Who's winning the war. « Nikon Rumors Forum

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon DSLR

Who's winning the war.

(25 posts) (11 voices)

Tags:

No tags yet.

Newfie

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 186
offline

We all know that Nikon and Canon are eternally locked in a game of leapfrog. The truth is that they both make exceptional products and have advanced photography to realms not even imagined just a few years ago.

Today it looks like the old leapfrogging is taking a new twist. Nikon seems stuck on the 10-12MP sensor but have made tremendous strides in AF and ISO performance. Canon is pushing the resolution of its' entire line and setting new stands for HD Video. It's harder and harder to pair off a particular Nikon to a Canon. It's almost as if the companies are evolving along different paths with respect to their consumer and Pro-sumer products. Canon seems focused on maximizing image quality while Nikon is about maximizing camera performance and user intuition, allowing photographers to capture images once the exclusive domain of highly specialized professional with elaborate systems.

So who is winning? Do more of us prefer image quality or camera performance. For me it's performance but I also need the image quality. I have a D700 and invest in the best lenses Nikon offers to milk every ounce I can out of the 12MP sensor.

Posted 3 years ago #
heartyfisher

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,701
offline

are you equating IQ with MP ?

Posted 3 years ago #
Newfie

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 186
offline

Not necessarily but resolution is a factor in IQ. For me the final “quality” image often requires some cropping. This is especially true with the D700 since the viewfinder is only 95% often allowing extraneous subject matter to creep in to your original files.

Posted 3 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

"As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time." :^)

As your commanding officer, Newfie, I've been doing some Top Secret Recon behind enemy lines and I've been mingling with their people. I've even played and beaten them at their little forum games. I now know the enemy's train of thought very, very well.

They are afraid of us Newfie.... So much so that they've invented derogatory names for us like Noinks and Lords of Darkness. They fear our black and gold colors more than we fear their puny white lenses, slow auto focus, and cheap plastic cameras.

WE ARE WINNING THIS WAR! *Cue the fireworks and unfurl the Nikon flag* WE SHALL WIN THIS WAR! And our children will live free to mount our battle scared lenses onto their 30mp D5s and record superior Jello less video on the 5 inch swivel OLED of the future D500! Our children will thank us, Newfie. They will thank.... YOU... for your courage in hoisting your D700 high above the masses of canons bearing down on you! We...WE WILL ALL show them the true meaning of the word fear.

Now lets hit those trenches and show the world what real photographers can do with REAL cameras!!!!!

Posted 3 years ago #
ted2001

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 726
offline

At 12MPs I hope the war is over. I don't want to deal with larger files of information with limited additional value. Unless you're planning on reproducing your images in massive sizes, how many MPs do you really need?

I'd rather have better ISO, noise, etc... Superior autofocus and handling are a real plus, as are some of the best lenses made (Leica not-with-standing). Even Canon lowered the MPs in the latest G11.

I think we're all winning.

Now if Leica's M9 is FF and capable...(and over 10 "quality" MPs, then that's tempting, ISO over 6400 would be an bonus).

Posted 3 years ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

ted2001 - "...Unless you're planning on reproducing your images in massive sizes, how many MPs do you really need?..." - there are kinds of photography, where You actually need more than 12mpx, where even 24 is barely enough - unfortunately for me one of them is wildlife, where You take yourself and your equipment to the limits

Posted 3 years ago #
ted2001

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 726
offline

Just a quick question Adamz, do you need those extra pixel because you need to crop aggressively? I understand the difficulty in carrying longer focal length lenses for framing distant subjects. Plus those longer lenses can be almost un-carry-able (not to mention the costs of very long, fast lenses).

I wonder, what is maximum pixel count you can effectively use in a DX camera without lenses becoming the gating item in image quality? At that point, are we going to see a big decline in large-X zoom lenses and a resurgence of prime lenses? When shooting Kodachrome 25 or Velvia in the old days (film), lens quality seemed to make a bigger difference. While I'm currently delighted with the 16-85 (on D90), I wonder if it was attached to a 36 MP DX body (humor me - it's the distant future) whether it would still be acceptable.

Posted 3 years ago #
shivaswrath

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 841
offline

I think there are two wars here.

Consumer and Pro.

Consumer = Canon
Pro = Nikon

The 1dmk3's are old and tired, slow and aren't as intuitive IMO as the D700/D3/D3x lineup.

Consumer wise, I think Canon is outselling Nikon right now, no?

Consumers dig that high MPX $hete and video, and with the 7D out at such mpx's, a 50D in the arsenal, and the Xsi plantinum bling edition, Nikon has little offer: a tired old D90, a D3000 with an aged sensor (my D200 sensor), a D5k which is a cheap ($630 at amazon now?!) D90 alternative, and then the semi-pro D300s.

