• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

It,s WAR (1 Viewer)

Ian Latham

Well-known member
Its Canon v Nikon.......and Nikon have just kicked ass with their latest offerings (D3 & D300).

Does anyone imagine that Canon will take this lying down (I don't think so!!).

Nikon have temporarily filled a gap in the DLSR market with the D300, which has become a sort of 'budget pro camera', slotted in between 'prosumer' and career pro cameras.

Now Canon must reply and slot a camera in between the 40D and the 1DS MK l/llls.

They will also have to better the Nikon D3 if they are to reclaim their crown.

None of this is helping my dilemma as a consumer.....I want to upgrade from a Nikon D50 to a useful birding set up between £2/3000 but I dont want to get caught in the crossfire. The D90 is just around the corner so why buy the D80?, the D300 warrants some decent glass which Nikon are short of around the 300/400mm mark.

Canon seem to have the best, and (judging from this forums gallery) the most popular set up with the 40D and a fare selection of good lenses around the £1000 mark (within budget).

Whats next............anyone got a crystal ball?
 
I bet they release a replacement for the 5D, probably a $2000 dollar full frame body that will place it in line with the D300 but offer full frame instead of cropped. I believe the 5D is Canon's oldest model in their lineup, due for a makeover.
 
Is this your considered opinion after have extensively tested the assorted models you mention, or are you just recycling some of the old tosh written elsewhere on the net.

Its getting all to common on Bird Forum, (as well as other fora) that strong pro or anti views are being posted about equipment by people who's only knowledge of what they are commenting on is what they've read elsewhere on the net, the nearest they have got to real experence of the kit is gazing longingly at others peoples cameras or lens'.

This I think is doing a real disservice to people who are trying to form an oppinion on what to spend their hard earned cash on.
 
Is this your considered opinion after have extensively tested the assorted models you mention, or are you just recycling some of the old tosh written elsewhere on the net.

Its getting all to common on Bird Forum, (as well as other fora) that strong pro or anti views are being posted about equipment by people who's only knowledge of what they are commenting on is what they've read elsewhere on the net, the nearest they have got to real experence of the kit is gazing longingly at others peoples cameras or lens'.

This I think is doing a real disservice to people who are trying to form an oppinion on what to spend their hard earned cash on.

I seem to recall a thread not so long ago where you were doing the very same thing. http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=103067
You fire off a 100 shots on D3 pronounce that all the reviews on this excellent camera must have been carried out by David Blunkett only to get slapped down by a certain Andy Rouse. The words black, kettle and pot spring to mind.
 
In reply to Mr Blake's naive rant....................

If I (a) had the time to extensively test all the current camera models or (b) was privy to an unbiased opinion from an honest, reliable source, then I would not have written the piece above.

For instance;

I will not go into a camera shop and ask for a salesperson to give me an unbaised, honest opinion on which camera would best suit my intended purpose. It would be (heavily) based on who their supplier was, the deal of the week, latest promotion etc..... Besides; a couple of the larger outlets (in my area) seem intent on employing persons to whom photography is their last interest and could easily be convinced that 'digital algorithms' and 'coefficient of resolution' are nightclubs in Ibiza.

So who then do I extract the information required for my valued future purchase? Perhaps a professional like the ones I see down at my local WWT sanctuary, waving his 600mm and Gitzo GT about for all to see, two 1D MK llls around his neck and a ATS HD Swarovski in the other hand and his own ''website'' where he can gas on all about his ''fabulous life''? I dont think so!! He would either tell me to effoff or blind me with the science of his superior knowledge. (yawn)

The internet has a vast array of reviewists who claim to have the information we all require.......... So I read all about the latest products on the market and examine the technical data they give us to ensure the camera has all the latest specs and its gadgetry is all marvelous and it will fullfil my every whim. Please!! I'm 43 not 12.....These 'reviewists' are there to keep the market keen and hold the interest in the products until the next latest thing comes into their office with a cheque attached.

My original point was aimed at the helpful soul who has travelled the path of confusion I am currently on and would offer assistance and enlightenment to a fellow bird enthuisiast....not growl at him from the safety of his leather recliner!
 
I seem to recall a thread not so long ago where you were doing the very same thing. http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=103067
You fire off a 100 shots on D3 pronounce that all the reviews on this excellent camera must have been carried out by David Blunkett only to get slapped down by a certain Andy Rouse. The words black, kettle and pot spring to mind.

Nothing of the sort, I was basing an oppinion on my experience of using the camera, in the same way that Andy was, and I stand by the comments, and whilst Nikon may have closed the gap a little, there is no comparison to the image quality of the 1Ds MkIII.
 
This weeks edition (9-16. 01 08) of The British journal of photography has a different oppinion (with two Ps) by Anders Uschold. You wont like his conclusions either Mr Blake.

The words pedestal and climbing down spring to mind!!
 
This I think is doing a real disservice to people who are trying to form an oppinion on what to spend their hard earned cash on.

I've got to go with NB on this.

Having spent all my working life in Advertising, black, kettle and pot certainly could be directed at me. But, people are influence in purchasing cameras in various ways, the power of advertising, peer pressure, latest models syndrome, brand snobbery etc, etc.

