Nikon going the way Pentax did

Jerry L wrote:
Canon used to make a fine line of FD lenses.

Carry into the futu nice paper-weights are those 'fine' FD lenses.

This is "old news". Canon dropped the FD mount almost 20 years ago
(1986? 1987?). The first EOS cameras are now so old that there are
many in junk bins due to lack of parts and deterioration of light
seals, etc.

What you should keep in mind that there are so many FD mount cameras and
lenses still in use, still doing as fine a job as they did when Canon
discontiuned them. Eventualy they will go the way of the 127 or Instamatic,
or roll film Polaroid due to lack of availabiltiy of film, but that's IMHO
a long way off.

Eventually the cameras will fall apart and no one will bother to fix
them, but unlike their earlier counterparts, millions of AE-1 and AE-1P
cameras were made (and sold at K-Mart, etc). So while you won't be able
to get what you want in a body, for example working T-90s FOR SALE are
becoming rare, you will be able to get some sort of body to use them.


Nikon makes manual focus Ais and AF lenses. Nikon film bodies and
digital bodies can make use of both types of lenses.

That's the difference between Nikon and Canon. Nikon catered (and still does)
to the professional market, where the investment in camera bodies is trivial
to the investment in lenses.

Canon was theother way around, most of their cameras were bought by
people who used them with the original lens and never changed it. How
many of those AE-1 and AE-1P cameras ever had a different lens mounted?

Market share seems to be OK for Nikon: haven't seen any news that they
are closing production sites.

Nikon compared to Canon is a very small company. However the big difference
was when Canon made their first laser printer under contract for HP. That
started them on the road where the office products division is huge and the
camera division is small.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM
IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 IL Fax: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
You should have boycotted Google while you could, now Google supported
BPL is in action. Time is running out on worldwide radio communication.

I agree that the D200 looks like a great camera.
I wish Canon would take a few cues from it...like spot metering (below $2K),
full sealing, and a few other details. The problem for Nikon is that they
don't seem able to release updates soon enough to stay AS competetive with
Canon as they could if they were in full control of their sensors.



HMMMM.....thats not true...The D50 is EVERY bit as good as the Rebel XT
even though it's 2 MP less resolution. I have read many a review that
says the output of a D50 is BETTER in detail, color and clarity than the
Rebel XT. So how is the sensor limiting that camera? The D70s is neck
and neck with the NEWER 20D. Again, the output shows this. The D2X is
the highest resolution camera made and is the only APS-C sized camera
with such a high resolution count. The reality is that 12mp APS-C is
higher reolution than 16mp FF....which is why D2X images are so sharp,
crisp, and detailed. Again, the Nikon lineup is on par or BETTER than
everyone else. The output of the cameras speak for themselves. Now tey
do not use, nor have they ever used marketing gimmicks and hype. Like
eye focus control, and other thins, they just deliver on solid and
excellent performing products. Nikon is going nowhere anytime soon.


JR

JR wrote:
I agree that the D200 looks like a great camera.
I wish Canon would take a few cues from it...like spot metering
(below $2K), full sealing, and a few other details. The problem for
Nikon is that they don't seem able to release updates soon enough to
stay AS competetive with Canon as they could if they were in full
control of their sensors.



HMMMM.....thats not true...The D50 is EVERY bit as good as the Rebel
XT even though it's 2 MP less resolution. I have read many a review
that says the output of a D50 is BETTER in detail, color and clarity
than the Rebel XT. So how is the sensor limiting that camera?

I'm talking about Nikon's control over their ability to roll out competively
in terms of time-line.
And...like you pointed out... the 50 is 2MP short of the competition. While
this might not be terribly significant to you and me, it is very significant
to many in the market for these cameras. And BTW...I would love for my 10D
to have those extra 2MP.

The
D70s is neck and neck with the NEWER 20D.

Not in market share. I'm not saying Nikon is inferior, I'm simply pointing
to an area that has caused Nikon some difficulty. I am simply saying that
they are bitten by their dependence when it comes to controlling their
roll-out, and full control over design.

