Nikon maintains DSLR lead over Canon

SMS wrote:
Dave Cohen wrote:
frederick wrote:
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk..._128284.h tml

Does that mean should I contemplate moving up to a
dslr I should let a poll determine my choice.

Definitely. Especially a poll taken in Japan.

Still, Nikon's comeback in D-SLRs has been
amazing. Except for the high-end professional market,
where the volumes are low and prices are high, Nikon
finally has a good selection of D-SLRs. The sales
numbers reflect the pent-up demand from Nikon owners
that have been waiting for cameras like the D200 and D80.

And soon enough Canon will again release a flurry of new
models, and the poll pendulum will swing the other way.
And stay there until soon enough Nikon will again
release ...

One could just possibly interpret that to mean such
polls have no value for consumers, eh?

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"BaumBadier" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 14:44:51 +1200, frederick wrote:

Dave Cohen wrote:
frederick wrote:
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk..._128284.h tml


Does that mean should I contemplate moving up to a dslr I should let a
poll determine my choice.
Dave Cohen

It's not a poll.
And no - make your own choices.
At the moment, Canon has weak choices in the consumer dslr market -
where the bulk of sales are made. The Canon dslrs are okay but most
other manufacturers have better product and greater range at entry
level, and a less confusing position on sensor size format.
It would be a shame to see the trend continue and for Canon to become a
minor player in the dslr business.

The decline in DSLR sales is not from competition but because people are
finding
out that many excellent P&S cameras take photos every bit as good. They're
not
switching brands they're switching to more compact and feature-packed
cameras
for a much lower price. They're starting to get smarter. The only reason
Nikon
has ever been a competitor is because there's a foolish mystique that the
"Nikon" name somehow means quality. I found out that wasn't true over 40
years
ago, and they still haven't been able to change my findings about them.
The only
thing that Nikon means is thousands and thousands of world-wide repair
shops
that every Nikon owner eventually has to depend on. Sheep are sheep, they
buy
what they are told to buy. The more intelligent just shake their head as
they
leave the herd to find out there are much better cameras and lenses made
by
non-Nikon companies. The sheep keep buying Nikons. The more intelligent
are
moving to less-expensive and more efficient cameras.


Utter bull****.

BaumBadier wrote:

The decline in DSLR sales is not from competition but because people are finding
out that many excellent P&S cameras take photos every bit as good. They're not
switching brands they're switching to more compact and feature-packed cameras
for a much lower price.


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.

But please feel free to continue deluding yourself.

"SMS" wrote in message
...
Dave Cohen wrote:
frederick wrote:
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk..._128284.h tml

Does that mean should I contemplate moving up to a dslr I should let a
poll determine my choice.
Dave Cohen

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.
In what way is the D40x "severely de-featured" when compared with the 400D?
Is it because it will only have AF with AFS lenses?
A quick look at dpreview shows that the D40x has the following advantages
over the 400D...
ISO 3200 vs 1600
Inbuilt flash GN17 vs GN12
Front or Rear curtain flash synch
Spot metering
+/-5EV Exposure compensation vs +/-2EV
Unlimited shooting at 3FPS JPG (vs 27 frames on Canon)
The Canon's advantages are...
9 autofocus points

Hardly makes the D40x "severely defeatured". I do think the canon's user
interface is a bit more intuitive than the Nikon's, but that could be just
because I've used the Canon a lot more.

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.
--

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

frederick wrote:
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk..._128284.h tml


You should learn to write proper subject lines

BaumBadier wrote:



The decline in DSLR sales is not from competition but because people are finding
out that many excellent P&S cameras take photos every bit as good. They're not
switching brands they're switching to more compact and feature-packed cameras
for a much lower price. They're starting to get smarter. The only reason Nikon
has ever been a competitor is because there's a foolish mystique that the
"Nikon" name somehow means quality. I found out that wasn't true over 40 years
ago, and they still haven't been able to change my findings about them. The only
thing that Nikon means is thousands and thousands of world-wide repair shops
that every Nikon owner eventually has to depend on. Sheep are sheep, they buy
what they are told to buy. The more intelligent just shake their head as they
leave the herd to find out there are much better cameras and lenses made by
non-Nikon companies. The sheep keep buying Nikons. The more intelligent are
moving to less-expensive and more efficient cameras.

