So the new 5D MKII came sooner than expected!

Nikon really is dominating the DSLR market at the moment. Perhaps with the exception of the 1Ds. The D300, more expensive than the 40D, but better, The D3 taking hold of the 1D Mk III, and now the Nikon's new offering, the D700! Nice to see Nikon back on top of things!

--------------------------------------------------------

Mark (Prowicz)

South Wales, United Kingdom based NIKONIAN

If they manage to take care of the few new customers who are having issues with their bodies and/or lenses (Yes, this happens with products from every maker.), they will have a large, new following.

I feel much the same as you. Nikon have really gotten on the ball with excellent new camera models, spectacular lenses (24-70mm, 14-24mm, ect) and some decent marketing for a change. Something is going RIGHT over their at Nikon headquarters, and it is exciting......

J a m e s
My Gallery

Using his camera as a pen, it is the photographer's job to tell a story: Each page authored in frozen moments of time.

All of my work is dedicated to my father, Terry Lee Geib (1943-2009)

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

...and it took how long for Nikon to get back into the game?
Unfortunately, at most sporting events, the ones that are literally in the games seem to be Canon (notice all the white lenses?).
I would dare say over 95% of the bodies are Canons.
I sure hope the execs at Nikon are happy with those numbers.

So pathetic on Nikon's part, it angers me that I even wasted money on their stuff.

Alessia,

You're angry that you didn't choose Canon because a lot of pros use Canon to shoot sports? Has that affected the quality of your photography?

J a m e s
My Gallery

Using his camera as a pen, it is the photographer's job to tell a story: Each page authored in frozen moments of time.

All of my work is dedicated to my father, Terry Lee Geib (1943-2009)

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>...and it took how long for Nikon to get back into the game?
>Unfortunately, at most sporting events, the ones that are
>literally in the games seem to be Canon (notice all the white
>lenses?).
>I would dare say over 95% of the bodies are Canons.
>I sure hope the execs at Nikon are happy with those numbers.
>
>So pathetic on Nikon's part, it angers me that I even wasted
>money on their stuff.

Hang on a second. I agree that at any large sport event, Canon makeup for around 70% of cam bodies at a rough guess. And one of the main reasons is down to the EOS 1D, capable of shooting at 10fps.

Things will change now, The D3 (and also D300 D700 - 8fps)can fire at up to 11 fps. Given that Nikon also as ammunition in terms of superb fast telephoto lenses. You just watch how the white-L will fade. A good many sports photographers will switch to Nikon, I'm quite sure.

--------------------------------------------------------

Mark (Prowicz)

South Wales, United Kingdom based NIKONIAN

IOW, no matter how well Nikon gets into the game now, past competitive issues make anything they do today pathetic?

You're a tough customer. Maye you should have switched long ago, giving you the opportunity to switch back now.

Awww man, my Nikon D2H takes the worst photos because I'm not shooting Canon, you hit that nail on the head...

What you don't know is that a lot of organizations got excellent deals from Canon ala: "you buy the 400mm f/2.8 and we'll throw in a few bodies." What you also don't know is that many photogs don't own their own equipment and just use whatever their organization happens to use.

But it doesn't matter because my camera of various make and format don't really matter.

My Gallery

You are correct with sports, but we all don't shoot the Olympics,
you might look at www.twipphoto.com, where Scott Bourne outlines some great reasons to switch from Cannon; esp. for Canon wildlife shooters to try out Nikon

If I were the President of Nikon I would be a lot more concerned with how many Nikons leave Ritz Camera than how many white lenses are in the end zone of a football game. That is where they are winning.

Larry Miller, Annapolis, MD
D700/D800
http://www.pbase.com/lmmiller9
http://lmmillerphotography.smugmug.com/

The only issue is that those white lenses tend to cost a lot less than the black counterparts. I'm not sure Nikon's spending that much more to make them. I wish they'd get on the par with Canon with regards to price in the long exotics. Also, maybe some slower, less expensive long lenses for those of us who can't afford a 500 f4. Maybe a 400 f4 and a 500 f5.6 for starters. Just a thought.

