| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/08/2005 11:29:02 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by RulerZigzag:
Canon must be the best. Or is it Nikon. |
They're both very good brands :-) They have different designs and some people like one over the other. Still, they're the most popular DSLRs.
Oh yea and as for accessory prices, nothing is cheap once you get a DSLR. You're paying more because the equipment is meant to LAST. People used to buy gear and use it their whole lives, now with digital moving ahead so fast people are changing camera bodies wayyy more frequently but the accessories generally remain constant.
Message edited by author 2005-02-08 11:32:04. |
|
|
|
02/08/2005 11:33:09 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by cghubbell:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
At the top of the line Canon has been the undisputed champion for years with no contenders in sight. At the entry level however, there are more then a few choices. |
This is truly a silly statement.
There are pros and cons to both lines. Canon does some great things, and Nikon does some great things. Between any two models you find tradeoffs, and many of those trade-offs shift around every six months or so. Unless you are a professional with a specific niche that caters to one brand's capabilities you should not let your decision be clouded by religion. And if you ARE a pro with a niche, you already know which you need and why.
When your time comes, go to a camera store (a REAL one, not a VIRTUAL one) and hold each camera in your hands. Take a few images with each one. You can find quality glass in both lines (which will be more important than body in the long run), and both lines are more than capable of taking publication grade images. |
This is not a silly statement at all. Taling about top of the line, and that is what I said, Canon has no contenders. Is there any other 35mm DSLR on the market at this time that offers 16Mp images from a full frame sensor? You find one that comes close and I will retract my statement.
The only full frame sensor DSLRs that seem to be in the ballpark are the Kodak DCS 14Mp bodies which are rated lower in image quality then the 11Mp 1Ds which incidently has been on the market for 3 years.
Nikon is introducing the 12Mp D2X with a 1.5 crop factor. But it would only be competition for the 3 year old 1Ds. And in case you haven't noticed it isn't even on the market yet.
So this is not a six month shift. It is a 3 year+ trend leaving Nikon with seemingly no answers in sight. I didn't lightly decide last year to put up or sell all my fine-ass Nikon D lenses and spend 18K on a new lens system plus 7K for a body based on sillyness. I called it hard research.
|
|
|
|
02/08/2005 11:47:26 AM · #28 |
Sigh, not Nikon vs Canon again :P
(notice how I mentioned Nikon first, mwaha)
It's all a question of which brand you're more true to. Some people stick with good ol' Nikon and others go with the flow and purchase Canon :)
Message edited by author 2005-02-08 11:50:52. |
|
|
|
02/08/2005 11:50:18 AM · #29 |
| They use a lot of unobtanium in the bodies for the more expensive ones. That alone doubles the price. |
|
|
|
02/08/2005 12:06:51 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
This is not a silly statement at all. Taling about top of the line, and that is what I said, Canon has no contenders. Is there any other 35mm DSLR on the market at this time that offers 16Mp images from a full frame sensor? You find one that comes close and I will retract my statement.
The only full frame sensor DSLRs that seem to be in the ballpark are the Kodak DCS 14Mp bodies which are rated lower in image quality then the 11Mp 1Ds which incidently has been on the market for 3 years.
Nikon is introducing the 12Mp D2X with a 1.5 crop factor. But it would only be competition for the 3 year old 1Ds. And in case you haven't noticed it isn't even on the market yet.
So this is not a six month shift. It is a 3 year+ trend leaving Nikon with seemingly no answers in sight. I didn't lightly decide last year to put up or sell all my fine-ass Nikon D lenses and spend 18K on a new lens system plus 7K for a body based on sillyness. I called it hard research. |
If someone is able, and inclined to drop $18k, you are correct. Canon currently has the lead in full frame sensor bodies. Outside of that single (albeit exuisite) case, lies the rest of the industry, and MANY pros find that top of the line is not limited to 16mp sensors. USAGE is more important than megapixels. For example, the associated storage/management costs of 10,000 16mp images is not appropriate for some applications. As I mentioned, there are trade offs in every choice. Sometimes flash sync is important, sometimes frame rate is important, sometimes a specific lens which exists in one line is critical.
