canon rumors FORUM

Rumors => EOS Bodies => Topic started by: unfocused on February 24, 2012, 10:32:56 AM

Title: Not a Canon vs. Nikon Thread
Post by: unfocused on February 24, 2012, 10:32:56 AM
Okay, this is just an opportunity for people to express their own pet theories, not to bash one brand or another.

But, I got thinking: why is it that the two top of the line cameras announced by Canon and Nikon recently are basically clones of each other, while apparently the two second-tier (or whatever you want to call them) bodies are so divergent?

Both companies decided to put lower MP sensors in their flagships, than in the less expensive full frame models. Other features are similar if not the same. The pricing seems to be very close. etc. etc. I am guessing it's because their market research for the flagship target audience gave them each pretty much identical pictures of what the customers wanted/needed.

But then, the next level of full frame bodies (if the rumors are correct) are quite different, both in resolution and possibly in cost. Why would the market research be so different at that level and so consistent at the top end?

What's your theory?
Title: Re: Not a Canon vs. Nikon Thread
Post by: awinphoto on February 24, 2012, 10:48:53 AM
My theories is that the manufacturers listened TOO MUCH into their own constituents/clients in where Canon came out with the 21MP and everyone, even canon folks, especially at first were vocal "we dont really NEED 21MP but we will learn to live with it"... and then Nikon folks, while they loved the IQ of the D700, were slightly embarrassed to ONLY have 12 MP... Nikon decided, well screw you, we will come out with a camera that will make everyone take notice, while canon, already with the 21MP camera, realized most their clients, who are 5d users are happy with the 21MP size, decided to not push the envelope so much and focus on other avenues to improve their product...  For those who say "Canon/Nikon NEVER listens to their customers", the Canon 5d3 and Nikon D800 will now prove that theory wrong. 
Title: Re: Not a Canon vs. Nikon Thread
Post by: alipaulphotography on February 24, 2012, 10:53:37 AM
Pro model nikon/canon wanted fast FPS but also general all round ability. D3S being the most popular 'pro level' camera amongst users - so that was the model to improve upon.


Everyone with a D700 complained about a lack of megapixels.
Everyone with a 5DMKII complained about autofocus points.

That is my take on things.
Title: Re: Not a Canon vs. Nikon Thread
Post by: Dave T on February 24, 2012, 10:55:37 AM
One possibility is that both makers have a second new body to be released later that will handle the needs of the other half of the target customers want. Nikon decided to go with a high MP because they have lagged behind Canon in that area, while Canon wanted to address the auto focus problem so loudly associated with there current FF, the 5D2, so their 5D3 has 22mp and 61 point AF.

If the above is correct perhaps Canon does indeed have a "5DX" with high MPs in the wings. And Nikon...well I don't follow Nikon closely so they could be depending on the D700 to keep up that end of the FF market, or they too will introduce another body in the months ahead.

Just guessing,
Dave
Title: Re: Not a Canon vs. Nikon Thread
Post by: K-amps on February 24, 2012, 11:20:34 AM
One possibility is that both makers have a second new body to be released later that will handle the needs of the other half of the target customers want. Nikon decided to go with a high MP because they have lagged behind Canon in that area, while Canon wanted to address the auto focus problem so loudly associated with there current FF, the 5D2, so their 5D3 has 22mp and 61 point AF.

If the above is correct perhaps Canon does indeed have a "5DX" with high MPs in the wings. And Nikon...well I don't follow Nikon closely so they could be depending on the D700 to keep up that end of the FF market, or they too will introduce another body in the months ahead.

Just guessing,
Dave

+1: The FF Market is more lucrative and having 2 affordable lines makes sense. So by September, I expect to see a high MP monster from Canon and a D700S from Nikon.
Title: Re: Not a Canon vs. Nikon Thread
Post by: EYEONE on February 24, 2012, 11:33:57 AM
The D800 is just an odd beast to me. I can't really make sense of why Nikon went with 36mp with a D800. Now going with 36mp is just fine but I would guess it'd be for a D4x. 36mp seems to not really benefit the purpose of a D800. Canon will respond with something but it won't be the 5DIII.

The 1Dx and the Nikon D4 are so similar on paper it's strange. We'll have to see how they function with ISO performance but it at this point it doesn't really matter which one you go with. At least the D800 is different and has a unique purpose. I'm not sure what it is at this point, however.
Title: Re: Not a Canon vs. Nikon Thread
Post by: Orion on February 24, 2012, 11:44:29 AM
Pros are consistent.

