[MW Forums]

Nikon is targeting digital photography pros and prosumers with its newest DSLRs, the D3 and the D300. more

[swartzfeger]

Two compact flash slots and WiFi? Too bad I don't have $5000 in coins squirreled away in my sofa cushions.

[np2]

The battlefield is ready for the clash of the titans: Nikon D3 vs Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III. Sharpen your weapons and let' see blood!

[TxTom]

These will be the main competitors for professionals who have gobs of dough tied up in a bunch of glass. For new pros or prosumers, Sony's about to make a serious leap with a new pro full-frame model and Olympus is about to release a new model that will be as competitive with these two as anything else. Olympus and Leica (built by Panasonic) use the 4x3 lens systems and the Olympus lenses are as pricey as they are good.
It's all good for rich, discerning photographers.

[leicaman]

Quote:

---

The battlefield is ready for the clash of the titans: Nikon D3 vs Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III. Sharpen your weapons and let' see blood!

---

Nope. The D3 is a direct competitor to the 1D Mark III, not the 1Ds Mark III. It's Nikon's sports camera. There's another one coming next spring or so that's going to compete with the 1Ds Mark III. Likely to be 24 megapixels.
So the two middle weights are coming soon, with the heavyweight yet to be revealed.
This is a good time to be a pro photographer. The D3 is very compelling for pros, and even the D300 has its merits compared to the 1D Mark III (almost as fast, much less money).
It's not like a bunch of Canon users are going to jump ship. But for those with Nikon lenses these cameras give them every reason to stay.

[daveedvdv]

Quote:

---

This is a good time to be a pro photographer. The D3 is very compelling for pros, and even the D300 has its merits compared to the 1D Mark III (almost as fast, much less money).
It's not like a bunch of Canon users are going to jump ship. But for those with Nikon lenses these cameras give them every reason to stay.

---

Agreed. If I didn't have an investment in the Canon system, Nikon's D300 could well be my DSLR choice (the AF specs look particularly impressive). So I think it also will affect the statistics for SLR newcomers.
As it is, I'll probably add a 40D body to my gear.
I find it interesting that the D300 slows from 6 to 3.5fps when selecting the 14-bit file modes (instead of the 12-bit modes, which I assume are the default). I doubt it matters in practice, but it's still a bit surprising.
Nikon seems to have the upper hand in DSLR mind share these days. I'm kind of hoping Canon can compensate with a worthy 5D successor (not that it really affects my own options).

[leicaman]

Quote:

---

These will be the main competitors for professionals who have gobs of dough tied up in a bunch of glass. For new pros or prosumers, Sony's about to make a serious leap with a new pro full-frame model and Olympus is about to release a new model that will be as competitive with these two as anything else. Olympus and Leica (built by Panasonic) use the 4x3 lens systems and the Olympus lenses are as pricey as they are good.
It's all good for rich, discerning photographers.

---

Actually, Sony's based on an old lens system - Minolta's lenses, which were never popular with pros and it's not likely they're ever going to be. Sony is dreaming if they think they can unseat Nikon or Canon from the pro ranks, or even serious amateur photographers. Their lenses are just too mundane and overpriced for them to undermine the established leaders.
Olympus has some amazingly killer lenses, but most people will not see that buying a 90-250 2.8 is the equivalent of buying a 180-500 2.8 Zoom on a full frame DSLR. Considering what Nikon or Canon would charge for such a lens (if anyone would be crazy enough to carry it in the field) the $6,000 for this Olympus zoom is a bargain. But it's still $6,000 nonetheless, and their new pro camera is still vapor at this point. Nobody except Olympus knows if they have licked the ISO noise problem.
Leica's "Panasonic" body is a glorified point-and-shoot. The real Leica digitals are the M8 rangefinder and there's a new pro DSLR in the works. Rumor has it the DSLR will use a Fuji sensor. Nobody knows at this point. But Leica is probably the only company that will be taken seriously by pros besides the Nikon and Canon DSLRs. They were always third with pros in the film era, even above Olympus, Minolta, Pentax and the rest. I don't see that changing any time soon.
It's possible I suppose, but nothing is sure by any stretch of the imagination. Pro photogs are a stubborn bunch. They don't like to change, and they don't like to call attention to themselves by standing out - which is what they'd do if they chose some other brand. I should know, I shot with Leicas for 13 years. And even though they were the third most popular cameras amongst pros, most never understood why I chose to use them. There's tremendous brand loyalty to hardware you rely on to do your job. A way of doing things. (Nikon's focus backwards according to Canon users and most other photographers.) A "culture" and inside knowledge. It's almost like being in different clans. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[leicaman]

Quote:

---

I find it interesting that the D300 slows from 6 to 3.5fps when selecting the 14-bit file modes (instead of the 12-bit modes, which I assume are the default). I doubt it matters in practice, but it's still a bit surprising.