It's a simple concept: When you fully control the production of all major
parts, you fully control your own destiny. Canon and Nikon are very
different in this regard.

Again, the output shows
this. The D2X is the highest resolution camera made and is the only
APS-C sized camera with such a high resolution count. The reality is
that 12mp APS-C is higher reolution than 16mp FF....which is why D2X
images are so sharp, crisp, and detailed.

Higher resolution??
Ah...You mean smaller pixels.
-That's not an advantage.

Again, the Nikon lineup is
on par or BETTER than everyone else. The output of the cameras speak
for themselves. Now tey do not use, nor have they ever used
marketing gimmicks and hype.

You mean like Canon's silly IS technology that Nikon is finally trying to
keep up with?

....or Canon's silly in-lens focus motors...like Nikon has in their lenses
now?

....or Canon's silly USM...which Nikon has their version of?

Again...


In your
....or like Canon's silly Like eye focus control

Many found it useful.
Those who didn't could use the full power of standard AF. What the beef?

, and other
thins, they just deliver on solid and excellent performing products.
Nikon is going nowhere anytime soon.

I agree.
Never said nor implied otherwise.

Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:

Nikon makes manual focus Ais and AF lenses. Nikon film bodies and
digital bodies can make use of both types of lenses.

That's the difference between Nikon and Canon. Nikon catered (and
still does) to the professional market, where the investment in
camera bodies is trivial to the investment in lenses.

Canon was theother way around, most of their cameras were bought by
people who used them with the original lens and never changed it. How
many of those AE-1 and AE-1P cameras ever had a different lens
mounted?

Market share seems to be OK for Nikon: haven't seen any news that
they are closing production sites.

Nikon compared to Canon is a very small company. However the big
difference was when Canon made their first laser printer under
contract for HP. That started them on the road where the office
products division is huge and the camera division is small.

Canon's camera division is NOT small compared with Nikon's, however.

what are you talking about?

the nikon f6 is a much more improvement over the 1v

CANON has been sitting on its laurels with the 1V.



"Bhup" wrote in message
...
I have feeling I have seen this before
I used to have a spotmatic then pentax were leaders in their field. and
they rested on their laurels
I fear Nikon are doing the same. I suspect Nikon will lose even more of
the market share
till they cant compete and end up serving the mid end and cheaper end.

In article Nsyif.10244$dv.1055@fed1read02,
"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote:

Higher resolution??
Ah...You mean smaller pixels.
-That's not an advantage.

And bigger pixels are???? oh...i think you mean that a FF sensor is
better than a APS-C sensor? NO.....Currently its not. Do you realize
that the edges of a FF sensor are underexposed by as much as 2 stops
because the light is hitting the sensor at too wide an angle? Canon
knows this, but they are selling it as a gimmick. They must use
processing in the camera to boost the edges to control light falloff,
and this will have more noise on the edges. Currently, smaller pixels
make better pictures, Period. In order to combat this, you MUST have
larger sized lenses for FF sensors. This is why 35mm lenses on APS-C
cameras is a perfect combination. In addition to this, Nikon DX lenses
are designed so that light is also hitting the sensor at a more straight
angle. Giving edge to edge sharpness. better than a FF sensor, at this
point. And yes, EVERYONE who has followed cameras knows that Canon puts
more gimmicks in their cameras. More marketing hype. Not saying they
are not great cameras, but there is alot of fluff in the cameras. Also,
Nikon DOES develop their own sensors. Look at LBCAST...its in the D2H
series camera and at 4.1 MP it has image quality comparable to 8+ MP
cameras. If Nikon gives us a 12MP LBCAST sensor, it will be MUCH better
than anything on the market now. i am sure we will see it first in the
D3H camera soon. I have NOTHING against Canon, they are amazing
cameras, and for awhile Nikon was a step behind, but they have made up
that step and may be a step ahead. Look at the output, and you will
see....thats all I say. The Nikon cameras are every bit as good, if not
better than the Canons.

