Nikon maintains DSLR lead over Canon

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 16:21:46 +0200, SMS wrote:

Bengt C wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 06:29:53 +0200, SMS
wrote:

Dave Cohen wrote:
It depends on which segment of the market you're interested in. Nikon
is pretty weak in the entry level right now, with the severely
de-featured D40x only slightly cheaper than the far more capable Canon
400D. But in the mid-range "prosumer" segment, Nikon has some good
choices right now.
This is plain wrong. First and foremost Nikon can offer several normal
zooms Canon has *none*. With Canon you *most* go to third party sources
to get a decent lens (within entry level budget). Don't you think the
lens is a pretty vital part of the camera?

Of course. Thankfully, you have no idea what you're talking about. Canon
offers several "normal" zooms, both in EF, and EF-s. I have three of
them myself.

Have three(!) normal zooms? from Canon?? Apparently you're the one who
don't
know what you're talking about. We were talking about entry level,
remember?
We, at the entry level, can't afford several redundant lenses covering the
same range. We want one good normal zoom within entry level budget. Canon
can
provide the body, but no lenses. Pretty obvious to anyone really.


If you want cheaper lenses, of course there is no shortage of
third-party lenses for Nikon or Canon.

What Canon _does_ lack, is a lens like the $900 AF-S Zoom-Nikkor ED
18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF DX VR. Canon has the excellent $550 EF-S 17-85mm
f/4-5.6 IS USM, which is better optically, but with no telephoto
capability, while Nikon has the $400 18-70mm, without VR.

Only the $400 Nikon is within entry level budget and even as such must be
considered expensive.

Besides, there is nothing "excellent" about the 17-85 Canon. For instance,
no other lens reach is enormous wide angle distorsion and CA figures.

/Bengt

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
SMS wrote:

What Canon _does_ lack, is a lens like the $900 AF-S Zoom-Nikkor ED
18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF DX VR. Canon has the excellent $550 EF-S
17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM, which is better optically, but with no
telephoto capability, while Nikon has the $400 18-70mm, without VR.

Canon is way too smart to introduce an 18-200mm VR equivalant. As for
the the 17-85, the 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor kills it
for half its price.

The Nikon is a good lens, but it lacks image stabilization.

ASAAR wrote:

Don't assume that BaumBadier is self deluded. He's just doing
what a troll does so well. Don't tell me that this is the first of
his messages that you've seen. But if it is, expect much more of
the same.


Noted, thank you. Now plonked!

"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , SMS
wrote:

If going the Nikon route, get the D80, not the D40x. Within a few
months, that extra $250 will be forgotten and you'll have a much more
capable camera that you'll be happier with. The D40x was severely
defeatured to meet a price point, and to avoid taking sales away from
the D80.

i'm glad you have $250 you can so easily 'forget about.' what if the
user doesn't want any of the features you think are so important? what
if they have a budget? maybe they'd rather save the $250 instead of
getting features they don't need. or maybe they'd prefer spending the
$250 on a flash, another lens, or a new printer.



If that is the case then they probably should not be buying into D-SLR at
any level because pretty soon they will need a nice big flash and another
lens and so on, etc. There are quite a few that use their D-SLR as a high
quality P&S and will only ever buy the basic kit.

Alfred Molon wrote:

In article , Tony Polson
says...

That is complete nonsense, because sales of compact digital cameras
have stalled, and in some markets are actually going down. Meanwhile,
sales of DSLRs are still growing strongly, at 20-30% year-on-year.

In absolute numbers or in Euro or dollars?
The number of sold units of
compact cameras should be way higher.


Yes, the number of compacts sold is way higher than the number of
DSLRs sold. In Japan, the #1 top selling DSLR is the #10 selling
digital camera, because the first nine places are taken by compacts.

But the number of compact cameras sold is static or reducing, whereas
the numbers of DSLRs sold is going up by over 50% year-on-year n
Japan, with the value of those sales increasing by 20-30%.

"ray" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 00:43:10 -0400, CoolPix wrote:

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 10:12:36 +1200, frederick wrote:
obviously your a nikon fan fredrick, funny but i choose a Canon 30D
O you're I
over the Nikon D200 and i can assure you i made the right choice. I do
I I
own Nikon P1 and possibly Nikon sells more lower end cameras then
Canon which makes up for the larger share of the market. They are both
quality cameras manufactures, I did have a sales girl/shop owner try
camera manufacturers
to sway me from Canon to Nikon as she said she did not like the Canon
CMOS Senso, funny how Nikon is now using CMOS in there top of the line
sensor their
dslr.
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk..._128284.h tml

Don't people proof any more, or are they simply illiterate.


I assume you meant proof read? And they are lazy mostly not illiterate!

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
.. .
frederick wrote:
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk..._128284.h tml

You should learn to write proper subject lines

Yes more gooder ones would be more gooderer!

In article , SMS
wrote:

What Canon _does_ lack, is a lens like the $900 AF-S Zoom-Nikkor ED
18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF DX VR.

$750 at b&h, and it can be found for $699 from other reputable dealers.
even last year, during the ridiculous back order situation, it was as
low as $659 at one dealer.

Canon has the excellent $550 EF-S 17-85mm
f/4-5.6 IS USM, which is better optically, but with no telephoto
capability, while Nikon has the $400 18-70mm, without VR.

it is nowhere near $400 when bundled with a camera, which is how most
people buy it.

canon also lacks a 55-200vr equivalent and a stabilized macro lens.

the lens lineups are not exactly 1-1 equivalent, and nikon will have a
few lenses that canon doesn't and canon will have a few that nikon
doesn't. neither is 'better' than the other.

In article , Tony Polson
says...

But the number of compact cameras sold is static or reducing, whereas
the numbers of DSLRs sold is going up by over 50% year-on-year n
Japan, with the value of those sales increasing by 20-30%.

Not according to the sales figures posted in this thread. Sales of
compacts grew by 12 million, while sales of DSLRs only by 1.5 million.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E3X0, E4X0 and E5X0 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , SMS says...

SLRs lead digital camera sales surge
"http://news.com.com/2100-1041_3-6173084.html"

106 million compact digital cameras sold vs. 5 million DSLRs sold. Guess
which cameras are more popular.

That's a non-sequitur. Surge does not equal popularity.

Greg

--
The ticket******* Tax Tracker:
http://www.ticketmastersucks.org/tracker.html

Dethink to survive - Mclusky