Craig Harding

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

True worrying about how many Nikons leave Ritz camera is important, but that said, it seems like plenty of Canons left years ago.

Here ya' go Alessia:

http://en.j-cast.com/2008/01/25015807.html

And sales of the D3, D300 and now D700 will only make those numbers higher for Nikon! Sweet!

J a m e s
My Gallery

Using his camera as a pen, it is the photographer's job to tell a story: Each page authored in frozen moments of time.

All of my work is dedicated to my father, Terry Lee Geib (1943-2009)

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>Here ya' go Alessia:
>
>http://en.j-cast.com/2008/01/25015807.html
>
>And sales of the D3, D300 and now D700 will only make those
>numbers higher for Nikon! Sweet!

Maybe one or two points higher...but actually, they will have very much less efect on that particular numbers game than if Nikon introduces a blockbuster D70 replacement, and that in turn will have less effect than a blockbuster D60 replacement.

The consumer market is where they get the high numbers of sales. The serious enthusiast/semi-pro and pro market is going to be significantly lower on numbers of sales (but better profit per sale).

Regards,
Tony

My Nikonians Gallery

You are right. Cannon is definitely YESTERDAY'S DSLR camera company.



D3, D300, D2X & D200
New 14-24 F2.8 too!
If your not shooting Nikon your doing
it WRONG!

My Nikonians Gallery

>You are right. Cannon is definitely YESTERDAY'S DSLR camera
>company.

...and as these things inevitably go in cycles, it is probably also tomorrow's DSLR company. And Nikon will probably be the day after that's DSLR company, if we still give a rat's about DSLRs by then.

But who cares? As long as Nikon continue to develop cameras that outperform both my capabilities as a photographer and the reach of my wallet, I will continue to be a Nikon user, because even if XXX manufacturer brings out something spectacular, I can't afford to invest in a change of brand, given the investment in Nikon gear I have already made. I have a D70; there are now several choices in the Nikon range that offer me upgrading opportunities, without even considering Canon, Pentax, Olympus...whatever. How many choices of unaffordable (for most photographers anyway) gear do you need?

Regards,
Tony

My Nikonians Gallery

>True worrying about how many Nikons leave Ritz camera is
>important, but that said, it seems like plenty of Canons left
>years ago.

If you're in sales that's fundamentally wrong. As important as concerning myself about what sold in the PAST might be, it's what I'm selling THIS month and FUTURE months that makes all the difference. Nikon have played the long game and actually dominate the low/mid range - we all worry about the high end stuff but its a small percentage of Nikon/Canon sales in real $$.

Reichmann on D700 is an interesting essay, particularly on the Nikon management revamp in response to Canon's previous dominance.

------
Graham

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Just curious, Alessia, since you are *angry*.... what type of shooting do you do that you feel Nikon has failed you, and what equipment have you purchased that is wasted? Your profile is not filled in...

"No matter how slow the film, Spirit always stands still long enough for the
photographer it has chosen" Minor White

www.carolynguild.com

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>So pathetic on Nikon's part, it angers me that I even wasted
>money on their stuff.

I suppose, whatever stuff you bought from them performs exactly as specified in the catalgue and handles as described in the user manual?

Nikon and Canon DSLR sales were always pretty close during the last 5 years.

Canon did dominate many sporting events because Canon viewed heavily discounting their equipment to these organizations as a marketing cost. A friend of mine in India told me that some of the major news organizations actually got the equipment for FREE in return for using the equipment and wearing Canon vest and hats at major sport events there. I know in America, even the Nikon shooters have to wear Canon jackets to shoot on the sidelines of NFL games.
Canon also had slightly better low light performance and had IS super telephotos until the recent Nikon lens upgrades.
But, the momentum has swung back to Nikon now. When the 2008 DSLR sales numbers come in, I'd bet my life that Nikon has a significant lead worldwide like it does in Japan now.