My point was not to debate Canon's outstanding +$10k full frame product. I'd love to have it despite my favoring Nikon. My point was that "top of the line" is a very broad brush to paint with, and beyond people who need MF detail output for extremely large output, there are many pro grade (or prosumer) cameras, each with trade offs. Canon is the undisputed leader in 16mp cameras today, but everywhere else, it's about USAGE, and there is no undisputed leader unless you also specify usage requirements.
|
|
|
|
02/08/2005 12:31:46 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by cghubbell:
My point was not to debate Canon's outstanding +$10k full frame product. I'd love to have it despite my favoring Nikon. My point was that "top of the line" is a very broad brush to paint with, and beyond people who need MF detail output for extremely large output, there are many pro grade (or prosumer) cameras, each with trade offs. Canon is the undisputed leader in 16mp cameras today, but everywhere else, it's about USAGE, and there is no undisputed leader unless you also specify usage requirements. |
Perhaps I should have said flagship instead of top of the line.
And besides, where did the full text of my original statement on the matter go? Originally posted by nsbca7:
At the top of the line Canon has been the undisputed champion for years with no contenders in sight. At the entry level however, there are more then a few choices. |
Do we have some little trolls running around disquised as site council deleteing posts because they disagree with the content? Pretty small of whoever did it IMO.
Message edited by author 2005-02-08 12:42:56.
|
|
|
|
02/08/2005 12:45:58 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Do we have some little trolls running around disquised as site council deleteing posts because they disagree with the content? Pretty small of whoever did it IMO. |
What post do you believe was deleted? |
|
|
|
02/08/2005 12:50:51 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by scottwilson:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Do we have some little trolls running around disquised as site council deleteing posts because they disagree with the content? Pretty small of whoever did it IMO. |
What post do you believe was deleted? |
The one that cghubbell responded to. The one this quote came from.
At the top of the line Canon has been the undisputed champion for years with no contenders in sight. At the entry level however, there are more then a few choices.
Message edited by author 2005-02-08 12:51:20.
|
|
|
|
02/08/2005 12:56:38 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by scottwilson:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Do we have some little trolls running around disquised as site council deleteing posts because they disagree with the content? Pretty small of whoever did it IMO. |
What post do you believe was deleted? |
The one that cghubbell responded to. The one this quote came from.
At the top of the line Canon has been the undisputed champion for years with no contenders in sight. At the entry level however, there are more then a few choices. |
Urm, it's the third one in this thread... |
|
|
|
02/08/2005 01:04:22 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Is there any other 35mm DSLR on the market at this time that offers 16Mp images from a full frame sensor? You find one that comes close and I will retract my statement. |
Close? Kodak SLR/n, 14mp. The body is only so so and it has some limitations with ISO (unless you count the ISO the other way, towards sub 100, I believe the SLR/n goes down to ISO 6). But it is sharp as heck and very economically priced.
What I find interesting in this debate about a few Megapixels more or less is the Rob Galbraith article about the Nikon-based Associated Press/Kodak NC2000e dSLR, one of the first dSLRs? It is from August 1994, most of us hadn't even heard about digital back then.
1.3 megapixel, modified Nikon F90 body, USD 17,950. Good enough for the Vancouver Sun to buy twenty of them and switch to digital entirely. One year later they build one with a Canon body.
Already in 1998 it was good enough to go on the Time cover.
Very interesting article, amazing that Kodak has lost that track by now. Perhaps PMA will bring something interesting from them.
Rob Galbraith NC2000e article
|
|
|
|
02/08/2005 01:04:26 PM · #36 |
Expensive? They're about 80% less than they were two or three years ago.
|
|
|
|
02/08/2005 01:05:26 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by SDW65:
DSLR cameras with the right glass and accessories in the right hands are by far the best cameras to have.. .So if you have the money to spend on a DSLR, Glass, and Accessories and you feel like you have reached the limits of your procumer camera then it may be worth the money, for me I have not reached that point. |
One advantage of DSLRs are that you can use SLR lenses with them. For some, like me, that cuts the cost down considerably. Before digital was on the scene, I had invested in several good lenses for a Canon EOS Rebel. While the body of the Digital Rebel was a bit expensive, the fact that I already had the lenses for it (and that I am very comfortable with the functions of the Rebel) made this an obvious choice for me. Once I had saved the money for the body I was able to enter the world of DSLR.
Now if only I could improve my technique. I need the "right hands!" |
|
|
|
02/08/2005 01:13:29 PM · #38 |
I second that lens comment... All I have are my N75 kit lenses, because frankly who has 1600 to drop on a 28-70mm 2.8?
Bad part is, those 'old' lenses seems to get alot of abberations (at least for me maybe I just suck ass). They don't seem as clear either.