We almost have a cartel alliance forming between Nikon and Canon where they take it in turns to launch the new products on the market, maximising their returns.

Unless you have oodles of cash to splash, as consumers we have to be more realistic of our requirements and talent. An expensive camera certainly doesn’t mean you’re a competent photogragher.

If I was a Canon user and purchased the Mk III @ £3000, I would be fuming that they launched the 40D two months later at £700. I was equally annoyed about the Nikon’s chairman statement that their new range of lenses is going to be aimed at the pro user section then I see the retail prices.
 
Last edited:
This weeks edition (9-16. 01 08) of The British journal of photography has a different oppinion (with two Ps) by Anders Uschold. You wont like his conclusions either Mr Blake.

The words pedestal and climbing down spring to mind!!

You would do well to spell check your own posts before picking others up on their spelling Ian, the word is reviewers and fulfils has just the one L!

However the point of my comment in the first place, which clearly you have taken personally enough to respond with personal attacks, was, had you used the Nikon equipment which had, in your words, "kicked ass" ! clearly from your response you have not, thus proving my point!

The rest of my post was a generalised comment that there are allot of armchair experts on the internet who pontificate about cameras and lenses that they have never used.
 
I've got to go with NB on this.
If I was a Canon user and purchased the Mk III @ £3000, I would be fuming that they launched the 40D two months later at £700. I was equally annoyed about the Nikon’s chairman statement that their new range of lenses is going to be aimed at the pro user section then I see the retail prices.

I have to agree here too, I think that £3K would be better invested on two 40D bodies and a couple of different focal length lenses. Having used both of these camera bodies (1D MkIII and 40D) I can see no real difference in the image quality from either, especially when shooting RAW.
 
We almost have a cartel alliance forming between Nikon and Canon where they take it in turns to launch the new products on the market, maximising their returns.

It does seem a bit too convenient doesn't it, are we being secretly manipulated by the big two!? :-O
 
I did not see where Ian slagged off Nikon or Canon is his posting above. Nikon and Canon are waging a battle of sorts. They both want us all to use their product. The great part is that this drives them to produce better gear that we may have a chance to use. I believe that was Ian's point. Which to choose?


It does seem a bit too convenient doesn't it, are we being secretly manipulated by the big two!?[\quote]

That's how business works. One plays off the relative success or failure of the other.
 
All this 'war' and extreme competitiveness on the parts of Nikon and Canon (the 'big two', it has to be said) is a good thing for us, the consumer. They're constantly trying to outdo each other and this means better products, more products (therefore more choice) and - hopefully - cheaper prices.

As a Nikon user, I hope Canon put out something bigger and better so then Nikon have to reply with something even bigger and better.

I also hope that some of the smaller manufacturers will get in on the act.
 
That's how business works. One plays off the relative success or failure of the other.

Going to disagree with you on this KC. The business mantra is to control the market share.


If you look at the products launched, each new item interlinks very conveniently with the opposition range between Nikon and Canon.


Nikon has left the bigger sensor market to Canon, has hit us with the very nice full frame D3, just as the 5D is being phased out.

The D300 slots in nicely between the 40D and the wretched MK III.

The D80 will be replaced by the D90.

I would agree will you though if we had more players producing more products (as in the olde days of film cameras), perhaps we would get a better choice.
 
Last edited:
I went out and bought a Pentax K10D after reading a lot of reviews and views mainly of the people on this website.The reasons I bought the Pentax were,

1) After holding both Canon and Nikon equivalents the Pentax felt better in my hands as it was bigger.

2) I have both mobility and balance problems so I thought the Shake Reduction would be a bonus.

3) Having Shake Reduction, when my Bigma arrives on Saturday :t: I hope it makes a difference and it means I wouldn`t have to shell out a lot more for a Nikon or Canon lens with IS.

Whether the pictures I take are better or worse because of the make of camera or because of the pink numpty stood behind the camera, I will post some photo`s so you can decide.There will always be those who prefer one brand to another and will argue their case.As a relative beginner I can only learn from experience.

Graham
 
Nikon have temporarily filled a gap in the DLSR market with the D300, which has become a sort of 'budget pro camera', slotted in between 'prosumer' and career pro cameras.

None of this is helping my dilemma as a consumer.....I want to upgrade from a Nikon D50 to a useful birding set up between £2/3000 but I don't want to get caught in the crossfire. The D90 is just around the corner so why buy the D80?, the D300 warrants some decent glass which Nikon are short of around the 300/400mm mark.

With such an interesting discussion would be rude not to join in;

Nikon have temporarily filled a gap in the DLSR market with the D300, which has become a sort of 'budget pro camera', slotted in between 'prosumer' and career pro cameras.
The exact same was said for the D200 when it was launched against the D2X, the D2's (inc 200) and D3's (inc 300) are the prosummer - pro range.

