CANON stomps Nikon .... Again !!!

"Mark M" wrote in message
news:CV6Xc.103096$Lj.69071@fed1read03...

"Nick C" wrote in message
news:8D6Xc.45438$9d6.19612@attbi_s54...

"Dallas" wrote in message
newsan.2004.08.24.15.16.07.713000@southafrican.. .
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 16:27:23 -0700, Skip M wrote:

Hmmm, I thought the D60 was the end-all and be-all! ;-) DPReview
forum
claims that Wolf's/Ritz is promising Sept. 9th delivery. My store
just
said sometime in Sept. We'll see, but I know I've got two on the
way!

Geez, you guys haven't even heard from users and you're already
clambering
to order this thing. What if it has serious issues, like when the 10D
first hit the scene?

I'm not ordering the 20D but I did have the opportunity to play around
with
a 20D for about 15 minutes yesterday. The Canon rep. had one when she
came
to the local store. I'm not overwhelmed by the camera and in my hands,
the
camera feels small. It's a little smaller and lighter than the 10D. With
the
exception of Canon's 16-35L and the 17-40L lenses, other zoom "L" lenses
make the camera uncomfortable for me to hand hold and use.

Did it have the vertical grip?
I don't like the feel of my 10D without it...



No Mark, it didn't have the vertical grip. The Canon rep. didn't have one
to try on the camera but she did say with the vertical grip, the camera
would still be a little smaller than the 10D with the vertical grip. I took
the camera outside the store and tried Canon's 100-400mm L, 70-200 f-2.8 L,
and the 70-200 f-4 L lenses to get the feel of the camera with those lenses
while snapping a few random shots. The 100-400mm L, with its push-pull
function made the set-up feel more uncomfortable than the other lenses. All
together, with those 3 lb lenses on that body, it didn't have a balance that
would make the camera feel right (or comfortable) during a days long shoot.

As a comparison, when I was in Twin Lakes, I spent 3 days shooting pictures
of Bodie ghost town and I must have had my 1D MkII in my hand for some 5 to
6 hours a day. That is tiresome days because I had to walk (at about 6,500 -
7,000 ft altitude) not ride throughout the town to take pictures. The set-up
was/is heavy but when shooting, it felt balanced and comfortable. The
lenses I used were my 17-40 L, and a borrowed 70-200 f-2.8 L lens. Just a
few minutes with the 20D leaves me to think I could not use it as
comfortably or as easily on a days outing as I used the 1D MkII.

nick

"Nick C" wrote in message
news:l3bXc.69743$mD.68576@attbi_s02...

"Mark M" wrote in message
news:CV6Xc.103096$Lj.69071@fed1read03...

"Nick C" wrote in message
news:8D6Xc.45438$9d6.19612@attbi_s54...

"Dallas" wrote in message
newsan.2004.08.24.15.16.07.713000@southafrican.. .
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 16:27:23 -0700, Skip M wrote:

Hmmm, I thought the D60 was the end-all and be-all! ;-) DPReview
forum
claims that Wolf's/Ritz is promising Sept. 9th delivery. My store
just
said sometime in Sept. We'll see, but I know I've got two on the
way!

Geez, you guys haven't even heard from users and you're already
clambering
to order this thing. What if it has serious issues, like when the
10D
first hit the scene?

I'm not ordering the 20D but I did have the opportunity to play around
with
a 20D for about 15 minutes yesterday. The Canon rep. had one when she
came
to the local store. I'm not overwhelmed by the camera and in my hands,
the
camera feels small. It's a little smaller and lighter than the 10D.
With
the
exception of Canon's 16-35L and the 17-40L lenses, other zoom "L"
lenses
make the camera uncomfortable for me to hand hold and use.

Did it have the vertical grip?
I don't like the feel of my 10D without it...



No Mark, it didn't have the vertical grip. The Canon rep. didn't have one
to try on the camera but she did say with the vertical grip, the camera
would still be a little smaller than the 10D with the vertical grip. I
took
the camera outside the store and tried Canon's 100-400mm L, 70-200 f-2.8
L,
and the 70-200 f-4 L lenses to get the feel of the camera with those
lenses
while snapping a few random shots. The 100-400mm L, with its push-pull
function made the set-up feel more uncomfortable than the other lenses.
All
together, with those 3 lb lenses on that body, it didn't have a balance
that
would make the camera feel right (or comfortable) during a days long
shoot.