---

It may not seem like a big difference between 12 and 14 bits, but it's a whale of a lot more data actually. The EXPEED Image Processing System in the D3 is probably a lot more beefed up. Or maybe there are two of them in the D3 like in the 1Ds Mark III's DSP for 21 megapixels as opposed to 10 for the 1D Mark III.
Even in the D3, the difference between 12 bit and 14 bit are significant. So it makes sense to me why the D300 slows down so much.

[drummstick]

Quote:

---

Agreed. If I didn't have an investment in the Canon system, Nikon's D300 could well be my DSLR choice (the AF specs look particularly impressive). So I think it also will affect the statistics for SLR newcomers.
As it is, I'll probably add a 40D body to my gear.

---

The killer for me would be lens focusing direction. It would be quite a financial hit to switch systems, but Nikon's new cameras and certain of their lenses make it compelling enough for me to consider. But only for as long as it takes for me to remember how long it took me to re-learn to focus when I originally switched from Nikon to Canon back in '91. I was helpless on sports action for at least two months and didn't get back to "second nature" for at least six months.

Quote:

---

Nikon seems to have the upper hand in DSLR mind share these days. I'm kind of hoping Canon can compensate with a worthy 5D successor (not that it really affects my own options).

---

I really wonder how much REAL competition there is between Nikon and Canon in the D-SLR market. They can really only be competing for people ENTERING the D-SLR market, those jumping from point-and-shooters to SLR's or possibly entering the professional market. Once you decide to plunk down a few grand on a particular system, that's pretty much where most folks will be locked in for several years at least.
What percentage of photographers actually SWITCH systems on any given year? My guess would be less than 1%. I did it once, 16 years ago. And unless Canon just completely stops innovating, I'll never switch again. The 40D actually looks a little tepid next to the specs I see for the D300. But like you say, switching systems is seldom a practical option.

[swartzfeger]

Quote:

---

I really wonder how much REAL competition there is between Nikon and Canon in the D-SLR market. They can really only be competing for people ENTERING the D-SLR market, those jumping from point-and-shooters to SLR's or possibly entering the professional market. Once you decide to plunk down a few grand on a particular system, that's pretty much where most folks will be locked in for several years at least.
What percentage of photographers actually SWITCH systems on any given year? My guess would be less than 1%. I did it once, 16 years ago. And unless Canon just completely stops innovating, I'll never switch again. The 40D actually looks a little tepid next to the specs I see for the D300. But like you say, switching systems is seldom a practical option.

---

You raise some great points. I bought my first SLR back in 2000, a Nikon N80. The body was relatively cheap and only had two cheap lenses, so when I decided to buy a DSLR last fall I didn't have a ton invested in glass. I was considering a Canon Rebel or 30D, but ultimately went with the Nikon D80. Canon has a lot of upside and some features I liked, but ultimately the D80 felt better in my hands.
Since I've plunked down $$$ on the 18-200 VR, I just can't see myself buying a Canon (unless I hit the lottery).

[imagewrangler]

Nikon used to be relevant 10 years ago. Canon innovates and Nikon imitates. But like the above poster said, Nikon lusers are entrenched and their crummy fugly cameras, very few photogs like me switch (and find there's no comparison and no looking back). It's the new pros and prosumers where the market is at. Dumb ones swayed by the Nikon drones will buy a crappy Nikon, all the rest will buy the serious leader... Canon.

[swartzfeger]

Quote:

---

fugly cameras

---

Yeah, those silver Rebels sure are pretty!

[Nobody]

No real pro would even think of buying a Sony. And that Cannon crap is like a dressed up toy ca,era that last almost a year. Maybe the D200 will drop in price greatly and the D2 so that some can afford to move up from their D100's .

[drummstick]

Quote:

---

No real pro would even think of buying a Sony. And that Cannon crap is like a dressed up toy ca,era that last almost a year. Maybe the D200 will drop in price greatly and the D2 so that some can afford to move up from their D100's .

---

Now, now. . .let's ease up on the partisan bickering. I'm a Canon guy, but I don't knock Nikon's. Two of the best pro photographers I know use Nikons. But the other dozen best pro photographers I know use Canon.
Another poster said Nikon lost it's relevance ten years ago. As I remember it, Nikon lost most of it's relevance about FIFTEEN years ago. In the early 90's their autofocus simply DIDN'T WORK. You could see the change over the course of about 2 years if you watched NFL football on TV. All the big lenses on the sidelines went from black (Nikon) to white (Canon).
But, today is another day, and while I have not actually used a Nikon recently, the design and specs of the cameras and lenses appear to be vastly improved and on par with Canon if not a bit better in some ways.
Bottom line, though, is that the best photographs are taken by the best photographers, not just by the best cameras.