Frankly, NONE of my friends that shoot Nikon are thinking for switching to Canon, but several of my friends that shoot Canon ( and Minolta and Pentax) are thinking for switching to Nikon.
In Australia, at a wedding I attended, the Canon pro took the best picture of me I have holding my D3 with the RRS L bracket and Perfect Portrait flash ring and the Lightsphere flash diffuser on top of my SB-800. I must say this guy was probably the best wedding photographer I've ever encountered. Most of them not very good, IMHO, but this guy understanding of composition and light made me envious. I wish we had more time to talk.


D3, D300, D2X & D200
New 14-24 F2.8 too!
If your not shooting Nikon your doing
it WRONG!

My Nikonians Gallery

>Canon did dominate many sporting events because Canon viewed
>heavily discounting their equipment to these organizations as
>a marketing cost.
...
>Canon also had slightly better low light performance and had
>IS super telephotos until the recent Nikon lens upgrades.

More than "slightly." Until the D3/D300, Canon kicked Nikon's butt in the high-ISO department. Sports shooters were mostly using Canon's 1.3-crop-factor bodies because they could crank the ISO up and get usable results under the lights in a stadium whereas they just could not do that with D2H and other Nikon 1.5-crop-factor bodies. Add, as you say, Canon's aggressiveness in updating their long tele designs. The dominance of white lenses on the sidelines is not just -- or even primarily -- due to marketing.

All of that is history, though.

>Frankly, NONE of my friends that shoot Nikon are thinking for
>switching to Canon, but several of my friends that shoot Canon
>( and Minolta and Pentax) are thinking for switching to Nikon.

Same here, except I don't actually know anyone shooting Minolta.

-- Jon
Wethersfield, CT, USA
Connecticut High School Sports Photos

I am definitely happy with what is happening at Nikon for us all. Although it would be nice to see a bit more updates in the lens department (given what has just recently been released and what we all would like to see updated). Canon has had and yes will have again their time in the DSLR market as someone previously commented on earlier in this post. It happens in all areas of the selling market (Computers, Game consoles, Cameras, Cars, etc....). One is totally loyal to one company while dissing the other until the other comes out in the lead and stays there for some time. The cycle will always be there. It's what keeps the market alive. Companies are always competing with each other to be the best.

>> Frankly, NONE of my friends that shoot Nikon are thinking
>> for switching to Canon, but several of my friends that shoot
>> Canon (and Minolta and Pentax) are thinking for switching to
>> Nikon.
>
>Same here, except I don't actually know anyone shooting
>Minolta.

I do, except their Minolta camera says S O N Y on it.

--
Camera <ˈkæ mə rə>, n. Device for taking pictures in bright light.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nantonos

Sony is an interesting company. It used to be that no one could match Sony's packaging. I'm not very impressed with Sony's cameras. I purchased several Sony laptops for both my business and myself and girlfriend. They were just JUNK. Everyone of them had something major die within 6 months. They were enough to get me to switch to Macbooks, which are built like tanks. I have a Macbook, a Macbook Pro and a Mac Air. As well as Apple Timecapsules at home and at work. (Timecapsules are 1Terebyte HD with 802.11N high speed wireless and networking built in. My only complaint there is that Epson doesn't support wireless printing via the USB port on the TimeCapsule.) But, Apples build in software and even their iLife picture and video programs are just STUPID for a real photographer. Even their $199 Final Cut Express assumes that you keep all your video project on your laptops hard drive forever. Thank God for Lightroom.

Apple has beat them badly on the mobile music front. I could not live without my Ipod
Touch for pictures, video and music.