I guess if you got it spend it but hell, do your research before dropping 3 months salary on a D2X.
|
|
|
|
02/08/2005 01:13:42 PM · #39 |
The reason DSLR's cost so much is because people are willing to pay it. It's all about the mark up!
|
|
|
|
02/08/2005 01:27:21 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by Azrifel:
Close? Kodak SLR/n, 14mp. The body is only so so and it has some limitations with ISO (unless you count the ISO the other way, towards sub 100, I believe the SLR/n goes down to ISO 6). But it is sharp as heck and very economically priced.
|
The DCS SLR/n and the SLR/c are closer in image quality at the lower ISO settings to the 1Ds then they are to the 1Ds Mark II. At ISO 800 and above the comparison ends.
And as you mentioned the bodies the DCS system is wrapped around are anything but top of the line pro. Why couldn't they have gone with the F5, or at least the F90 for the SLR/n and the 1 or even the 10 class Canon bodies for the SLR/c instead of the F80 and a Sigma clone? They charge enough for these two bodies to have done something in this range.
But in reality I hope Kodak or Nikon do come out soon with something that will give Canon a run for their money. It makes it better and less expensive for all of us.
Message edited by author 2005-02-08 13:30:04.
|
|
|
|
02/08/2005 01:29:21 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by louddog:
The reason DSLR's cost so much is because people are willing to pay it. It's all about the mark up! |
True that! Think of how prices drop when something new comes out. It's generally not because the cost of materials and labor used to make it have miraculously been cut in half.
EDIT: OOOOO! If everyone were to boycott cameras for a few months I'd say the prices would come down nicely. Who's in??!!! *raises hand then realizes no one can see it*
Message edited by author 2005-02-08 13:30:14. |
|
|
|
02/08/2005 01:31:43 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Originally posted by louddog:
The reason DSLR's cost so much is because people are willing to pay it. It's all about the mark up! |
True that! Think of how prices drop when something new comes out. It's generally not because the cost of materials and labor used to make it have miraculously been cut in half.
EDIT: OOOOO! If everyone were to boycott cameras for a few months I'd say the prices would come down nicely. Who's in??!!! *raises hand then realizes no one can see it* |
I'm in for cameras, they've already got all my money.
But how about lenses. Who's in for seeing the L lenses down to a reasonable couple hundred. ;) |
|
|
|
02/08/2005 02:32:50 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Perhaps I should have said flagship instead of top of the line. At the top of the line Canon has been the undisputed champion for years with no contenders in sight. At the entry level however, there are more then a few choices. |
My dispute was your use of "entry level" as the alternative to a 16mp pro body. The camera you referenced as flagship is just that; a flagship. I agree that there are many choices in the entry level. More significantly to this thread, I also believe that there are many choices in mid, and high end as well...
Unless someone needs medium-format capabilities for significant enlargement / cropping, or just *wants* that capability, they have many relevant choices with either brand. As I mentioned before, a person in that situation wouldn't be posting to DPC for general advice.
The Canon you reference has some amazing image processing and usage features which are valuable without regard to its megapixel resolution. But, many of those are available in less expensive (but certainly not entry level) models. Ken Rockwell writes about the megapixel myth. I tend to agree that many people get too caught up in statistics and should focus more on making decisions based more on usability than measurement deltas their style may never realize or justify. The Canons all hold their own in all the relevant areas, as do the Nikons.
|
|
|
|
02/08/2005 02:49:59 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by cghubbell:
The Canon you reference has some amazing image processing and usage features which are valuable without regard to its megapixel resolution. But, many of those are available in less expensive (but certainly not entry level) models. Ken Rockwell writes about the megapixel myth. I tend to agree that many people get too caught up in statistics and should focus more on making decisions based more on usability than measurement deltas their style may never realize or justify. The Canons all hold their own in all the relevant areas, as do the Nikons. |
Ken may have some points in his article, but I wouldn't hold him up as some know all guru when it come to the knowledge of cameras. What he writes is just oppinion the same as all of us. No more and no less. All one needs to do is blow up a print from an image shot at 11Mp with the 1Ds to it's maximum clear resolution and compare it to one shot with any model 8Mp camera from any manufacturer to see what a tremendous difference a few megapixels make.
|
|
|
|
02/08/2005 02:58:15 PM · #45 |
When I bought my Fujifilm 6900Z three years ago, it cost me £699/$1300...!
Last Saturday when I bought the 300D kit (see portfolio for pic) it cost me £799/$1450ish, with £100 cashback...same price £699. Much different class of camera, and extendable with lenses and flash etc.
So, in reality, the price of DSLRs has dropped dramatically to point where they match that of p&s cameras of three years ago. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 06:58:23 PM EDT.
