think it’s safe to say that since Nikon these days almost always prices their products at the high-end of the competition, the fact that the EOS-1D X announced price was well established before Nikon announced the D4 at a lower price is pretty concrete evidence to me that Nikon themselves consider the Canon to be good enough that they have to (for once) price themselves below it to be competitive.

    Re: Nikon/Sony being “the innovators” and so on – remember that when you are at the top of your field, you have a far greater weight of responsibility to “not upset the apple cart” vis-a-vis your loyal users.

    If Nikon were to, for example, completely change the ergonomics of the camera around, the risk of alienating their loyal users who rely on the “Nikon feel” is very high and could be disastrous if they miscalculate this. So I think that tends to lead to more conservative model evolution in some ways.

    In the cases of Fuji/Sony/etc, they don’t have that sort of customer baggage to deal with (their marketshare in this particular market is very small), so there is less risk for them to make revolutionary changes. (Remember that when Canon made the paradigm-shift to AF cameras and the new all-electronic EF mount back in 1987, it was at a time when Nikon was the undisputed king of the professional 35mm SLR field. Canon had much less to lose by making that big change at that point in history than Nikon would have. (And a fortuitous change it turned out to be, for Canon – ultimately turning the tide in their favor for many years)

  • freakout

    Canon vs. Nikon

    Canon always had the better specs and lab tests – they simply have x-100 more development power and money. But the labs never test 10 years used lenses – this would be another story then. With Canon i had simply given up photography within my +30 years as a hobbyist simply because they constantly changed their mount every 10/15 years – the management holding their belly while laughing at their customers which have to throw away all glass. And look at the possibilities with used glass – only for Nikon users. That’s what really counts for me.

    • fo2re

      Yeah sure ! When Nikon D3 and D300 was released they had better ISO, more accurate AF and picture quality than Canon.

      Being stupid can often be helped by checking information before posting…

  • Bob Your Thing

    All you Canon fanboys can go fap your glass and ho hum.

    As far as I can see D3X has the best image quality of any DSLR NOW until the D4 or D800 (may be the 1Dx as well) comes to the market for sale.

    If you winge about image quality is because you can’t shot and thinking by changing brand makes you become a better photographer. Show me your work with Nikon and Canon and I will tell you your work has improve zilch.

    If you like Canon fine but don’t winge bout image quality cause if you want image quality, you would have got yourself a D3X or d3S.

    • MarkH

      Or D700. (Oh, lord, let me not be wrong. I love my D700) (It does, after all, have the D3 sensor)

      MarkH

  • Back to top