Canon are you listening...?? NIKON D600

[cliffwang]

Why won't this thread just die already!?!

I think you just made this thread went to the front page...lol

 

[briansquibb]

You haven't worked this out yet. I dont have a 5DIII nor am I buying one

The value of an item is subjective so to tell us that it is overpriced is meaningless as it only tells us your opinion

Can you please share your measuring stick that is free from subjectivity and opinion?

The point that fanboys miss is that every person has their own measuring stick and that is different from everyone elses.

The only absolutes are in the specs - like mps, fps etc.

Some people might think the best camera is based on value for money - that might be a used 500D with a 55-250 lens - but others will think that is awful and insist on a MF for max IQ. Both are valid using their own measuring stick.

The one thing that irritates the hell out of me is presenting opinion as facts or manipulating/changing facts to suit their opinion.

 

[aznable]

That's what I thought. Nikon is trying to get more market share with lower profit. And Canon is trying to maximum its profit with it market share power. That's how to run a business. Just too many people cannot see the points. Canon and Nikon are big companies and have many investors. Their decision makers need to make right decisions for their investors, not their users.

no...Canon is a big company. 4 times bigger than nikon for market cap/revenues and profits.

and no...from the balance sheet of the last financial year nikon increased the revenues lowering cost of manufactoring, so it's doing the opposite you are telling us.. no-one is on the market for charity

 

[Marsu42]

and no...from the balance sheet of the last financial year nikon increased the revenues lowering cost of manufactoring, so it's doing the opposite you are telling us.. no-one is on the market for charity

The point is: No one thinks Nikon is out to make less profit, but they may very well risk more internal cannibalization like Canon to gain market share and sell lenses, so they might be inclined to cut less features from a d800->d600 than Canon would do with the 5d3->5d2 successor.

With the Sony sensors and the d800 release price, it seems Nikon wants to attack Canon and not just go along with them, and a budget ff body might be the way to throw down the gauntlet.

 

[x-vision]

This is why the D800 is such a game-changer. It establishes a totally new price-structure for higher-end DSLRs.

+1000

New structure:
* Nikon D4/Canon 1D X - flagship specialist journalism/sports camera, max speed, limited resolution - USD/€ 6,000
* Nikon D800 - max. resolution, fully featured, except speed: USD/€ 2,900
* Nikon D600 - second-tier FF-model, less resolutuon, features scaled back: USD/€ 1,500-1,700 2,000

Canon has failed to adequately repond to this and will undoubtedly pay the price in market share.

My thoughts exactly - except that the D600 will be USD/€ 2,000.

I also think that Canon is failing to respond adequately to the current market trends .. for now.
They will have to, though.

Canon won't get much help from the film/video crowd this time around.
So, they will have no option but to drop the 5DIII price in order to make it attractive to photo-enthusiasts.

Patience, padawan, patience 8).

 

[x-vision]

With the Sony sensors and the d800 release price, it seems Nikon wants to attack Canon and not just go along with them, and a budget ff body might be the way to throw down the gauntlet.

I think that Nikon and Canon are just targeting different crowds with their new offerings.

Canon seems to be targeting pros and the video/film crowd with the 5DIII. Hence the high price:
Pros will pay anyway and the video/film crowd supposedly has deep pockets.

Nikon, on the other hand, has pros and photo-enthusiasts in mind with the D800.
And the rumored D600 will obviously be targeted squarely at enthusiasts.
Thus, the lower prices - especially for the rumored D600.

The question is, what happens if the video/film crowd doesn't line up to buy the 5DIII as they did for the 5DII?

 

[Jason Beiko]

I'm not sure why people think it is important that the rumoured D600 will canabalize sales of the D800? This only matter if the profit margin on the D800 is more than the D600? Just because the D800 costs more does not mean that it has a higher profit margin!

Market share is very important because it lends consumers to purchase company specific equipment. Think PS3 versus XBOX 360 versus the Wii. Quite a bit of the profit in these platform is generated by platform specific software. In fact when the PS3 was released it was rumoured to be priced below cost.

It seems to me that market share is very important and the newly released Nikon's might have a significant role in boosting their profile.

 

[Astro]

a scaled down FF camera already exists...it's from canon, has 21mpix sensor and it's called 5D mkII; selling for 1600€ here in italy

oh you are a canon marketing genius. :

i think we are all more then happy to pay for 4 year old technology while nikon users will have a better FF camera with the D600 (and yes i think there is no doubt it will be better).

tell it canon.. i think they will be more then happy to stop spending money on R&D.. we just buy their old technology.

that makes so much sense!!! ???

i cannot see crowds of amateur switching from their aps-c camera maybe because they dont care about FF

now let´s ask... what do you know?
honest... how can you tell such BS when in every photography forum people scream for a "cheap FF" camera.

 

[Marsu42]

now let´s ask... what do you know?

The question wasn't meant for me, but I have to say nobody can know either way because there is no budget ff option yet.

Maybe many people will jump from aps-c because they've heard that with ff, you get instant great pictures, but maybe many won't because they'll realize that they hardly max out their current sensor & cheaper ef lenses are worse on ff. And because lenses they use either won't work at all (ef-s ultrawides) or don't have the reach they want, while carrying around a 70-200/2.8 as a walkaround is not for everyone.