That's one of the worst based-in-non-fact broadbrushes against Nikon
I've ever seen. Nikon optics are extremely good, esp. if one buys the
"better" glass. The bodies are extremely good as well and all is no
less reliable than other brands. You're welcome to produce real
statistics to the contrary.

My only peeve against Nikon is their decision to maintain the old lens
mount for so long (unlike Minolta and Canon who reset) creating no
little amount of confusion on lens/body feature compatibility. I
suppose for those with a long Nikon history it is not a big deal.

I bought a new lens last night (not Nikon) and against my usual practice
decided to add an NC filter to protect the front element. As the lens
is largish (77mm) and the front element is in-your-face out there, I
decided that it should be protected. Offered the choice of a Hoya MC or
a Nikon NIC for $20 more ... I took the Nikon non-filter. Why? Becasue
the ring was thinner and less likely to contribute to vignetting.

eg: Nikon made the better photographic product.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

"BaumBadier" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 14:44:51 +1200, frederick wrote:

Dave Cohen wrote:
frederick wrote:
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk..._128284.h tml


Does that mean should I contemplate moving up to a dslr I should let a
poll determine my choice.
Dave Cohen

It's not a poll.
And no - make your own choices.
At the moment, Canon has weak choices in the consumer dslr market -
where the bulk of sales are made. The Canon dslrs are okay but most
other manufacturers have better product and greater range at entry
level, and a less confusing position on sensor size format.
It would be a shame to see the trend continue and for Canon to become a
minor player in the dslr business.

The decline in DSLR sales is not from competition but because people are
finding
out that many excellent P&S cameras take photos every bit as good. They're
not
switching brands they're switching to more compact and feature-packed
cameras
for a much lower price. They're starting to get smarter. The only reason
Nikon
has ever been a competitor is because there's a foolish mystique that the
"Nikon" name somehow means quality. I found out that wasn't true over 40
years
ago, and they still haven't been able to change my findings about them.
The only
thing that Nikon means is thousands and thousands of world-wide repair
shops
that every Nikon owner eventually has to depend on. Sheep are sheep, they
buy
what they are told to buy. The more intelligent just shake their head as
they
leave the herd to find out there are much better cameras and lenses made
by
non-Nikon companies. The sheep keep buying Nikons. The more intelligent
are
moving to less-expensive and more efficient cameras.


Huh? (Is that you, Spadaro?) I've been shooting with Nikon for years
(1995?), and have never had to send a camera in for repair; not my 8008s,
F3HP, F100, (certainly not my D200) not the Nikormat that was given to me,
nor have I had any of the lenses, flashes, etc. repaired. The F3HP I bought
off of ebay for $127, battered and beaten, as far as I know, it's never been
serviced, and it keeps on working exactly as it should. This is not to say
Nikon hasn't made some lemons, but I believe they are keenly competetive
today, and they aren't producing junk.

--
www.mattclara.com

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?

In article , BaumBadier
wrote:

The decline in DSLR sales is not from competition but because people are
finding
out that many excellent P&S cameras take photos every bit as good. They're not
switching brands they're switching to more compact and feature-packed cameras
for a much lower price. They're starting to get smarter. The only reason Nikon
has ever been a competitor is because there's a foolish mystique that the
"Nikon" name somehow means quality. I found out that wasn't true over 40 years
ago, and they still haven't been able to change my findings about them. The
only
thing that Nikon means is thousands and thousands of world-wide repair shops
that every Nikon owner eventually has to depend on. Sheep are sheep, they buy
what they are told to buy. The more intelligent just shake their head as they
leave the herd to find out there are much better cameras and lenses made by
non-Nikon companies. The sheep keep buying Nikons. The more intelligent are
moving to less-expensive and more efficient cameras.

Wow, what an eye-opener! I feel so lucky that in 35 years, and hundreds
of thousands of exposures, of professional and personal use, I was the
only one to have good service from Nikon products.

In fact I must have a magic touch, since when I was selling cameras
retail, the overwhelming majority of my Nikon customers had
trouble-free operation and excellent pictures.

To think it was all some kind of statistical fluke. Thanks for letting
me see the light.