There is only a 3 ounce difference between the two bodies (10D and 20D), so
it doesn't seem that this would be so significant.

As a comparison, when I was in Twin Lakes, I spent 3 days shooting
pictures
of Bodie ghost town and I must have had my 1D MkII in my hand for some 5
to
6 hours a day. That is tiresome days because I had to walk (at about
6,500 -
7,000 ft altitude) not ride throughout the town to take pictures. The
set-up
was/is heavy but when shooting, it felt balanced and comfortable. The
lenses I used were my 17-40 L, and a borrowed 70-200 f-2.8 L lens. Just a
few minutes with the 20D leaves me to think I could not use it as
comfortably or as easily on a days outing as I used the 1D MkII.

I really think you may be surprised when you try it with the grip.
The 1 series DSLRs will make any other Canon seem small and light.
One of the review sites for the 20D had a neat "roll-over" image--where it
showed the 10D, but switch the image to the 20D when you moved your mouse
over the image. It is indeed slightly smaller, but the writer actually said
it had a more solid feel than the 10D.
Who knows...

"Nick C" wrote in message
news:l3bXc.69743$mD.68576@attbi_s02...

"Mark M" wrote in message
news:CV6Xc.103096$Lj.69071@fed1read03...

"Nick C" wrote in message
news:8D6Xc.45438$9d6.19612@attbi_s54...

"Dallas" wrote in message
newsan.2004.08.24.15.16.07.713000@southafrican.. .
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 16:27:23 -0700, Skip M wrote:

Hmmm, I thought the D60 was the end-all and be-all! ;-) DPReview
forum
claims that Wolf's/Ritz is promising Sept. 9th delivery. My store
just
said sometime in Sept. We'll see, but I know I've got two on the
way!

Geez, you guys haven't even heard from users and you're already
clambering
to order this thing. What if it has serious issues, like when the
10D
first hit the scene?

I'm not ordering the 20D but I did have the opportunity to play around
with
a 20D for about 15 minutes yesterday. The Canon rep. had one when she
came
to the local store. I'm not overwhelmed by the camera and in my hands,
the
camera feels small. It's a little smaller and lighter than the 10D.
With
the
exception of Canon's 16-35L and the 17-40L lenses, other zoom "L"
lenses
make the camera uncomfortable for me to hand hold and use.

Did it have the vertical grip?
I don't like the feel of my 10D without it...



No Mark, it didn't have the vertical grip. The Canon rep. didn't have one
to try on the camera but she did say with the vertical grip, the camera
would still be a little smaller than the 10D with the vertical grip. I
took
the camera outside the store and tried Canon's 100-400mm L, 70-200 f-2.8
L,
and the 70-200 f-4 L lenses to get the feel of the camera with those
lenses
while snapping a few random shots. The 100-400mm L, with its push-pull
function made the set-up feel more uncomfortable than the other lenses.
All
together, with those 3 lb lenses on that body, it didn't have a balance
that
would make the camera feel right (or comfortable) during a days long
shoot.

There is only a 3 ounce difference between the two bodies (10D and 20D), so
it doesn't seem that this would be so significant.

As a comparison, when I was in Twin Lakes, I spent 3 days shooting
pictures
of Bodie ghost town and I must have had my 1D MkII in my hand for some 5
to
6 hours a day. That is tiresome days because I had to walk (at about
6,500 -
7,000 ft altitude) not ride throughout the town to take pictures. The
set-up
was/is heavy but when shooting, it felt balanced and comfortable. The
lenses I used were my 17-40 L, and a borrowed 70-200 f-2.8 L lens. Just a
few minutes with the 20D leaves me to think I could not use it as
comfortably or as easily on a days outing as I used the 1D MkII.

I really think you may be surprised when you try it with the grip.
The 1 series DSLRs will make any other Canon seem small and light.
One of the review sites for the 20D had a neat "roll-over" image--where it
showed the 10D, but switch the image to the 20D when you moved your mouse
over the image. It is indeed slightly smaller, but the writer actually said
it had a more solid feel than the 10D.
Who knows...

"Nick C" wrote in message
news:qgaXc.69530$mD.9562@attbi_s02...

"Mark M" wrote in message
news:yB6Xc.103093$Lj.29313@fed1read03...

"Nick C" wrote in message
news:ll6Xc.45125$9d6.40198@attbi_s54...

"Annika1980" wrote in message
...
D30, D60, 10D, 300D & now 20D, all in the space of three years.
Gotta
love
that company's faith in its own customer base.


