Canon just announced the upgrade to their Digital Rebel DSLR called the Rebel XTi only days after Nikon's announcement of the D80. Not only has 10 megapixels, but also has a Self Cleaning Sensor, an auto-off LCD when one places the eye on the viewfinder, a free RAW image editor and with an 18-55mm kit lens, it undersells Nikon for $400 @ $899 MSRP.
Whether the self cleaning sensor works or not, it probably does attract those new dslr buyers who are worried about sensor dust (although the reality is that if you are careful is not that big of a deal) if nothing else, for its marketing value. I believe that this offering provides a very interesting proposition for new DSLR buyers. Interestingly enough, it also includes a RAW image editor and it takes CF cards (even though the people in this very forum think that CF cards will be obsolete soon).
I don't know what, if anything, is Nikon planning to do.
If I were a newbie and not commited to the set of lenses that I have, on paper I would say that Canon has won the race again by providing what is perceived to be a better value.
I just ordered my D80 from Ritz and according to them is being shipped today. One of the reasons why I chose Nikon is becasue you don't have to get the $1000 + lenses to get good quality glass, and you can buy old lenses that are still outstanding (Nikon 35-70mm f2.8D, 50mm 1.8D among others) where with Canon the selection is much more limited.
Don't get me wrong, I love Nikon and unless they really drop the ball I will never switch, but I must admit that if I was starting from scratch, I would probably lean toward Canon for its perceived greater value.
Hmmm, well it still has a bad grip compared to the D80 or even the EOS 30D. The kit lens is low quality compared to the 18-135mm and self cleaning sensors are still unproven over the long term IMHO.
BTW, what makes you think that Nikon did not evaluate all the self cleaning technologies out there when they designed the D80? I don't think they deliberately thumbed their nose at what would seem to be a great feature.
I respectfully disagree that Nikon dropped any ball.
David, the kit lens is the "improved" 18-55mm II lens. Whether that means that it is good lens or that it sucks less, who knows.
I don't know whether Nikon evaluated the self cleaning sensor option or not, but it seems more and more than DSLR manufacturers are inluding this feature (Canon, Sony, Olympus) as I said before, if nothing else for marketing value. Even so, Canon's offering is $400 less WITH the self cleaning sensor.
Think of it from the standpoint of someone wanting to make the leap into DSLR from P&S and hs $1000 to spend (which is part of the target audience). If you look at the market right now, the 3 biggest sellers are Canon, Nikon and Sony (I saw this on a different post around here). Two of those 3 offer a lens and sensor cleaning for $999 or less, one doesn't. If this was your first DSLR, you were not a pro or even an amateur, which one would you choose? What does Nikon offer(in the eyes of an inexperienced but hopeful photogrpaher) that justifies the $400 difference? I would be dissapointed to have Nikon take the stance that they determine what is necessary in a camera even though consumers want certain features.
Two reviews indicate that the Canon lens is not that much different than the 350D lens. Imaging Resource's review was very impressed with the Nikon 18-135mm, comparing it to the very good 18-70mm in build quality and it's very usable focal length range.
When you take the lenses out of the equations, there is $100 difference in cost and at the bare minimum, the ergonomics, granularity of control and superior control layout of the D80 trounce the new Canon.
I am not disagreeing with you that the lens may be crappy. I actually had a chance to shoot wih the first generation's version when I first got my 20D and I took one outing's worth of pictures and sold it on ebay!
I think that you math is wrong, though. If you take lenses out of the equation, then Nikon's offering is $999 and Canon's offering is $899 MINUS the lens which is about a $140 lens so it's really a $759 body or $240 difference.
Having handled both cameras, the 350D and D70 (which should be similar in construction) I prefer the Nikon's feel to it. The Canon seemed very cheap, light and breakable, much more toy like. It also forces you to use a lot of menu options to change basics like exposure compensation, ISO and the like. But price is price and that's all that some people can afford.
I just hope that other buyers can see beyond the price tag. For me, Nikon is a better camera in every aspect, except the price.