 

[aznable]

a scaled down FF camera already exists...it's from canon, has 21mpix sensor and it's called 5D mkII; selling for 1600€ here in italy

oh you are a canon marketing genius. :

i think we are all more then happy to pay for 4 year old technology while nikon users will have a better FF camera with the D600 (and yes i think there is no doubt it will be better).

tell it canon.. i think they will be more then happy to stop spending money on R&D.. we just buy their old technology.

that makes so much sense!!! ???

i cannot see crowds of amateur switching from their aps-c camera maybe because they dont care about FF

now let´s ask... what do you know?
honest... how can you tell such BS when in every photography forum people scream for a "cheap FF" camera.

there is a diffence between d600 and 5dmkii....that d600 doesnt exists, it's not annouced yet and we dont know how the camera will be (if...it will be)

it tell such bullshit because i cant see a lot of people switching to FF, neither Forum peoples that represent 1/100000 of people that buy a dslr…maybe thay are waiting for a FF in 500€/$ range...lol

 

[briansquibb]

Who cares how old the technology is - the only important issue is whether is produces the high IQ

 

[AvTvM]

Who cares how old the technology is - the only important issue is whether is produces the high IQ

as you may know, in digital cameras these two characteristics are inversely proportional.

5D II IQ is outclassed by the newer D800
7D IQ does not match the newer D7000

Both cameras are still capable IQ-wise, but the 5D 2 is seriously let down by a sorry old AF system, which was already significantly below the previous competitor's model specs (D700 - which in turn was hampered from the sub-par resolution of its sensor ... Nikon makes mistakes too!).

Current 5D 2 owners certainly don't have to rush for an upgrade, unless the extra resolution and DR of the D800 are needed or if they don't mind to pay more for the 5D 3's improved AF and speed than for a D800.

But for people about to get their first FF DSLR, the dated 5D 2 is certainly not first choice. And it will become even more unattractive, if/when Nikon brings out an "enthusiast IQ and features" D600 at an "FF entry level price". Not all APS-C users want to switch to FF, but there is a huge number of people who want to "upgrade" to a decently priced "FF" camera.

 

[cliffwang]

That's what I thought. Nikon is trying to get more market share with lower profit. And Canon is trying to maximum its profit with it market share power. That's how to run a business. Just too many people cannot see the points. Canon and Nikon are big companies and have many investors. Their decision makers need to make right decisions for their investors, not their users.

no...Canon is a big company. 4 times bigger than nikon for market cap/revenues and profits.

and no...from the balance sheet of the last financial year nikon increased the revenues lowering cost of manufactoring, so it's doing the opposite you are telling us.. no-one is on the market for charity

1. I have mentioned Canon is bigger than Nikon.
2. I have mentioned businesses need to make decision for their investors, not users.
3. There is no conflict between "lower profit and making more profit than before" If a company can make 500M last year and it could make 750M this year, the CEO said let's make only 650M and get more market share. Any conflict here?

I really don't get why you quote my post and replied with something not related.

 

[briansquibb]

@Cliff - your answer didn't suit their point of view so it was ignored

I seems to me that there are several anti Canon/pro Nikon threads - and it is always the same group of suspects whinging and whining

 

[hyles]

I think that DR of 5D is quite enough for most people/situation. Having more DR may be sometime usefull, but i would never buy a d800 with its huge 36mp/50mb files.
If i had to chose between 5DIII and d800 i would go for the canon.
I am not going to to buy the 5DIII, it is very expansive. I think it may be worth its price, but i do not want to spend so mutch for a camera. Even if i have been tempted.
I think that d800 is very expensive as well. 2800 $ it is not cheap. If I was to spend so mutch money, i would not care spending 500 $ more for the canon.
I don't want to spend so much, but i could spend 1600 euro for 5DII. I would not mind any cheap nikon FF camera, since i have a lot of canon glasses and DR and AF of 5DII suites my needs. And IQ of the camera is very high. Even if it is 4 years old, everybody it is here to say that 5DIII has not improoved IQ over the older model so it must be a High quality 4 years old tecnology.
But if I needed it right now i could go to a shop and buy one.
And I am quite sure that canon will have FF entry level camera after the 5DII. So i am waiting to see what will happen, even if it will be next year, I am not in hurry.
Diego

 

[Kernuak]

Funny, all these years, I thought that photography was all about good light and composition, but apparently I was wrong, it's all in the dynamic range a camera is able to produce. At least now, I know that I just need to buy a D800 to make lots of money. I no longer need to pick my moment or maximise my chances with a higher frame rate, because the D800 will do it all for me.

Ignoring your sarcasm....
I don't understand why you don't see the value in greater DR. Why wouldn't you want images that get far closer to the DR your eyes can perceive, resulting in more life-like, powerful images? DR is a big deal.