If Nikon was reading this, they should focus efforts on the consumer and not wait for the pro-body trickle down effect: D200 sensor (circa 2005) finds way into entry body 4 years later; CMOS 12mpx (circa 2007 ala D300) find way into D90 ('08) and D5k ('09). . .create a separate, APS-C line that can titlate the market.

I'm still using, learning, and loving my D200. . .little to people realize that CCD sensors are more $$$ and offer better IQ at lower ISO's than a CMOS (which are cheaper to make to begin with, which is why Nikonians freaked out when the D2x came out with the 12mpx CMOS ages ago). . .use a flash and go out and shoot!

Posted 3 years ago #
bmxdad

preferred member
Joined: May '09
Posts: 1,864
offline

I don't know about who is winning the sales War, but where I work we still sell most Nikon slr's. But yes many Consumers can only see MP difference and therefor will ask for the Canon SLR with the higher number, in that regards I can not wait to see how Customers will respond to the two top P & S cameras going to sold as 10MP cameras.

Yes maybe Canon will make this 18MP APS-C camera so be it. I had a Canon 40D last year with following lenses:
17-85 IS, my 16-85 VR is sharper and I think the stabilizer is better
24-70 2.8 IS, wow what a poorly made lens, even after Canon calibrating it was just not a great lens
70-200 2.8 (none IS) now again my 70-200 2.8 VR is by far sharper on my D300 and it might have a slight corner issue on FX but not a big deal, the new lens hopefully solves that problem without loss of sharpness

Nikon certainly also have the best in wide angle lenses, even just the sharp little 35 1.8 DX lens

Yes so Canon might have the biggest MP numbers and some better values in telephoto lenses, but overall I believe that Nikon offer the best overall value and therefor winning the war in my opinion

Pete

Looking back I wish I had not taken that Canon staff offer and bought the D300 and lenses in the first place, yes a photographic retail place is a dangerous place to work if you like camera gear, so please Canon, Pentax, Sony don't tempt me anymore

Posted 3 years ago #
Gentoo

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,538
offline

"there are kinds of photography, where You actually need more than 12mpx, where even 24 is barely enough - unfortunately for me one of them is wildlife, where You take yourself and your equipment to the limits"

What he said. Speak for yourselves on the megapixel thing. Some of us do need more. Perhaps that's why there is a MP war, imagine that? lol I want 24MP, the crops would be great and in wildlife, you're gonna crop. Just as long as they can do it without sacrificing ISO performance as in wildlife that too is very important.

As adamz said, we need as much as we can get out of our equipment. Even then it still may not be enough.

Posted 3 years ago #
Gentoo

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,538
offline

"Just a quick question Adamz, do you need those extra pixel because you need to crop aggressively? I understand the difficulty in carrying longer focal length lenses for framing distant subjects. Plus those longer lenses can be almost un-carry-able (not to mention the costs of very long, fast lenses).

I wonder, what is maximum pixel count you can effectively use in a DX camera without lenses becoming the gating item in image quality? At that point, are we going to see a big decline in large-X zoom lenses and a resurgence of prime lenses?"

Ted, I know you asked the question to adamz but because I too am a wildlife shooter, I may be able to at least give you part of your answer.

The longer focal lengths not only allow the framing of distant subjects, but also these lenses tend to be of higher quality which is also vital. Basically, any lens over 300mm is better off it's it's a high end zoom like the 200-400mmF4 or a prime. The consumer zooms at this FL such as the giant Sigmas or the Nikkor 80-400mm are ok but not really what you need.

Cropping is needed because when shooting wild subjects (meaning not the tame park fed wildlife), you may only have a split second to get the shot so you'll need to "fix" it later. You often have a lot of "junk" in the photo that needs to be cropped out and even if you shot at 400mm, you still have a lot of extra room in the shot that needs to be discarded. Then the composition you saw becomes a reality. When you compose a wild subject, you're often looking into the future of the composition after you've cropped what you are seeing.

In wildlife, the camera body matters a great deal. In the film days, once you had the lenses you needed, you had to get the best film. In a digital camera as we all know, that sensor is your film. Therefore you need the best ISO and colors you can get from that sensor. The same lenses on my D40 I and look and perform better on my D300. I can crop closer on the D300 too because it has more MP. So if they increase the MP that would help us wildlife shooters a lot.

Posted 3 years ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

ted2001 - I usually crop around 30-60% of my image, sure I would love to crop less, but at this point it's simply impossible - don't have enough cash to get 600/f4 or sigma 300-800/f5.6, with 24mpx and 60% cropping I could get 10Mpx pics, and this would be very suitable for me. Now, unless I really nailed the picture, having a lot of luck, my files are around 5-6mpx, suitable for a4 (even a3) prints, but not for anything bigger

Posted 3 years ago #
Gentoo

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,538
offline

"little to people realize that CCD sensors are more $$$ and offer better IQ at lower ISO's than a CMOS (which are cheaper to make to begin with, which is why Nikonians freaked out when the D2x came out with the 12mpx CMOS ages ago)"

If this is true then why are the CMOS sensors giving better ISO performance than the CCD's? I won't go into which has better colors because that's a matter of personal preference. I prefer the CMOS look myself.