'Prosumers' are divergent, with a developing interest in many fields of photography.
Title: Re: Not a Canon vs. Nikon Thread
Post by: mitchell3417 on February 24, 2012, 12:14:30 PM
I think Nikon thought Canon was going to be in the 30+ mp range and was tired of hearing complaints They came out with the d800 not knowing exactly what canon was going to do and they ended up way overshooting canon in terms of mp. I think it's great that the lines are so different. It will really prove what people care about in the upper dslr market.
Title: Re: Not a Canon vs. Nikon Thread
Post by: ScottyP on February 24, 2012, 12:19:09 PM

But, I got thinking: why is it that the two top of the line cameras announced by Canon and Nikon recently are basically clones of each other, while apparently the two second-tier (or whatever you want to call them) bodies are so divergent?



Are the "two second-tier bodies" you refer to Sony and Sigma, or what?  If so, then yes, both of them are way out in left field on their tech compared to the more traditional "big two", and it will be interesting to see to what extent if any they end up leading Canon and/or Nikon down new paths.

Personally I find my photos take up too much room already.  I can't see where I'd need the storage-hogging 12 fps of the Sony mirrorless or the massive magapixel 3-level sensors in the Sigma, or how they are necessary "improvements" to most photo hobbyists.
Title: Re: Not a Canon vs. Nikon Thread
Post by: Flake on February 24, 2012, 12:43:28 PM
Just remember that the D800 has a Sony sensor, not a Nikon one, and when you are in that position you have to take what suppliers are offering you or develop & manufacture your own.  I suspect that Nikon is still suffering production difficulties from the Tsunami and can only produce enough sensors for D4 demand,  or the D800 would have been released with that sensor.  Now the Rubicon has been crossed there's no going back and they will be unable to produce a new model with a lower MP count than 36MP (unless it's a real lemon).

Canon quietly announced to the world that they were pulling out of the MP race and 22MP seems to be their statement of this.
Title: Re: Not a Canon vs. Nikon Thread
Post by: KeithR on February 24, 2012, 12:44:29 PM
The D800 is just an odd beast to me. I can't really make sense of why Nikon went with 36mp with a D800.

It's exactly the same pixel density as the D7000, which has been well received.
Title: Re: Not a Canon vs. Nikon Thread
Post by: Flake on February 24, 2012, 12:49:23 PM
The D800 is just an odd beast to me. I can't really make sense of why Nikon went with 36mp with a D800.

It's exactly the same pixel density as the D7000, which has been well received.

But users report that at Iso 800 the D7000 is commercially unuseable.
Title: Re: Not a Canon vs. Nikon Thread
Post by: neuroanatomist on February 24, 2012, 12:53:37 PM
Are the "two second-tier bodies" you refer to Sony and Sigma, or what? 

No.  First tier = Canon 1D X, Nikon D4.  Second tier = Canon 5DIII/X, Nikon D800.
Title: Re: Not a Canon vs. Nikon Thread
Post by: KeithR on February 24, 2012, 01:03:39 PM
But users report that at Iso 800 the D7000 is commercially unusable.

It's brilliant at 800 ISO, and way beyond - as many users will attest.

Then again, "users report" that the 7D is unusable at 800 ISO and above too - and that's just drivel as well.

There are an awful lot of people out there who might shoot commercially, but who are terrible photographers.

By that I mean that I consider good conversion and PP skills to be essential aspects of a professional 'tog's skill-set, and the simple fact is that anyone who complains about the commercial viability of the D7000 at 800 ISO would be better off spending a few quid on some decent software and lessons on how to use it, rather than blaming what is by any measure a great camera, IQ-wise.

But here's the bigger point: pixel density doesn't matter. Sensor size is what dictates high(er) ISO IQ (all things being equal, which they're not if we're talking across generations of sensor), so regardless of the D7000's high ISO abilities, the D800 will be better because it has a bigger sensor.
Title: Re: Not a Canon vs. Nikon Thread
Post by: psolberg on February 24, 2012, 03:32:23 PM
IMO, it is simple.

Canon failed to predict nikon completely. they thought nikon would create a baby D4 using the same sensor but cheaper body. They knew nikon would keep chasing maximum low light performance and stay in the sub 20MP range. They thought that getting people stuck in the low 20MP range was fine if the D800 remained below that. errr wrong!!!