The one area where I'm still a Sony fan is their camcorders. I just got a Sony HDR-TG1 1920 x 1080i HiDef camcorder. It takes incredible video, is only slightly larger than my N95 Nokia cell phone. It have a 3 level flash that is almost too powerful for its decent 4MB still mode. Only problem is that it cannot focus in still mode in extremely low light. In video mode is seems to focus fine. I got both a 4GB and, as part of a limited time promotion, a free 16GB Memory Stick Pro Duo that lets me take over 2 hours of high def video. I REALLY love this little toy. It disapears into my pocket and I can take it everywhere.

So, I find a lot of companies, like Sony and Apple, do some things brilliantly and other important things just plain stupidly.

I'd like to see some F1.2 or F1.4 primes at the wide end, but Nikon is the ONLY company I know that really satisfies me. Not perfect, but darn close to it. At first I said to myself No D700 but I already know I'm going to have to get one. It's down right embarrassing, I'm starting to feel more like a collector than a photographer.



D3, D300, D2X & D200
New 14-24 F2.8 too!
If your not shooting Nikon your doing
it WRONG!

My Nikonians Gallery

I kinda like it when they are not in the top spot.
Gives more reason to research and create better products.

>I kinda like it when they are not in the top spot.
>Gives more reason to research and create better products.

I think that is a valid point and while Canon will certainly introduce some new bodies to compete with Nikon's latest offerings, I think they had been fairly comfortable with their top dog status and many Canonites (while happy with their gear) often lamented at the limited feature-set and minor upgrades Canon had or made to their bodies (especially FF bodies) because they basically had no competition in this area (eg. 5D). Even die-hard Canon fanboys have to admit (although begrudgingly) that Nikon's D300, D3 & D700 are cameras they would love Canon to make.

Where Nikon have really changed the paradigm with the D700 is releasing a camera that actually competes with their own FF offering (D3). Most people (be they Nikon or Canon camps) thought there was no way Nikon would release such a camera so soon which has real potenial to canibalize sales of their top line pro body. But what Nikon has done is a stroke of genius IMO. Sure they may not sell as many D3's, but they will surely sell a heap more D700's becuase of the price point alone and as far as Nikon is concerned it's still going in their coffers. Furthermore this camera has the potential to swing some (perhaps many) Canon users over who are still waiting on the 5DII. And if they want a 2 camera setup Nikon have the feature-packed D300 with pro AF which is also at an excellent price point (and coming down). Most serious DSLR users who can affort to switch, invariably do so because of the SYSTEM, rather than individual bodies or lenses and Nikon's current system is very attractive indeed. Nikon has also recently starting updating their high end glass and I'm sure many of their primes (a perceived weakness of the Nikon lineup) will get a makeover as well so really in the next 6 months Nikon as a system will surpass the opposition IMO.

In hindsight, the D700 should have been a no brainer to us all since Nikon already had all the components and technology working and on the market. It's almost as if Nikon offered up the D300 & D3 as teasers and then said now we are going to give you the best of both worlds in one 'affordable' (perhaps at a 'great price point' might be a better term) body.

Cheers
Leigh

My Nikonians Gallery

The USA Olympic Trials were in Eugene.

My friend, a D3 shooter, said black was the color of the day not white by a 3 to 1 margin.

ledmun

The best part of competition between Canon and Nikon is that we, as photographers at all levels, win.

And of course by selling more bodies, regardless of whether they are D3 or D700, Nikon sells more lenses, flashes, and other accessories, generating even more profit.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>And of course by selling more bodies, regardless of whether
>they are D3 or D700, Nikon sells more lenses, flashes, and
>other accessories, generating even more profit.

Yes precisely and that is where Nikon can really boost their bottom line because you just don't buy a camera, you buy into a system. Many think these new bodies will not result in a significant change of allegiance amongst DSLR users as they say the cost of changing systems is too great and the investment in glass does not justify it. But if you have good L glass it generally has pretty reasonable resale value on the used market and the 1D bodies still sell pretty well so the cost of switching can be reduced significantly. Anyway, if you are thinking of switching systems normally cash isn't a limitation. Probably what we will see in the short term at least is a lot more people running dual systems, but Nikon know if they can get a hook in the mouth, things like their superior flash system, metering, auto WB, ergonomics and their new lenses will win many over.