>It is certainly not my job to play moderator, but isn't this >simply a Canon post in a D80 forum? There are lots of Canon >forums out there to discuss new Canon offerings.... > >Stephen
Stephen, not necesarily. I am a Nikon owner who just bought a D80 and I am feeling a little bit like I am always going to own the second best camera manufacturer since Canon is always one-upping Nikon in terms of features. At this point switching is out of the question because I still love Nikon and I have a lot of Nikon equipment(I have owned both Nikon and Canon, recently a 20D and never really liked it)
Is not necesarily buyer's remorse, but more like - why can't they get it right the first time? I want Nikon to be the undisputed #1 Camera manufacturer, not the competitor to Canon.
Canon's recent offering make me wonder also if the XTi is a better camera or better value (which are two separate things) than the D80.
It's generally acknowledged that sooner or later, you will have to swab the sensor. Wet swabbing is the only way to get rid of really embedded dust and even Canon has not solved the idea of what to do with the dust once it's knocked off the sensor. They've resorted to the same tactic as Olympus did - create a sticky adhesive landing zone inside the mirror box. Guess what - this zone is not user-servicable. So sooner or later, you'll have to send that camera back to have the adhesives replaced. So how is this any better than the Oly E1 which is now almost 5 years old that introduced the technology in the first place?
Congratulations on you new D80. It should be a camera to last for many years.
I think Nikon got it right with every one of the last half dozen DSLR offerings - especially DX. If your business plan is succeeding, there is nothing wrong with being second or third, there is a problem with being fourth. Generally there are three survivors for a product focus in a general market place. "Avis" has even turned "second" into an asset.
Like you, I've stuck to Nikons for a while and the product philosophy has remained consistent, the ergonomics and design realization has been well executed and the images great. For me "best", would be Nikon, but you can also be "good enough" which for me is even more so Nikon. Viewing digital images at 100% reveals “flaws” that are for most beyond good enough.
While I have a D200, my dream camera is the D2Hs. For me the D2Hs may be the F3 of digital. Good enough forever. In fact some of these cameras are getting so good, it's hard to see how the current generations of DSLR are going to continue to attract enough buyers to pay for the engineering improvements. I think that is worrisome.
My last “best-images” were taken with a 20 year old FE2 when my D200 was getting tweaked by Nikon just before the warranty runs out.
If buyers would jerk their plans out of the mind-set created by the current marketing hype, they would be keeping their cameras longer, not worrying so much about the cost differences between x & y and buying instruments that will take the photos they need.
Reading the wedding photography forum is very enlightening. There you get a tutorial in what is sufficient to make money. It brings sanity to the discussion. There is often an economics driven discussion about what it takes to get a job done, rather than a technology driven fear of not having the best.
Roger Is it soup yet?
Roger It's still, ISO, aperture and shutter-speed, right?
I agree with you in terms of the fact that all of these technological advancements are, in fact, mostly marketing gizmos. I sent my Canon 20D to get serviced once a year anyway and never had any dust problems. I thnk that it's just another marketing technique to attract those pseudo DSLR and P&S owners who are afraid to jump to DSLR because of "all of the dust problems"
I am partly a tecnho geek myself so part of the thrill is getting not necesarily the latest, but a great gadget and I guess that I need to understand that a camera is more than just a gadget, is a tool to capturing great memories.
It's interesting to hear you say that your best pictures were captured with a 20 year old FE2. A good friend of mine let me borrow his Canon 1D. It's a behemoth of a camera with "only" a 4.1 MP sensor and the images that he has taken with that camera are outstanding.
I will post comments once I get the camera, I will probably be happily surprised, have to eat my words and realized that Nikon is a better camera and Canon simply has a better marketing department
Ok, you have a 20D. A great camera. Now go pick up a 350XT or the 400XTI. They have awful ergonomics, limited external controls, and to me, a tacky appearance. Your D80 is so nicely built, is loaded with functionality, has good external controls, great granularity of control over ISO, WB, etc, etc. You have a picture taking machine more comparable to the D200 than say, my D70s!
The canon is long gone. My kid took a picture on the top steps of my in-laws' brownstone. He had taken many pictures before with the camera but this one time the camera slipped from his fingers and rolled and bounced and cracked everywhere on its way down the 7 or 8 cement steps to the sidewalk. Needless to say it was not a pretty sight!
>Reading the wedding photography forum is very enlightening.