As for what nikon knew, it was either luck, or smarts. They could have guessed canon was going to jump to 30MP or 40MP and they decided 36 was a happy middle ground and simply got lucky. Or they KNEW canon was going to be stuck at low 20s for another generation and decided to push enough to differentiate it.

off course this is wild guessing and there is no way to know for sure ever.
Title: Re: Not a Canon vs. Nikon Thread
Post by: unfocused on February 24, 2012, 03:58:09 PM
Are the "two second-tier bodies" you refer to Sony and Sigma, or what? 

No.  First tier = Canon 1D X, Nikon D4.  Second tier = Canon 5DIII/X, Nikon D800.
Thanks Neuro. I guess I didn't make myself clear.

I think I would go with those that say that at the 1DX and D4 level, there is a very narrow customer base and their needs are consistent and well understood by both companies, so the bodies tend to converge.

On the other hand, I would also agree with the idea that for the 5D and D800 both companies were trying to address the complaints of their customers.

In my mind, this confirms something I've thought about. We tend to think Canon and Nikon are in some sort of death battle to steal each other's customers. But, I suspect they are far more interested (at this level at least) in keeping their base happy and solidifying that base of customers. Old axiom that it is always cheaper and more profitable to retain an existing customer and "upsell" that customer, than it is to capture a new customer.

I expect both companies will watch the sales of their respective products and if the sales are disappointing we may see some adjustments, but I don't think we can automatically assume that Canon will introduce a mega-pixel killer just because Nikon has one, nor do I expect Nikon to automatically introduce a lower megapixel model just because Canon has one.
Title: Re: Not a Canon vs. Nikon Thread
Post by: neuroanatomist on February 24, 2012, 04:04:53 PM
In my mind, this confirms something I've thought about. We tend to think Canon and Nikon are in some sort of death battle to steal each other's customers. But, I suspect they are far more interested (at this level at least) in keeping their base happy and solidifying that base of customers. Old axiom that it is always cheaper and more profitable to retain an existing customer and "upsell" that customer, than it is to capture a new customer.

I've stated this sort of idea in the past.  IMO, the real competition between Canon and Nikon is not at (in Canon terms) the 1-series level, the xD level, or even the xxD series level - it's at the entry level Rebel/xxxD bodies.  The bodies we're discussing here (e.g. 5DIII vs. D800) cost thousands of dollars, and represent the first dSLR purchase for a vanishingly small number of users.  By the time a user is ready to spend thousands of dollars, most likely they're already invested in the 'system' and have some level of brand loyalty, or at least, familiarity, and that will be a stronger driver of purchases than the specs of a given camera body.
Title: Re: Not a Canon vs. Nikon Thread
Post by: Stu_bert on February 24, 2012, 05:41:58 PM
Interesting if you go across to Nikon Rumors that the poll has their readerbase 58:42% in favour of the D800 having the same sensor as the D4 at 16MP. So much for research !?!?!
Title: Re: Not a Canon vs. Nikon Thread
Post by: psolberg on February 24, 2012, 06:23:20 PM
Interesting if you go across to Nikon Rumors that the poll has their readerbase 58:42% in favour of the D800 having the same sensor as the D4 at 16MP. So much for research !?!?!

I don't think you can take a poll like that to mean anything. first of all, the nikon guys who bought a D700 did it for the low light performance regardless of the low pixel count. so off course they are going to say that.

second, take that poll a year from now once people start shooting and you'll see a drastic change once they realize the image quality of the D800 blows the D700 out of the water.

third, have you EVER seen an audience of fans side with the company they are fans of? lol. just look at the 5DIII reactions. half the people are up in arms too!!
Title: Re: Not a Canon vs. Nikon Thread
Post by: V8Beast on February 24, 2012, 07:16:00 PM
The 5DII and D700 were already great products. Canon and Nikon merely addressed the most glaring weakness of both bodies. Canon improved AF and speed in the 5DIII,  and Nikon improved the resolution in the D800. IMHO, it's as simple as that.
Title: Re: Not a Canon vs. Nikon Thread
Post by: KeithR on February 25, 2012, 04:34:38 AM
IMO, it is simple.

Canon failed to predict nikon completely.
I don't believe for a second that Canon even tries to second-guess Nikon.

Canon has its own strategy (which most people are very happy to buy into - the whiners on the internet don't represent the great majority of Canon users out there) and carries on regardless, secure in the knowledge that even cameras the whiners insist are the worst things ever to come out of a camera-maker's doors, will sell like hot cakes.