Perhaps there won't be a significant change in brand allegiance, but Nikon have certainly got a lot of 'C' folks very interested in the dark side and it's really quite amusing to see all the whinging and knashing of teeth going on at Canon forums like FM. It's almost as if overnight their perfectly good Canon gear is now second class and can't take good photos anymore.

Cheers
Leigh

My Nikonians Gallery

>Where Nikon have really changed the paradigm with the D700 is
>releasing a camera that actually competes with their own FF
>offering (D3). Most people (be they Nikon or Canon camps)
>thought there was no way Nikon would release such a camera so
>soon which has real potenial to canibalize sales of their top
>line pro body. But what Nikon has done is a stroke of genius
>IMO. Sure they may not sell as many D3's, but they will surely
>sell a heap more D700's becuase of the price point alone and
>as far as Nikon is concerned it's still going in their
>coffers.

Yes - I wondered about that too, as the volume of D3 sales were never going to be high anyway & giving it direct competition this early in the game seemed kinda "interesting". The only conclusion I can reach is that they already have the D4 lined up for release in the not too distant future, and that will re-establish the differentiation between the top camera of the range and its nearest sibling. Anyone fancy 24mp FX with a 10mp crop mode?

Regards,
Tony

My Nikonians Gallery

Tony, I've got no doubt they have a high MP body in the works but if they really wanted to shake up Canon they would stick it in a less featured body and sell it for the same price as the D700. The 1Ds3 at $8000 ($10,000 in Oz) is most definitely a niche camera for the elite few who can justify it (I never could). Imagine a base model Nikon with a 24MP FF sensor and the 14-24 'kit' lens attached for less than $6,000 and you have landscape photogs dream. I doubt they will do it but who knows after the D700.

As far as the future of the D3 goes I think it will probably drop in price (it seems a little overpriced now that the D700 is out) and still be an excellent seller for the pros who truly want a 'pro' camera. Nikon could possibly discontinue it but if they are selling heaps of D700's & D300's they would be silly not to keep making it since from a manufacturing POV it's essentially a combination of those 2 bodies.

However regardless of what happens, the D700 is a revolutionary body that will change the DSLR industry as we know it. Other manufacturers will be forced to respond and as consumers we will all enjoy the benefits.

Cheers
Leigh

My Nikonians Gallery

>Unfortunately, at most sporting events, the ones that are
>literally in the games seem to be Canon (notice all the white
>lenses?).
>I would dare say over 95% of the bodies are Canons.

Depends where you're hanging out (what sport, what part of the country, etc.). I shoot auto racing, e.g., the Indy 500, and it's pretty close to 50:50. Nikon might even have the edge.

Doctor Advertising

When I was a working sports photographer many years ago -- before soem of your people were born even (LOL), my "motor drive" was my thumb. Then I was able to buy an F-3 wih a cheap 300mm f/4-ish lens for all my sports. At the professional sports games, I was he only one without a REAL or PROFESSIONAL 400mm lens. I was looked down on in a friendly way, the REAL sports photogs not accepting me a SERIOUS. LOL. Well, I bought a house , then another, then another. THAT was where my money went. And I was very often able to outshoot the "REAL" sports photogs most all the time. I worked with what I HAD. I adapted and overcame. I actually hate sports and the jocks that participate, but I learned the sports never the less and KNEW WHEN to shoot. My best shots were usually the first one or two. I did not NEED 10 FPS!!! Our predecessors used 4 X 5's and had only ONE shot. They had to make it count! As a U.S. Navy Photojournalist I was admonished to remember that "The camera does not matter. It is what's six inches BEHIND the camera that matters.

I get 16 X 20 prints that are SUPERB from my D-200, My D-300 is even better. I like my prints contrasty and saturated so why would I need a full frame sensor if I eliminate much of the subtle tones it can capture?

