Nikon maintains DSLR lead over Canon

Alfred Molon wrote:
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.
But DSLR sales have been much lower, the point is on a percentage basis
DSLRs are a growth market while point and shoots are leveling off.

Scott

dj_nme wrote:

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:

per wrote:

IS/VR on *ANY* lens of 50mm and wider is totally impractical and is
so ineffective that it is nothing more than a sales gimmick. Simply
put, IS/VR
does not work at these focal lengths.


That's funny, a Panasonic FZ8 or a Canon S3IS have focal ranges of
just 6-72mm and their vibration reduction systems are certainly
effective. /per


Hmm. We're talking dSLRs here, not point and shoot cameras. P&S
cameras have in body IS/VR and their focal length is very different from
what a traditional dSLR is. Both Nikon and Canon made a technical
blunder by putting VR/IS in the lens instead of the body on dSLRs.

Not if the intention is to come out with a 24x36mm sensor DSLR camera
(as Canon has), in-body AS/IS/VR would require the mirror box and body
of the camera to be made bigger (to allow for sensor movement and
AAS/IS/VR mechanism) and they would have to be lucky to find that all of
their lenses can cover larger than the sensor to allow for AS/IS/VR
movement without vignetting.


The new, "high-end" Sony sensor to be used in Sony Alpha, Pentax and
Nikon DSLRs will have a "crop factor" of 1.1X to allow for in-camera
anti-shake. Sony engineers have described it as "near full frame".

In article , Tony Polson
wrote:

The new, "high-end" Sony sensor to be used in Sony Alpha, Pentax and
Nikon DSLRs will have a "crop factor" of 1.1X to allow for in-camera
anti-shake. Sony engineers have described it as "near full frame".

there is no requirement that the sensor be 1.1x for anti-shake, and
where did sony engineers say anything about their future plans?

"Rita Ä Berkowitz" ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote:

Hmm. We're talking dSLRs here, not point and shoot cameras. P&S cameras
have in body IS/VR [...]

Not so, both the Panasonic O.I.S. optical image stabilizator and the IS of
the Canon S5 have moving compensation lenses within their lenses!
http://web.canon.jp/imaging/pss5is/fea-5-e.html
http://www2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs...tGroupId=24999
/per

nospam wrote:
In article , Tony Polson
wrote:

The new, "high-end" Sony sensor to be used in Sony Alpha, Pentax and
Nikon DSLRs will have a "crop factor" of 1.1X to allow for in-camera
anti-shake. Sony engineers have described it as "near full frame".

there is no requirement that the sensor be 1.1x for anti-shake, and
where did sony engineers say anything about their future plans?

I think what he meant was that it was 1.1 rather than 1.0 to allow for
in-camera anti-shake. To do full frame with anti-shake would require
something like 0.9x.

I don't think any of this is confirmed. It's supposed to be 18.7
megapixels, 1.1x. There is some advantage of going slightly less than
full frame, especially when using older lenses.

Supposedly Sony will use the same sensor in new D-SLR of their own, with
the Minolta lens mount.

If this sensor is as low-noise as the Canon CMOS sensors, then it could
put Nikon back into the high-end professional market, something they
ceded to Canon when they had no large sensors with which to build a high
end professional camera.

In article , SMS
wrote:

nospam wrote:
In article , Tony Polson
wrote:

The new, "high-end" Sony sensor to be used in Sony Alpha, Pentax and
Nikon DSLRs will have a "crop factor" of 1.1X to allow for in-camera
anti-shake. Sony engineers have described it as "near full frame".

there is no requirement that the sensor be 1.1x for anti-shake, and
where did sony engineers say anything about their future plans?

I think what he meant was that it was 1.1 rather than 1.0 to allow for
in-camera anti-shake. To do full frame with anti-shake would require
something like 0.9x.

i know what he meant, and there is no need for 1.1x to do anti-shake.

I don't think any of this is confirmed. It's supposed to be 18.7
megapixels, 1.1x. There is some advantage of going slightly less than
full frame, especially when using older lenses.

there is no real advantage at all in doing a 1.1x, and marketing it
would be quite a challenge. everyone would ask 'why not 1x?'

Supposedly Sony will use the same sensor in new D-SLR of their own, with
the Minolta lens mount.

assuming sony will be making the sensor...

If this sensor is as low-noise as the Canon CMOS sensors, then it could
put Nikon back into the high-end professional market, something they
ceded to Canon when they had no large sensors with which to build a high
end professional camera.

the d2x is doing quite well.

Tony Polson wrote:
snip
The new, "high-end" Sony sensor to be used in Sony Alpha, Pentax and
Nikon DSLRs will have a "crop factor" of 1.1X to allow for in-camera
anti-shake. Sony engineers have described it as "near full frame".

My guess is that this is as big as the sensor can be before the mirror
box and body have to be enlarged to allow for AS movement.
Just like the difference in size between the Pentax ist-DS and the
K100D, the K100D body is several mm deeper/thicker to give extra room
for the AS mechanism.
ISTR that Minolta was the first to come out with in-body AS and if the
same engineers were carried over to Sony, then they really do know what
they're going on about.

Tony Polson wrote:

If you mean compatibility with *all* currently available lenses, you
would have to choose the D200, because the D80 is not compatible with
some of them.

What is the reason that Lensbabies will meter with the D200, but not the
D40, D50, D70, D70S, D80, & D100?

Tony Polson wrote:

Nikon has sold low-end SLR bodies with key features disabled for many
years - at least since the Nikon EM of the late 1970s. That policy
does not seem to have done Nikon any commercial harm in the last 28
years, and is unlikely to do them any harm now.

The Nikon D40X is an excellent product and it is selling very well.
And that is all that really matters.

That is not all that really matters, especially for companies that take
a long term view.

SMS wrote:

Tony Polson wrote:

If you mean compatibility with *all* currently available lenses, you
would have to choose the D200, because the D80 is not compatible with
some of them.

What is the reason that Lensbabies will meter with the D200, but not the
D40, D50, D70, D70S, D80, & D100?


The D200 has no need to interrogate an in-lens chip. All the others
need to, so they will only meter with AF Nikkors (and compatible
chipped independent lenses).

You can still shoot with an unchipped lens on those cameras, but to
get the correct exposure, you need to use a hand held light meter, or
meter by trial and error.