And they do.
Title: Re: Not a Canon vs. Nikon Thread
Post by: KeithR on February 25, 2012, 04:37:32 AM
the nikon guys who bought a D700 did it for the low light performance regardless of the low pixel count.

Not because that's all there was if they wanted FF and didn't want/didn't want to spend the money on, a pro "brick"?

I think you'll find that for many, that was indeed the reason for them buying the D700.
Title: Re: Not a Canon vs. Nikon Thread
Post by: Marsu42 on February 25, 2012, 05:42:07 AM
By that I mean that I consider good conversion and PP skills to be essential aspects of a professional 'tog's skill-set [...] But here's the bigger point: pixel density doesn't matter. Sensor size is what dictates high(er) ISO IQ (all things being equal, which they're not if we're talking across generations of sensor)

+1 for that  - but please don't spread the fact about pp being important, I might try to earn some money sometime with this :-)

Another thing that isn't as highly regarded as sensor size and iso noise is the usability of the body and the on-board software. I'd say it's easier to shoot good pictures if you're not fumbling with your camera and have advanced software capabilities like with magic lantern (which is the reason I didn't get a Nikon).
Title: Re: Not a Canon vs. Nikon Thread
Post by: psolberg on February 25, 2012, 08:23:13 AM
IMO, it is simple.

Canon failed to predict nikon completely.
I don't believe for a second that Canon even tries to second-guess Nikon.

Canon has its own strategy (which most people are very happy to buy into - the whiners on the internet don't represent the great majority of Canon users out there) and carries on regardless, secure in the knowledge that even cameras the whiners insist are the worst things ever to come out of a camera-maker's doors, will sell like hot cakes.

And they do.

sorry but they do :) every company looks over their shoulder at what the competition is up to. specially in high dollar business like these. if you think canon doesn't follow nikon and vice versa, then you haven't watch the camera business for long.
Title: Re: Not a Canon vs. Nikon Thread
Post by: KeithR on February 25, 2012, 09:14:22 AM
then you haven't watch the camera business for long.

Watching it VERY carefully for a number of years, actually.

I expected a comment like this, so here's a question for you: point out to me any recent Canon DSLR which is unequivocally and obviously a direct reaction to a Nikon release, or any Nikon that is clearly a direct response to a Canon...

There aren't any. Each company continues to go its own way, very carefully not stepping on the other's toes.

And it has been like that for a long time: loads of overlaps, but hardly any - if any at all - directly comparable/competing cameras.

Like I say, I've been watching. But I've also been taking notice.
Title: Re: Not a Canon vs. Nikon Thread
Post by: Marsu42 on February 25, 2012, 12:34:45 PM
I expected a comment like this, so here's a question for you: point out to me any recent Canon DSLR which is unequivocally and obviously a direct reaction to a Nikon release, or any Nikon that is clearly a direct response to a Canon...

60D vs D7000? This was the competition I chose from, but of course it is hard to say if the D7000 was a "response" because I don't know what Nikon knew about the Canon product maps when they released their 16MP body shortly after the again 18MP 60D.
Title: Re: Not a Canon vs. Nikon Thread
Post by: K-amps on February 27, 2012, 07:55:23 AM
IMO, it is simple.

Canon failed to predict nikon completely.
I don't believe for a second that Canon even tries to second-guess Nikon.

Canon has its own strategy (which most people are very happy to buy into - the whiners on the internet don't represent the great majority of Canon users out there) and carries on regardless, secure in the knowledge that even cameras the whiners insist are the worst things ever to come out of a camera-maker's doors, will sell like hot cakes.

And they do.

The internet is now becoming a much larger representation of the market than was 15 years back. Unless organizations adapt, they will relegate themselves to the dustbins of corporate history. Look what Amazon did to companies that ignored the reality of the internet.

Every company does an opportunity and threat analysis, it HAS to, in order to survive. The most common threat is a strong competitor. I agree though that organizations cannot survive on only listening to what you have described as "whiners" since some people are seldom pleased perhaps, but if either Canon or Nikon ignore the other, the gap between the 2 would grow.... no one wants to lose out.

In the good old days Consumer market research was done on word of mouth and asking the "sales person" and reading some reviews on mags. Now, people do all that on the internet (infact some zealots band together and try and predict new products too  ;D  ) ...