my guess is the 5D will be the basis that makes up the D200. I doubt Nikon will go full frame tho as this seems not to be an advantage at Nikon. just my guess. Dave
Nick, I have no brand loyalty whatsoever, so take what I say in this sense (OK, I'm loyal to Nikon because I have quite a few thousands of $$ tied up in equipment, but that is the only reason). As a nature (mostly birdies) shooter, these new cams would in no way tempt me to upgrade. The file sizes are huge, and many of the features are just now starting to (almost) catch up with the D2X and D2H (2.5" LCD vs 2.5" LCD, 0.25 second start-up vs 0.000 second start-up, 22 shot buffer vs 26 shot buffer, option to set file name prefixes, etc.). Don't get me wrong; for some these will be fantastic cameras, and hopefully, Nikon will release the D200 and compete with the features of the 20D and in some ways, these new cams. There's just nothing here that gets me so excited that I would consider switching.
If Nikon is to "respond" it will have to have been a process they began many months, if not years ago. It takes them a very long time to develop these products. And it isn't just that it is a technology centric product. Or that they manufacture them. It is that they are always shoved up against the bleeding edge. IMHO opinion, anyway. I develop similarly complex products myself, and it can be deceiving to the outside world what it really took to create what seems "brand new" to consumers. Those of us sweating over such a product's development may have known the thing for many years in advance. Yep, years. I obviously haven't a clue what Nikon will change at the last minute, but I would bet not very much. If they are going to do FF in, say, 2007, they would have probably began the project back in 03 or 04. Or at least they are wailing away at it right now. So far as Canons go in general, I owned a 20D along side the D70 for about eight months. I used both profusely. I unfortunately prefer Nikon's lenses and image quality in general and ended up getting rid of the 20D. My only regret is I now do not have a camera as capable as the 20D was at walking around high ISO when you really need it type photography. I go back over images shot hand held, at night, ISO 3200 and think holy cow that camera was great at that. I really wish Nikon would pull off such a camera. I am thinking that camera might be the D50, but I won't know for sure until I try one (soon!). I am interested in the 5D, but it wouldn't be to replace the Nikons I know and love (D2X, D70). Just another tool with a particular use in mind, as described above. I would probably repeat the 20D pattern and buy only three good lenses and leave it at that. In comparison, I have 13 Nikon and 1 Tamron Nikon mount lenses. So here's hoping that the D200 is soon and exactly what we all want.
Nice size-up, Frank, and I wholeheartedly agree with your feelings. There is little reason for many of us to switch brands considering how much money we have invested. Nikon will certainly rebound with a worthy opponent (maybe a D200) in due time. With the exception of some digital noise, I don't think Nikon products are adversely effecting my photography. Conversely, I think my lack of product knowledge of the features of the D2H are adversely effecting my photography!
Frank, I couldn't agree more. :smile: Again, this is not to say that these (and existing) Canon cams are not great, because they are. It's just that, as you say, the greatest limitation for most of us is our own skills, not the capabilities of the cam. Unless you really have a lot of extra $$ to spend on cam gear, switching to get a few more mega-pixels, or a new feature or ten, just doesn't make sense.
That makes sense of course, but when I really think about it, I could be happy with three or four lenses. If I add up all of the lenses I now have, I could easily afford cameras from two systems and a set of well chosen lenses for each. Trouble is, there is LLD.
Ed, If I could afford both, including a couple of lenses for each that fit my shooting style, I'd go for it, if for no other reason than just to satisfy my curiosity about how the different brands compare in my shooting environment. I don't have the $$ for this scenario however, and this may be a good thing. Makes me focus my efforts on getting better with what I do have. :wink:
Having used Nikon equipment and lenses for over 35 years I am hopelessly addicted so for me at least it doesn't make any difference. I have seen Nikon and Canon go back and forth for years and have never been persuaded to switch and at my age I never will.