Just some thoughts...

SHEP

Shep,

Thanks for the interesting perspective. I'm torn between the D700 and D300. I just don't know if I want to give up the reach for better high ISO? I can use both!

J a m e s
My Gallery

Using his camera as a pen, it is the photographer's job to tell a story: Each page authored in frozen moments of time.

All of my work is dedicated to my father, Terry Lee Geib (1943-2009)

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

James, I guess it all depends on needs raher than wants (as my son put it). It depends on your finances and the type of images you want and need. I no longer shoot for money -- just for fun, and mostly wildlife and flowers. Just for MY pleasure. Anyway, no one can afford my prices and only want bargan images, etc., You know what i mean. I guess if I were starting out, I would buy the D-700. If I could afford it, I would buy the D-3!! LOL. But again: wants versus needs. I would also want to buy non-DX lenses. THAT would really be expensive.

Due to severe leg, foot and back pain, I usually only carry the D-300 and the 18-200 lens. And maybe the 105mm macro.

Best regards,

SHEP!

Couple of things to think about.

You can get two D300's, or a D300 and a Nikon FX 24-70 f2.8 (superb glass) to go with it for the price of a D700 and change.

The D700 is virtually the same camera electronically as the D300 with the exception of the sensor. That's how good the D300 electronics are. See the reviews.

And, the D300 takes excellent images, even at 3200 ISO.

I'm not trying to talk you out of buying an FX D700...if you need it...or just really want it...but that is a lot of extra money if you aren't shooting really wide and in reduced light a lot of the time.

So, if you have to choose between the low light capabilities of the D700 and the reach of the D300...one of them is going to cost you a lot more.

Just my two cents...

Ed

Shep and Ed,

Thanks for the replies. My passion at the moment is wildlife, but I also like portrait work and shoot at family get-togethers in bad lighting quite often. That's why I'm stuck.

The best option would be both the D700 for low light and D300 for wildlife, but that is too expensive when I include new lens purchases. (17-35mm at a minimum if I go the D700 route.)

Worst case with a D700, I crop the image to get the FOV I'm used to, but then I loose valuable pixels if I want to print large. However, after the crop I'm right back where I started with my D70 in terms of additional cropping. (A cheat until I can afford the 200-400mm.)

An FX with more pixels would be the ultimate FX/DX combo, but I don't think I can wait on a model with a high enough pixel count to make cropping a wash, not to mention that it would be much higher in price than the D700 anyway.

I'll wait until some reviews from actual users start showing up to make a final decision. Both cameras have some excellent pluses, and both have a couple of minuses. I'll just have to weigh the good and the bad.......

J a m e s
My Gallery

Using his camera as a pen, it is the photographer's job to tell a story: Each page authored in frozen moments of time.

All of my work is dedicated to my father, Terry Lee Geib (1943-2009)

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Ouote 'My passion at the moment is wildlife,
but I also like portrait work and shoot at family
get-togethers in bad lighting quite often. That's why I'm
stuck.'

James,

Just at the moment there is a cheaper option available which would give you a camera which will handle portrait work with lovely skin tones and is very good in poor light. I say just at the moment because the Fuji S5, Fuji chip in a D200 body, has been reduced to £500 here in the UK as it is strongly rumoured that Fuji are either pulling out of the DSLR market altogether or have a new camera in the pipeline now that the D200 is no longer being produced. So you can get a D300 for the wildlife and a S5 for portraits at a lot less money than the D700 alone.