I agree, and take that one step further, just visit the photo forums for what you like to shoot and look at the fabulous images from Nikon DSLRs of all descriptions. I have seen fantastic B&W images from D100's, great landscapes from D50's, there is no reason to think there is some inherent limitation in the earlier cameras technology or sensors.
> I am a Nikon owner who just bought >a D80 and I am feeling a little bit like I am always going >to own the second best camera manufacturer since Canon is >always one-upping Nikon in terms of features.
Simply not true. D80 is certainly better than the new Canon, although it is probably not the 2nd best in the market. What do you see better in the new Canon? So called self cleaning is not yet proven.
Worried about owning a camera from the second-best camera manufacturer? Really....who cares? This is just silly. For God's sake, be happy with what you have. Believe me, no one will ever look at any of your photos and say "ick, this was taken with a Nikon...the SECOND BEST camera manufacturer!" I guarantee you, no one will know, no one will care. Just go out and take some pictures. First off, it's highly debatable who makes the best or second-best camera. Secondly, it's a monumentally stupid debate. This kind of imaginary one-upsmanship is not going to help you make better images. Concentrate on that instead of getting your undies in a bunch over who makes the worlds bestest camera. You're probably already aware that Nikon makes wonderful cameras. Canons aren't bad either. After that, who gives a s***? It's a camera, not a status symbol.
What a great reply. I have never been able to tell which digital camera took which photo. I would bet that nobody esle could tell either. In fact, that is nearly always the last thing that crosses my mind.
oh, please. I took nothing out of context. Did it really appear as though I thought I was the object of the criticism? No, it didn't. They are cameras, take some pictures with them instead of obsessing over whether the manufacturer makes the best or second-best.
What's a point of a forum if you can't voice out concerns, thoughts or ideas with other people without fear of getting slammed like you did? Why do you even bother reading these forums if all you're going to do is criticize negatively other people's thoughts?
The new Canon is inferior in many aspects, without a top panel LCD alone turns me off. It does not have spot metering, does not have a viewfinder as nice, build quality is inferior too. Again it is a marketing and sales pitch. On the other side, D80 is a fine upgrade from D70s and D50. The new Canon is not in the same league. D80 competes with 30D and we have already seen 30D price falling.
Nikon and Canon may compete head to head, but they do so differently. Nikon's philosophy will appeal more to buyers with certain priorities while Canon's will appeal more to those with different priorites. These comparisons between the D80 and the XTi is just evidence that nothing has really changed.
I was in photo retail in the early-mid 90's, and sold the 35mm EOSs & Rebels of the day along with Nikon's comperable offerings. It seems the differences between the products the two companies offered then boil down to pretty much what we're talking about now. Some would see that Canon gave them more features for less money and wouldn't need to know anything else. Others would hold both cameras and note that for a little extra money the Nikon felt like it belonged in an entirely different class. Then as now I heard many say they felt Nikon was falling behind. More than a decade later however they are still in the same postion relative to each other, at least at the portion of the market we're discussing here. (The high end, where the full-frame Canon's are becoming the new medium format, may be another story.)
What I think really changes the mix is Sony's new entry, resurecting the faltered Minolta line with a bang. The A-100 seems like a much more interesting camera to me than the new Rebel. What impact this and the basic but seemingly capable and utterly pronouncable new offerings from Pentax will have on the market will be interesting to see. The reviews I have seen tend to pit these cameras against the closest Nikon competitors, so it might be natural to think of their impact on sales of the Nikon models. My guess however is that they will appeal more to buyers who are interested in features vs. price which is Canon's real domain.
I'm often amazed at the inter-brand debates that happen here - the cost of changing all one's lenses would be so prohibitive to my budget, maybe I'm in the wrong economic bracket to be a Nikonian? Just wondering.......... Geoffrey In the golden west - Western Australia
Western Australia (a state nearly 4 times the area of Texas)
The discussion at hand is about relative strengths and weaknesees of the D80 vs. the competition's offering. How in the world can such discussion NOT be relevant to intelligent persons/photographers who want to be able to honestly regard themselves be well-informed?