It's called innovation. Stick with your stagnant F4.

The F4 is a good camera. I have the F4e and use Nikons "S" lenses
making
the
combination an excellant tool. Complaints about its slow auto focusing
as
an
excuse to condem an excellent tool is rediculous. I tried using
Canon's
75-300mm f-4 - 5.6 IS USM on my 1D MkII and found it focuses slower
than
a
Nikon "S" lens on my F4e.

What did you expect from a consumer zoom that was Canon's very first IS
lens?



Hi Mark,

I didn't expect Canon's boasted USM (built in the lens) to auto focus as
slow as it did, and I do mean slow.

Slap a "L" lens on the 1D MkII and SHAZAM that puppy zaps. Yeah I know,
there's a big difference in lenses. Other than the slooooow auto focus of
the 75-300mm IS lens, the lens appears to be a good lens.






The USM in the 75-300 is "micro motor" USM, not the better "ring" USM, like
the "L" lenses have. Other lenses, besides "L" lenses, that have "ring" USM
are the 28-135 IS, 100-300 USM, and most, if not all, of the fixed focal
length USM lenses. These are all distinguished by their faster, quieter AF,
full time manual focusing and non rotating front elements.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

"Nick C" wrote in message
news:qgaXc.69530$mD.9562@attbi_s02...

"Mark M" wrote in message
news:yB6Xc.103093$Lj.29313@fed1read03...

"Nick C" wrote in message
news:ll6Xc.45125$9d6.40198@attbi_s54...

"Annika1980" wrote in message
...
D30, D60, 10D, 300D & now 20D, all in the space of three years.
Gotta
love
that company's faith in its own customer base.


It's called innovation. Stick with your stagnant F4.

The F4 is a good camera. I have the F4e and use Nikons "S" lenses
making
the
combination an excellant tool. Complaints about its slow auto focusing
as
an
excuse to condem an excellent tool is rediculous. I tried using
Canon's
75-300mm f-4 - 5.6 IS USM on my 1D MkII and found it focuses slower
than
a
Nikon "S" lens on my F4e.

What did you expect from a consumer zoom that was Canon's very first IS
lens?



Hi Mark,

I didn't expect Canon's boasted USM (built in the lens) to auto focus as
slow as it did, and I do mean slow.

Slap a "L" lens on the 1D MkII and SHAZAM that puppy zaps. Yeah I know,
there's a big difference in lenses. Other than the slooooow auto focus of
the 75-300mm IS lens, the lens appears to be a good lens.






The USM in the 75-300 is "micro motor" USM, not the better "ring" USM, like
the "L" lenses have. Other lenses, besides "L" lenses, that have "ring" USM
are the 28-135 IS, 100-300 USM, and most, if not all, of the fixed focal
length USM lenses. These are all distinguished by their faster, quieter AF,
full time manual focusing and non rotating front elements.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

"Dallas" wrote in message
newsan.2004.08.24.15.16.07.713000@southafrican.. .
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 16:27:23 -0700, Skip M wrote:

Hmmm, I thought the D60 was the end-all and be-all! ;-) DPReview forum
claims that Wolf's/Ritz is promising Sept. 9th delivery. My store just
said sometime in Sept. We'll see, but I know I've got two on the way!

Geez, you guys haven't even heard from users and you're already clambering
to order this thing. What if it has serious issues, like when the 10D
first hit the scene?

--
Dallas
www.dallasdahms.com
"Is that a Nikon? Omigod! Can I touch it?"

Mainly because my business has taken a turn in the direction that I need a
camera with more res than my D30. Rather than go for a 10D, I decided that
the 20D would be the best way to go, even allowing for "issues."

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

"Dallas" wrote in message
newsan.2004.08.24.15.16.07.713000@southafrican.. .
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 16:27:23 -0700, Skip M wrote:

Hmmm, I thought the D60 was the end-all and be-all! ;-) DPReview forum
claims that Wolf's/Ritz is promising Sept. 9th delivery. My store just
said sometime in Sept. We'll see, but I know I've got two on the way!

Geez, you guys haven't even heard from users and you're already clambering
to order this thing. What if it has serious issues, like when the 10D
first hit the scene?

--
Dallas
www.dallasdahms.com
"Is that a Nikon? Omigod! Can I touch it?"