Where there is a will, there is always a way. I went to a 40th Anniversary party not long ago, and I was determined to get in some natural light stuff along with flash lit shots. So I just brought a tripod. It got in the way a few times, but usually not, and I think the images came out great. And the tripod I used was a 17 year old Bogen 3001 my then girlfriend bought me. The danged thing has good karma or some such. Even more interesting was a camera I bought in 1988 was there. One that had been handed down to a sibling 16 years younger than me. It was quite a pleasure to see it still gets regular use. Man, the AF on that thing is s l o w, but reliable. I hand down all of my old gear, and only to someone that I know will use it at least a little. The first camera equipment I ever sold was the 20D. :tongue: So yeah, it is about what we have and what we are willing to pay for. I am willing to pay something to be able to leave old lucky the tripod at home. Sorry for babbling. :redface:
In addition to all the many reasons already stated, I would simply never switch from NIKON. Call me a "name brand snob" if you want.....when asked what camera I have, or when people see me with my NIKON, there is never a question, or a need to justify, explain, or defend - the name says it as it has for so many years! I use Nikon. I wear a Rolex. I drive a Lexus. They do what I need them to do and I am not swayed by any number of gee-whiz gadgets, extras, gimmicks, or "better features". (And I only use Dell computers). Maybe I should change my screen-name to Brand-Snob! :Guns:
All I can say is, at least it's refreshing to see a civil convo about such things :biggrin: not that I'm speaking down on any "other" forum, mind you It's funny, when I first looked into digital, I looked at the 1d and the d70, and I just ended up liking the specs on the d70 more after reading endless reviews, etc. I'm SO happy I made that pick! The D2x is to DIE for... it's everything I could have ever imagined and more. Beyond that, I'm just nuts about Nikkor glass, just NUTS I say! I just recieved my 85mm F/1.4 today from an ebay grab... THIS is they type of optics that makes the choice simple for me. I'm not a basher, I think Canon is one heck of a company, and they sure have had Nikon on its heels for some time, but in the end, that's a good place, for us at least. I'm just glad they've gotten the wake up call. It's good to see that in some ways, Nikon has bested Canon, especially in regards to ergonomics, and it looks like Canon is getting THAT now too... good for them. I have NO idea what the D200 will be ATM, I don't so much care, because if I get one, it will be at least a year from now. From the first time I held my D2x I knew... if there is something "better" out there, I can certainly live with what I got!!! :tongue: BTW, this is the very first time I've ever considered threading into such a discussion... and that ONLY due to the wonderful civility around here!
Personally I drive a C5 Corvette and I have a Heuer Pasadena Swiss Chronograph (same one for 28 years and counting), apart from that I'm all with you Ken
The "funny" thing is that I have been wearing the same Rolex for 35 years! When I bought it, my Oyster Perpetual, stainless/gold Datejust watch and band retailed for $295.00. And, of course I didn't pay retail..... So even if I wanted to switch I can't afford to!
Now that's a kind of loyalty I tend to have. I love things that last. And so few things do. I do think Nikon is a company worth being loyal to. I am attracted to their gear partly because I can see and sense the intense pride they take in their products. An engineer's company if ever I saw one.
IMHO 5D is competing with much older Kodak FF cameras, and I'm afraid Kodak still wins in many categories as a studio camera. To know better, I need to see how it tracks focus, how it keeps highlights, how accurate is exposure metering, and how good is flash control. For now, samples I saw are from pre-productin camera, but they are totally disappointing in regards to the above.
What amazes me is how bad the 17mm landscape sample shot they posted was. Canon defenders will tell you "Yeah but everybody knows the 17-40L isn't that great a lens", but to me this just proves the point that FF is more susceptible to lens imperfections due to using the entire imaging circle.
Every time my D70 dies (3rd time), I think of dumping all my camera gear and switching to Canon. [Going through such a phase right now]. But the more I think about it, as an amateur, this is what my lens lineup in Canon would be: Canon 20D Tokina 12-24 Tamron 28-75 Canon 70-200 f/4 Tamron 90 macro or Canon 100 macro So, I switch to a system to use mostly 3rd party glass? For some reason, Canon's wide angle offerings simply refuse to interest me. I personally don't care about more megapixels or about ISO 1600/3200 performance, but all I need is a camera that works . Seriously, for most amateurs, D70 is all they need. [ok, I will probably get lasik done so that I don't have to fight the viewfinder], it is going to be a while before the camera limits the photos I want to make