Actually, to defend the above post, the original posting that started this thread barely mentions the D80 - it talks about a new Canon offering. It also established that Canon is a better value and apparently superior innovator, and that they are winning some mythical race. Regardless of where it has gone from there, the thread was established as being about a Canon offering. It is comparing a released Nikon body (actually more than one) to a not yet released Canon body as well (not the other way around). In some ways it reads like a Canon PR release, regardless of what it is intended to convey.
It also has somewhat of the same effect as classic Mircosoft vaporware releases, comparing the features of something not yet in the market to a product that is already out. Regardless of what anyone says in this thread, the item that has never been touched (or seen) usually ends up looking impressive. In the end you can't have much of a constructive discussion or argument about a product that doesn't yet exist. It simply elevates that product to the same status as real ones before it has even been touched. Of course there is also now a long (20+ post) thread stating that Canon is winning something, on a Nikon focused site, that people will shortly be able to find via a Google search (or whatever your favorite search engine is). Great advertising for Canon since most people only skim such threads - too bad they didn't have to pay for it.
By the way, before anyone assumes that I am some diehard Nikon person, I have owned (and still own) both Nikon and Canon products. I also buy Pentax SLRs for my offices for fieldwork on archaeology projects since they are cheap and work.
While the above poster may have been a bit sarcastic, the fact is that more essentially gray area threads than this have been stopped by moderators at Nikonians in the past as being about cameras other than Nikons. Those of us who question the point of this are just as entitled to our opinions and have a right to express them.
I think anyone who worries about what camera someone else uses is a bit insecure. I really dont see this new canon being anything to be jeleous about. If someone thinks this new Canon is so great buy one.
Nikon sales drop some but canon looses shares of market to Sony and Pentax. Japan Digital SLR Market Share by Unit Sales Vendor-------- July ------- June ========================================== Canon ------ 33.3%--- 51.6% Nikon ------- 27.4%--- 32.6% Sony ------- 21.6%--- 2.3% Pentax------ 14.0%--- 7.6% Olympus------ 2.8%--- 4.8% Matsushita--- 0.8%--- 0.1%
-June sales for Sony and Matsushita reflect advance orders. Source : BCN Ranking
I would take these figures with a grain of salt. Some industry reporting counts cameras *delivered* to retail channels as "sales." The only way to get real figures is to get them directly from the channels themselves. And that in of itself would be an exercise in one-offs and pre-conditions..
>I would take these figures with a grain of salt. Some >industry reporting counts cameras *delivered* to retail >channels as "sales." The only way to get real figures is to >get them directly from the channels themselves. And that in >of itself would be an exercise in one-offs and >pre-conditions..
Agreed! Although it is interesting that in the June-July timeframe D200s for example were pretty scarce.
---------------------------- A picture is worth a thousand words! I took a photograph and couldn't think of that many. I guess I'll keep trying!
>because you don't have to get the $1000 + lenses to get good >quality glass,
There is perhaps more to "other lenses" than some appreciate. The 400D outer sensors need expensive f2.8 of faster lenses to work. Nikon outer sensors work with any f5.6 lens
The D80 is an altogether better than entry level camera - which is what Canon describe the 400D as being. Nikon's 10MP entry level replacement for the D50 has been indicated by Nikon UK as early next year.
Interestingly Canon have also incorporated an image dust off facility similar to that on recent Nikon's. This may be because dust is not removed from the mirror can get disturbed back onto the sensor when the mirror lifts.
Photography is a bit like archery. A technically better camera, lens or arrow may not hit the target as often as it could if the photographer or archer does not practice enough.
Hi Len Where did you read that the d80 is a replacement for the d50? every thing printed so far says it is the 70s that a done deal. I know for a fact a company in Asia placed an order last Easter for a large number of d70s replacement's AKA/D80's Cannon is all ways is big on marketing they spend more that any camera company on marketing and there spin doctors are hard at work with add campains . Now with Sony in the game they have the money to make Cannons life difficult lets hope Nikon contuinues with a sharp marketing campaign of there own
Just handled the new 400xti at Best Buy. Miserable grip, as I expected. Appearance and feel - very plastic. The new lens looks just like the lens on the 350xt next to it, except for the II on the front.
And of course, so many of the things that have already been said, - no top LCD, fewer external controls, etc.
BTW, this is in Little Rock, AR. They have D80's in stock and will have them out on display this afternoon!