Mainly because my business has taken a turn in the direction that I need a
camera with more res than my D30. Rather than go for a 10D, I decided that
the 20D would be the best way to go, even allowing for "issues."

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

"Nick C" wrote in message
news:qgaXc.69530$mD.9562@attbi_s02...

"Mark M" wrote in message
news:yB6Xc.103093$Lj.29313@fed1read03...

"Nick C" wrote in message
news:ll6Xc.45125$9d6.40198@attbi_s54...

"Annika1980" wrote in message
...
D30, D60, 10D, 300D & now 20D, all in the space of three years.
Gotta
love
that company's faith in its own customer base.


It's called innovation. Stick with your stagnant F4.

The F4 is a good camera. I have the F4e and use Nikons "S" lenses
making
the
combination an excellant tool. Complaints about its slow auto focusing
as
an
excuse to condem an excellent tool is rediculous. I tried using
Canon's
75-300mm f-4 - 5.6 IS USM on my 1D MkII and found it focuses slower
than
a
Nikon "S" lens on my F4e.

What did you expect from a consumer zoom that was Canon's very first IS
lens?



Hi Mark,

I didn't expect Canon's boasted USM (built in the lens) to auto focus as
slow as it did, and I do mean slow.

Slap a "L" lens on the 1D MkII and SHAZAM that puppy zaps. Yeah I know,
there's a big difference in lenses. Other than the slooooow auto focus of
the 75-300mm IS lens, the lens appears to be a good lens.

There are two quite different versions of USM.
That lens uses the slower version.
Lenses with the quick "ring" version really snap.
It would have been nice to have a focus limiter on that lens...
-I used to own a 75-300 IS until I gave it to my dad after replacing it with
the 100-400.
Now I tend to grab the 70-200 2.8 IS more than the 100-400 due to sharpness
and speed.
The 70-200 is a fabulous lens...really a league above the 100-400 in my
view.

"Nick C" wrote in message
news:qgaXc.69530$mD.9562@attbi_s02...

"Mark M" wrote in message
news:yB6Xc.103093$Lj.29313@fed1read03...

"Nick C" wrote in message
news:ll6Xc.45125$9d6.40198@attbi_s54...

"Annika1980" wrote in message
...
D30, D60, 10D, 300D & now 20D, all in the space of three years.
Gotta
love
that company's faith in its own customer base.


It's called innovation. Stick with your stagnant F4.

The F4 is a good camera. I have the F4e and use Nikons "S" lenses
making
the
combination an excellant tool. Complaints about its slow auto focusing
as
an
excuse to condem an excellent tool is rediculous. I tried using
Canon's
75-300mm f-4 - 5.6 IS USM on my 1D MkII and found it focuses slower
than
a
Nikon "S" lens on my F4e.

What did you expect from a consumer zoom that was Canon's very first IS
lens?



Hi Mark,

I didn't expect Canon's boasted USM (built in the lens) to auto focus as
slow as it did, and I do mean slow.

Slap a "L" lens on the 1D MkII and SHAZAM that puppy zaps. Yeah I know,
there's a big difference in lenses. Other than the slooooow auto focus of
the 75-300mm IS lens, the lens appears to be a good lens.

There are two quite different versions of USM.
That lens uses the slower version.
Lenses with the quick "ring" version really snap.
It would have been nice to have a focus limiter on that lens...
-I used to own a 75-300 IS until I gave it to my dad after replacing it with
the 100-400.
Now I tend to grab the 70-200 2.8 IS more than the 100-400 due to sharpness
and speed.
The 70-200 is a fabulous lens...really a league above the 100-400 in my
view.

Mark M wrote:

"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
...
Mark M wrote:

"Philip Homburg" wrote in message
.phicoh.net...
In article wXQWc.102605$Lj.3365@fed1read03,
Mark M wrote:
So don't buy one.

That's the thing that is going to happen when the market becomes
saturated.

Perhaps true.
On the other hand, the big two have finally hit on something...
-They no longer have to produce comparatively cheap film SLRs that
really
FORCE them to rely on lens sales for the big profits.

The last few years of sales figures for Canon and Nikon indicate that lens
sales volume is about double camera body sales (for interchangeable lens
bodies
only). This suggests that only two lenses are sold for each SLR. Most
lenses
are much cheaper than the bodies (film or digital), so I doubt these
companies
relied on lens sales for profits. I think P&S or compact cameras account
for
the most profit (now largely direct digital at the low end).