The simple answer is, that there are other criteria which are more important to me than DR (such as low light performance, where DR is low anyway). If it's there I'll take it, but not at the expense of something that I consider important. Personally, I think the significance of DR has been overestimated. Photography isn't meant to be easy, otherwise everyone would be doing it and there would be no need for professinoal photographers, hence my sarcasm (well that and the fact that we've been over the same ground countless times in the past month or so). Also, why worry about more DR if it is of no benefit in print? I sell small volumes of prints and stock (which also is generally print based, although occasionally web based) and DR is then limited by more than what any current Canon camera can produce. Also, I have had very few problems with DR, if the DR is more than what the camera can capture, then most of the time, I can simply use a grad filter, otherwise, for what I photograph, then I'm better off waiting for better lighting or I compromise in certain areas. My style tends to make use of strong shadows, so I have no need to extract intimate detail, I just want the suggestion of detail. Just like in attraction, often a suggestion is stronger than having something "in your face". If I need to extract 4 stops of shadow detail, then I've failed, the shot gets binned and I reshoot with the correct exposure, adding a grad filter if necessary.

 

[x-vision]

I seems to me that there are several anti Canon/pro Nikon threads - and it is always the same group of suspects whinging and whining

And of course there are always the Canon apologists.
No matter what Canon does (and how overpriced it is), it's always good.

I never understood the mentality of an apologist, btw.
What is it that drives an individual to defend the profit-driven decisions/actions of a profit-driven corporation ??? ?

Me? I just hate overpaying and like to get good deals when paying with my money.
No brand loyalty from me if I feel that a corporation is trying to milk me.

 

[aznable]

That's what I thought. Nikon is trying to get more market share with lower profit. And Canon is trying to maximum its profit with it market share power. That's how to run a business. Just too many people cannot see the points. Canon and Nikon are big companies and have many investors. Their decision makers need to make right decisions for their investors, not their users.

no...Canon is a big company. 4 times bigger than nikon for market cap/revenues and profits.

and no...from the balance sheet of the last financial year nikon increased the revenues lowering cost of manufactoring, so it's doing the opposite you are telling us.. no-one is on the market for charity
[/quote]

1. I have mentioned Canon is bigger than Nikon.
2. I have mentioned businesses need to make decision for their investors, not users.
3. There is no conflict between "lower profit and making more profit than before" If a company can make 500M last year and it could make 750M this year, the CEO said let's make only 650M and get more market share. Any conflict here?

I really don't get why you quote my post and replied with something not related.
[/quote]

1. you said both are big companies...i dont think nikon is big; nikon is active in too few business segments
2. i said just what you said, so dont be angry. btw they are "listening" what people will buy....that's called marketing, but for the higher segment they listen also to "users" (i guess you refer to pro and forum's people), infact they have improved the 5d in the way the "users" asked (no more megapixels,better autofocus, faster framerate)
3. you said that nikon was expanding the marketshare lowering the margin, but from financials they are doing the exact opposite...at least from their last FY

 

[Tayvin]

To answer your question - Canon was listening when they built the 5D mark iii. The majority of bloggers were saying they wanted a better AF system, faster fps, same amount of megapixels, and superb low-light ISO. I think most of you got what you asked for. Now the real question is would the $3500 price tag be acceptable if the D800/D800e never existed? I think it would have.

And even a brand fanboy has to admit that that D800e is pretty amazing - if you can get one

 

[Aglet]

Well, some kinda of luck smiled in my direction then put a huge dent in my credit card and now I've added a D800 to my pile of Canon gear. A pre-order I'd placed WAY back actually came in so I'm stoked that I'll get to play with it this summer as the D800e I'm likely to be waiting for until September with how backlogged my supplier is with orders for it.

I've only put about 100 shots on it but I can already tell this is going to be my landscape camera of choice. Now we really need a better 24mm tilt-shift for Nikon! The DR is amazing with clean shadows I can bring up if I want to without the signature ruddiness of a Canon image.
The detail level from all those extra pixels is noticeable and will make for big sweet prints with impressive detail.

It may also be my close-up work camera of choice in some situations too after seeing the output from using a decades-old manual Nikkor macro lens on it. Used it in low natural outdoor lighting at ISO 3200 to nab a shot that had amazing detail with very little noise-reduction required and that was only to smooth the OOF transition areas.

So I've already identified shooting situations where this superior sensor will make at least ME happier with the results and this is all while using cheap old manual lenses from 2nd hand sources.

That said, I still wish its user interface was as simple and intuitive to use as Canon's but it's worth the effort to learn the new equipment's quirks. I'll also still be using my 5D2 next weekend to shoot some group portraits, mostly because that's what my lighting matches up with right now.

So in summary;

I really wish CANON had made this camera.
But they didn't.

I really hope Canon can make a similarly improved IQ camera in the very near future.
But I'm not waiting for them to do so.

And while I'm now enjoying the best of these 2 worlds, I'm still looking forward, just as eagerly, to the next hi-IQ, FF body, from either camp.
Meanwhile, I feel the need to add a bit more inventory to the Nik side of the sheet to broaden what I can use it for.
Canon's failure to release a seriously improved body didn't just lose a sale of a body, a pile of my loot is now going elsewhere on accessories since there's no need to upgrade my Canon stuff beyond what I've got.