Chris P

>Couple of things to think about.
>
>You can get two D300's, or a D300 and a Nikon FX 24-70 f2.8
>(superb glass) to go with it for the price of a D700 and
>change.
>
>The D700 is virtually the same camera electronically as the
>D300 with the exception of the sensor. That's how good the
>D300 electronics are. See the reviews.
>
>And, the D300 takes excellent images, even at 3200 ISO.
>
>I'm not trying to talk you out of buying an FX D700...if you
>need it...or just really want it...but that is a lot of extra
>money if you aren't shooting really wide and in reduced light
>a lot of the time.
>
>So, if you have to choose between the low light capabilities
>of the D700 and the reach of the D300...one of them is going
>to cost you a lot more.
>
>Just my two cents...
>
>Ed
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I have a 28-70 which is really not a 28-70 on a DX body,thats why i want the D700.
And the 28-70 cost more than the D300,so i find the D700 worth the price.


Nikolaj Freiesleben

It is so hard for me to understand the frustrations that some of the photographers have with Nikon. If you are a sport photographer and Nikon is not fulfilling your needs what is stopping you from going Canon?
Now, the word pathetic does not look right to me for a company that is taking a good share of the market. As a matter of fact, the D3 made many professionals switch back and let's be realistic, the D3 and the D300 are most probably the best made cameras in their formats right now.
We do not owe loyalty to Nikon, at least I do not and I am sure the same goes for Canon users. We buy our gear we do not get it for free.
Since cameras and lenses are tools each photographer should use what makes him or her comfortable irrespective of the brand name.
What I am saying is that if you do not like flying with United you could be very happy flying with Jet Blue.

William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.

>It is so hard for me to understand the frustrations that some
>of the photographers have with Nikon. If you are a sport
>photographer and Nikon is not fulfilling your needs what is
>stopping you from going Canon?
>Now, the word pathetic does not look right to me for a company
>that is taking a good share of the market. As a matter of
>fact, the D3 made many professionals switch back and let's be
>realistic, the D3 and the D300 are most probably the best made
>cameras in their formats right now.
>We do not owe loyalty to Nikon, at least I do not and I am
>sure the same goes for Canon users. We buy our gear we do not
>get it for free.
>Since cameras and lenses are tools each photographer should
>use what makes him or her comfortable irrespective of the
>brand name.
>What I am saying is that if you do not like flying with United
>you could be very happy flying with Jet Blue.
>
>William Rodriguez
>Miami, Florida.

Hear hear.
And it is a great thing that both Jet Blue and United are available for our choice. Lets not forget that a switch can and may be made... We owe nothing to the brand of our camera and lenses...

(I am happy with the sturdyness of nikon D200 and D300. I do like the price and image quality of canon 5D )

listen carefully ..

I've been thinking a lot about the mix of the fast lens and the sensor's ISO. It seems to me the fast lens are limited by physics about size (and hence, weight). A f2.8 500mm lens has to be large and heavy.

But, if you have a new sensor that doubles the ISO, that allows you to go with a f3.5 or 4.0 lens. Depth of field will be marginally affected, but the the size and cost of your lens will be significantly less.

What I'm saying is image quality (noise and a lot of other metrics) and ISO from the sensor is where the camera makers will/are placing their R&D resources aside from the VR capabilities.

I would would love to read an in-depth comparison of the sensors in today's bodies. If anybody knows of an article, please post the location.

Regards,

Dennis

Browsed a Canon forum for a few minutes tonight, was just curious - MAN are they bummed!

D700 this, D3 that... a whole lotta talk about Nikon cameras going on there! Also generally they are pretty gloomy about the prospect of the 5DmkII matching the D700 feature set and about the Canon propensity for crippling pro features in their second tier bodies. We've got it pretty good here in Nikonland folks!

SteveK
My Nikonians gallery
'A camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera.' -- Dorothea Lange

When I shot Sebring this year (Porsche wins!), most of the glass was black. 90% of my friends that also shoot for mags. use Nikon. My friends that were all Canon a few years ago are still smarting over that little lens mounting system trick that Canon pulled. I love the fact that a 30 yr. old Nikkor 50mm 1.2 will still work on my new bodies. Call me crazy, but when a friend sent in his very well used D200 in for service, Nikon totally went over the camera and sent him a bill for $0.00. Would the boys over at Canon do that?