I want to upgrade from a Nikon D50 to a useful birding set up between £2/3000 but I don't want to get caught in the crossfire
chose any pro(summer) camera and body from the 40D or D300 upwards and you will get a stunning camera irrespective of which of the big 2 you go with

the D300 warrants some decent glass which Nikon are short of around the 300/400mm mark
What is decent glass? Nikon have a very nice range from 200 - 600 including a 400/2.8 and a vr 200 - 400/4 looking at the images on this and other sites there are stunning images captured on everything from kit lenses to the ultimate in glass, some of my favourite shots were taken on a D70 with an old slow 300mm AF-D lens. I think that technique has a big part to play its not a case of throwing money at the problem (or is that just Chelsea)

Why upgrade, how longs a piece of string? I did from a D70 to the D200 cos I wanted faster more accurate AF and environmentally sealed body so when its wet I don't worry (to much) If I had owned a 350D I would probably using a 30D now, would my pictures be any better or worst? Not at all because the biggest limitation is me, will I ever get out of my equipment photos that justify upgrading - very rarely, most of my picture I am pleased with, the nicer ones I publish on this and my web site and very very occasionally I get one used else where.

I appreciate those on this forum that have the ability to try out equipment and post review comments it helps me consider what i would do if i were in the market for new equipment (or a millionaire) its no different than picking up a magazine out of WH Smiths as it is I originally bought a Nikon because of ergonomics (if it had been for brightness of the viewfinder or smoothness / quietness of the shutter I would have bought a Canon 350D) since then the lenses have grown and unless I win the lottery would not consider a move to another manufacturer irrespective of who on paper wears the crown

Lastly whilst not a dig at the 1DMkIII I read it was voted 7th in the #most heartbreaking gadget of 2007" by wired.com
 
Is it safe? Has that scary man gone?

Whether these two companies are rivals or partners in crime.... we are their lifes blood, and as such we are the sole reason as to how the modern SLR has evolved. We have moulded what we see in all our cameras....the shape, the size, the feel and just about everything connected with the device........

But thats where the customers involvement ends

Canon and Nikon are long standing, successful businesses that are shrewd enough to realise that if they were to spend their time fighting amongst themselves, there would soon be other companies to step into their shoes and take over the marketplace. So it makes perfect sense to make the public believe they are doing their uppermost to give you the best products possible, therefore each company can do as it does presently.....the cameras just drip off the production line at a slow steady pace, each fulfilling their own little niche. We play the catch up game to stay abreast of the latest technology and they give us just enough to keep us happy in the knowledge we are getting value for our hard earned cash. Cano has one (large) piece of the pie, and Nikon another.... the other companies get the crumbs and are kept at bay.
 
I feel that the title of the original post was rather provocative and was bound to cause a strong reaction from both Nikon and Canon camps which is regrettable. They are both great makes of camera and nobody can deny that Canon have certainly had the lead in certain aspects in recent years notably low noise at high ISO. That however has change recently with the introduction of the D300 and the D3 well informed sources indicate that curently Nikon has the lead. Luminous Landscape is one such well informed source and coming from reknowned Canon shooter Michael Reichmann this says an awful lot. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/nikon-d3-d300.shtml
This as I said was a well informed comparison of the new Nikon D300 and D3 not the result of a short session with an unfamiliar camera. Another well informed Canon shooter has this to say regarding the new Nikons.
I have been testing the D3 all week and in my opinion it is far better than any of the Canons, and this is from a dedicated Canon pro. The high ISO performance is better IMHO than the 1D MK3, so is the autofocus. The images also have a much better dynamic range, one look at the histograms compared to the 1DS MK3 show that. I have been shooting both cameras alongside each other and I have given up the MK3 as it is too slow to do much. If you want to follow my shooting tests then check out the First Looks on the main Warehouse Express site, sorry but am not allowed to post them here.

I am actually happy that Nikon have done this and really got it right with both the D3 and the D300 as it will hopefully give Canon a kick. It doesn't really matter to me whether people shoot Canon or Nikon as a good photographers can shoot with anything but I am really glad to see that the D3 is now at least on a par with the best Canon has to offer. And Nikon has the 200-400 which is damn attractive for the kind of photography I do. Anyway just wanted to add my 2 1/2 p worth!

While I do prefer Nikon to Canon I am certainly not a Nikon fanboy because I do own a Canon and I will freely admit to lusting after the Canon 1D Mk II, I wouldn't touch a 1D Mk III with a barge pole though and you only have to read threads such as this one to realise that Canon lost a lot of supporters over this as many are now switching to Nikon. It makes for very interesting reading all 80+ pages of it.. http://www.naturescapes.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=103425
 
Morning Ian,

I don’t think Nigel was having a go at you, the Canon v Nikon debate is an open sore which is well left alone. You just happened to get a broadside.

I think what Nigel was alluding too was a post he wrote a month or two back on the high cost of camera bodies and the how can they keep justifying these high prices?

I feel that as consumers we are being manipulated into paying premium prices by Nikon and Canon, a lot of folk did stretch themselves financially to purchase the Mk III, only to see it dramatically fall in price after two months. I think NB was opening the batting on behalf of these people.

You summed it up perfectly with your post; it’s a very successful marketing strategy.

Whether it’s fair or us being naive, I don’t know.
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 16 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top