I don't know which lenses you're referring to as being much cheaper than
film bodies, but those folks who buy the most lenses (pros or advanced
amateurs) are also buying lenses which are MUCH more expensive than film
bodies. Even a normal L lens (vs long, fact tele) costs from 5 to 12 times
the price of a film body.

Yes, I should have been more specific. Kit lenses with SLR bodies are often the
same cost, or lower cost (with digital SLRs) of the body they are often sold
with. That would often be the first lens. The second lens can often be nearly
the same cost, or slightly higher.

While it would be nice to think that there are many people buying really
expensive lenses, the breakdown numbers from Canon, Nikon, and other companies,
show that the lower cost lenses are the biggest volume sellers. Should that be
a surprise to anyone? I suggest you visit the Canon corporate site, or a
financial site, and find the numbers. By all means, if this concerns you, do
not take my comments as the only information.




. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

This is the model of the late 1990s, through early 2001, that was used by
computer companies. How is that model doing now for computer makers?



I do think it will slow as the market fills (like you say), though one
might
have argued the same once everyone had computers. We know how that
goes...
People see the new and improved, faster computer, and find good reason
to
upgrade.

Many less people are doing that each year. Look at all the mergers in the
computer industry.

The margins in the computer industry are due to un-ending competition...not
product.

Currently, Apple have the highest recorded profit margin. Going by their last
annual report, it is near 18%. Many other companies are much lower in profits.
Volume sales numbers of all computers combined is down since 2000. How are you
equating margins to volume unit sales?



Also, look at all companies that are in financial difficulty
now in the computer industry, not just the manufacturers of computers, but
chip
makers, component makers, and software companies. Is this really the
business
model for camera companies?

No.
I only drew the comparison because a point was made that digital bodies will
"saturate the market" and therefor slow demand. My point was merely that
"upgrade fever" will continue just as it has even in the "saturated"
computer market.
As I said...It will slow, but won't go away.

Okay, then we agree on that, since I don't ever think the digital camera market
will go away. I expect it to change, but that is nothing unusual.



Unlike film, the body-based improvements are notable and often
extremely significant.

Agreed. Funny that the bulk of sales is compact and P&S digital cameras,
by an
overwhelming margin.

While the extreme improvements will become less and less compelling over
time, it will be a while before those improvements are seen as
o-hum. -There's just too much room fo rimmprovement still.

The figures I have read, including analysis of future markets, indicates
whatever few camera companies that survive will be producing no new film
SLRs
by 2008.

I've read this too, butI'm not refering to film SLRs here.

I thought it was important to mention the no new film SLRs by 2008 (at least
from Japan), since that would mean the only R&D, and marketing, would go into
direct digital sales. Maybe that will be digital SLRs, but it could be compact,
ZLR, P&S, or camera phones.



There is also an indication that full frame direct digital SLRs will
be the common type by that time, meaning no more magnification factor
(cropping) in the future.

I'm looking forward to that.

The more numerous direct digital is P&S cameras, with the highest volume
in the
3 MP to 4 MP range. These lower end cameras are coming under pressure from
camera phones, which meet the e-mail and wireless imaging needs of many
people.
Direct Digital SLRs are almost a niche product in comparison, no matter
how
much we like them.

Perhaps in terms of total sales, but one thing DSLRs bring to their
companies is brand loyalty due to lens/system investment which require the
same mount, etc. With P&S, it matter little if you choose another brand as
a next purchase. Now that DSLRs are becoming very competetive with
higher-end P&S, we are seeing a significant shift with many non-SLR folks
switching over to them. I think this trend will continue at an increasing
pace as people understand the advantages of DSLRs and become increasingly
frustrated with things like shutter lag, distortion, and noise in their P&S.
Obviously there will always be HUGE numbers of people who don't care, and
would prefer a tiny little camera that satisfies their low standard of
picture enjoyment, but I do think we're already seeing a shift. I sure have
noticed a dramatic personal increase in DSLR sightings in the last year...

I see a few more than in the past, but I see many more phone cameras. Those
things are really taking off. Personally, I think photography is dying . . .
not just film cameras, but an interest in photography. When the image is so
quickly available on the back of the camera, it is easy for many to quickly
loose interest. The other thing is that the cost is making photography and
elite pastime, requires lots more money than in the past. Some might state "who
cares", or "good riddance", but fewer people are encouraged to even try
photography, especially younger people. We shall see what the future brings . .
.. . . . . .

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com Updated!