The more important advantage of CMOS IMO is they use less power. I have two friends with D200's and they only get a 3rd of the shots using the same battery I get with a D300. Not to mention I get better, less grainy higher ISO shots but this could very well be due to the timeline you mentioned. Basically the CMOS gives you better battery life.

Posted 3 years ago #
Gentoo

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,538
offline

oops, I never answered the original question.

As far as who's winning the war, I agree with some of the assesments made so far. Canon does better in the consumer and point and shoot market. Nikon makes higher performing SLR's. Canon is concentrating on IQ that camera can produce. Nikon is investing in performance of their bodies which allows the photographer to use the tools that are put into the camera to make better images with their own skills using those tools. I like the colors Canon's produce, however I can tweak the colors more in a Nikon which gives me more control over them.

Posted 3 years ago #
ted2001

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 726
offline

I see, I see. The wildlife I shoot is in my back yard (often) and very, very small. I shoot to fill the frame (I'm also an old slide shooter, so I tend to think what's in the viewfinder is final) by moving two inches closer. Hard to do with eagles and antelopes.

Posted 3 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

Nikon is the DSLR sales leader in the consumer market. They took the lead from canon last year and I don't think they've given it back. As for the pro market that would go to canon. Mainly because of news organizations that have official agreements to carry canon gear (and large investments in lenses and accessories) and wildlife photographers. Although some big names switched to Nikon because of Nikon's aggressive marketing with the D3 and problems with the canon 1dmkIII.

canon can keep their lead in point & shoot cameras :)

Posted 3 years ago #
NSXType-R

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 2,803
offline

Honestly, I think it's a stalemate. The people using these cameras are so polarized that I doubt a Canon user would switch to Nikon, and vice versa. That is of course, if performance from both camera makers continue to push the envelope.

And yes, I do believe that there are two wars as well, a consumer version and a prosumer version. I wouldn't mind if Nikon gains in the consumer point and shoots- I'd hate to look to Canon to get a point and shoot, but Canon does make better point and shoots, for the time being.

Posted 3 years ago #
zoetmb

member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 21
offline

>>>This is especially true with the D700 since the viewfinder is only 95% often allowing extraneous subject matter to creep in to your original files.

No way. That area is so small in the viewfinder that unless you're shooting on a tripod and carefully composing to each edge, there is no way you're composing that accurately. You may feel the need to crop, but it's not because of the 5%.

Posted 3 years ago #
ted2001

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 726
offline

If you use a tripod a lot (I do) and have had to a lot of copy work, then that 5% is critical. I would never consider a body a "pro" body, unless it had 100% finder accuracy. One of the reasons I want a D300s. (Have a D90).

Posted 3 years ago #
mikeo21

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 100
offline

hmm.. I thought canon was the pro leader and nikon was the consumer leader? lol

Posted 3 years ago #
ted2001

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 726
offline

so far, Canon has the dentists, architects and entrepreneurs I know. The artists use Nikon, with the exception of my sister and niece who use Canon and are artists.

I use Nikon (kinda why I'm here).

Posted 3 years ago #
Gentoo

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,538
offline

"I see, I see. The wildlife I shoot is in my back yard (often) and very, very small. I shoot to fill the frame (I'm also an old slide shooter, so I tend to think what's in the viewfinder is final) by moving two inches closer. Hard to do with eagles and antelopes."

It's also hard to do with Sandpipers way out on mudflats or certain waterfowl way out on lakes where moving closer is likely not an option. True wildlife shooting (other than parks and backyards) requires a completely different technique and mindset.

Posted 3 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

Ted how could you let your sister and niece buy into canon?! I hope you at least tried to stop them. Oh, I know it's because you didn't want to share any of your lenses right? :^)

Posted 3 years ago #
ted2001

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 726
offline

I do understand and I admire people who have the stamina, ability and equipment to do it. It certainly takes all three. It always seemed most similar to sports photography except the animals were further away and you don't have to defend your turf from other photographers.

Posted 3 years ago #
Gentoo

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 1,538
offline

"you don't have to defend your turf from other photographers"

Unless there's a rarity in an area then it becomes hectic and birders can get crazy at times lol.

Posted 3 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.

The new Nikon Rumors Forum is now live at http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussions. This forum is now in "read only" mode until I figure a proper way to import all data over to the new platform. Please register over at the new forum.

Who's winning the war.

Reply