[swartzfeger]

Quote:

---

Bottom line, though, is that the best photographs are taken by the best photographers, not just by the best cameras.

---

Most fanboys don't get it. Heck, I think Moose Petersen is still using a D2X. Not exactly cutting edge these days. Some of the best photos I've taken was with an old, beat up OM-1 I picked up used. No AF, no fancy metering, no nothing -- just you and the lens. Still wish I hadn't traded it in. An amazing camera, especially for IR work.
I don' get the whole Nikon vs, Canon thing anyway. Yeah, I'm slightly biased toward Nikon because I like the build/feel and the dual command wheels a tad more than what Canon offers. So what. Some of my best stuff has been with a $20 hunk o' junk Holga.

[drummstick]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Bottom line, though, is that the best photographs are taken by the best photographers, not just by the best cameras.

---

Most fanboys don't get it. Heck, I think Moose Petersen is still using a D2X.

---

There is of course the rarified strata of photographers who may well plunk down for the newest and bestest the day it hits the market. Your Walter Iooss's, your John Iacono's, your Peter Read Millers, your Neil Leifer's (a Nikon user for decades but pictured holding a Canon in his newest book). But the rest of us in the real world have to make an actual business case for buying a new camera or large lens.
About 70% of what I do is sports related. And my camera of choice is the Canon EOS 5D, which most fanboys will tell you is definitely NOT a sports camera. A professional camera is a camera that enables a photographer to take a salable photograph. Period. It has little to do with motor drive speed or megapixels.
One photographer I know has done an amazingly effective job of targeting the "scrapbooking mom" market. Realistically, 95% of the photos she sells are printed at 4"x 6", so her EOS 1D (whose paltry 4.something megapixels would be sneered at by the fanboys) is actually overkill for the customers in her market. And she got it used for $800.00.
A friend and former co-worker of mine is considering advertising portrait and wedding services and was obsessing about getting a 1D Mark III. I finally talked him down to spending half the bucks on a couple of good lenses. The Mark III would make him LOOK more professional, but would not give him any other significant advantage over his existing Rebel Xti, which still has the same 10 megapixels. Granted, he may wear out the Rebel in less than two years, but it's more likely to be two financially solvent years than if he went into hock for a Mark III right out of the gate.

[daveedvdv]

Quote:

---

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.

---

I think in the high-end (pro) switching is pretty rare. Canon probably got a fair bit switchers thanks to their 1DmII singificantly outperforming the D2h, but unless the differences are that pronounced, I think you're right: Switchers don't affect the pro business bottom line.
I think in the lower end there is more potential for switching. I wouldn't be surprised to find that half of the buyers of lowest-end DSLRs simply don't invest in the associated system: They buy the kit based on what seems to work well for friends, and stick with that for a few years. If they're still interested after that and another friend/relative appears to get sufficiently better results with the latest gear, they may buy that, and consider the previous purchase amortized. I.e., the DSLR investment is no different from a (high-end) digicam investment.
At least, I do observe that for more than half of the DSLR owners in my circle of friends. (Not that large of a sample, mind you, so it may not be significant.)
But I think you're right: The big fish are those that enter the SLR market for the first time, perhaps including those that switch from all-consumer to all-pro gear. That's probably a big market though.

[Steve_S]

Quote:

---

The Mark III would make him LOOK more professional, but would not give him any other significant advantage over his existing Rebel Xti, which still has the same 10 megapixels.

---

Except for the fact that the sensors are not the exact same size. The Mark III sensor, while not full frame is still bigger than the Rebel XTi's. As such, it should handle noise better, capture more light, etc.
Also, the Mark III is certainly a better performing camera. So, it depends on the type of photography your friend is using this camera for.

[Steve_S]

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!

---

Well, it's great that Nikon finally got on board with the full frame sensor. I'm sure the D3 will be a great camera, but I don't think it's going to steal away customers from "would be" 1Ds Mark III owners.
The big news here is that Nikon is finally playing on the same playing field.

[Steve_S]

Quote:

---

Nikon used to be relevant 10 years ago.

---

Nikon is still very relevant today. The problem with Nikon is that they foolishly conceeded the high end professional market to Canon. It's absurd that it took them this long to come out with a high end camera with a full frame sensor. If nothing else, Nikon should have addressed this for mind share alone.
Now that they are there, you have to admit that the D3 looks nice.

[scotts13]

Love the fact that Nikon expresses their sense of humor in hardware form. I've had more than one conversation with Nikon reps about a full-frame body; while at one time saying they were open to the idea, the past few years they've said "it'll never happen."
They're still right. The new D3 frame is 23.9 X 36, not 24 X 36. That tenth millimeter difference can only be to save face.