Not a Canon vs. Nikon Thread

[unfocused]

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?

[awinphoto]

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. 

[alipaulphotography]

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.

[Dave T]

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

[K-amps]

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.

[EYEONE]

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.

[Orion]

Pros are consistent.

'Prosumers' are divergent, with a developing interest in many fields of photography.

[mitchell3417]

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.

[ScottyP]

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.

[Flake]

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.

[KeithR]

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.

[Flake]

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.

[neuroanatomist]

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.

[KeithR]

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.

[psolberg]

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.