JR

JR wrote:
In article Nsyif.10244$dv.1055@fed1read02,
"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote:

Higher resolution??
Ah...You mean smaller pixels.
-That's not an advantage.

And bigger pixels are????

Yes.
They are significant advantages to larger photo sites.

oh...i think you mean that a FF sensor is
better than a APS-C sensor? NO.....Currently its not. Do you realize
that the edges of a FF sensor are underexposed by as much as 2 stops
because the light is hitting the sensor at too wide an angle?

You're talking about vignetting, which is also present when shooting film.
It's not 2 stops in most cases.

Canon
knows this, but they are selling it as a gimmick.

Tell that to pros making their livings with the 1Ds Mark II.
Many have sold their MF...not because of a gimmick, but because they found
their images from the 1Ds Mark II rendered their MF unnecessary. **Not all
photogs have the same needs, and there are difering opinions. The bottom
line is that there ARE pros who have deliberately switched to the ff DSLR
specifically becaus of the results they are getting, and the money they are
making. None of that has anything to do with a gimmick.

They must use
processing in the camera to boost the edges to control light falloff,
and this will have more noise on the edges.

What references do you have for this assertion. As far as I know, this is
not how teh files are processed at all.

Currently, smaller pixels
make better pictures, Period.

I'll not try to educate you here, but you are simply overlooking a
fundamental aspect of light-gathering...with ANY medium.

In order to combat this, you MUST have
larger sized lenses for FF sensors. This is why 35mm lenses on APS-C
cameras is a perfect combination. In addition to this, Nikon DX
lenses are designed so that light is also hitting the sensor at a
more straight angle. Giving edge to edge sharpness. better than a
FF sensor, at this point. And yes, EVERYONE who has followed cameras
knows that Canon puts more gimmicks in their cameras.


Many of the things referred to (by folks like you) as gimmicks...have turned
out to be essential tools...namely image stabilization, USM, and in-lens
focus motors.

More marketing
hype. Not saying they are not great cameras, but there is alot of
fluff in the cameras.

You mention eye control.
What other gimmickes are you referring to.

Also, Nikon DOES develop their own sensors.
Look at LBCAST...its in the D2H series camera and at 4.1 MP it has
image quality comparable to 8+ MP cameras.



If Nikon gives us a 12MP
LBCAST sensor, it will be MUCH better than anything on the market
now.

Really? You know this how?

i am sure we will see it first in the D3H camera soon. I have
NOTHING against Canon, they are amazing cameras, and for awhile Nikon
was a step behind, but they have made up that step and may be a step
ahead. Look at the output, and you will see....thats all I say. The
Nikon cameras are every bit as good, if not better than the Canons.

Nikons produces some nice cameras.
Canon porduces some nice cameras.
What I find fascinating is how you make comparative proclamations based on
Nikon cameras which do not yet exist.

In article ,
JR wrote:
In article Nsyif.10244$dv.1055@fed1read02,
"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote:

Higher resolution??
Ah...You mean smaller pixels.
-That's not an advantage.

And bigger pixels are???? oh...i think you mean that a FF sensor is
better than a APS-C sensor? NO.....Currently its not. Do you realize
that the edges of a FF sensor are underexposed by as much as 2 stops
because the light is hitting the sensor at too wide an angle?

That's not what causes light falloff in the corners of an image. Play with a
view camera some time, especially one where the corners are cut out of the
focus screen so you can see the lens aperture - all will become clear.

It happens with film as well. All lenses do it, and stopping down reduces it
(again, playing with a view camera will make it immediately obvious why).

In article Pgwif.10229$dv.5863@fed1read02,
Mark² mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote:
What some are noting, however, is Nikon's troublesome dependence upon a
competitor for the heart of their DSLRs (Sony chips).

To what extent are Nikon and Sony competitors in the DLSR market? Sony doesn't
really make any glass. Whose glass is Sony going to use to compete with Nikon
in the professional market?

For entry level DSLRs there may be some competition, but staying friendly
with Nikon as a whole may make more sense than trying to squash them in one
part of the market.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

Could Nikon not go in with Fuji?