Nikon: where's the competition?
September 26th, 2007I've photographed with Nikon cameras for over 10 years now. Sure, that's not nearly as many years as some of the outstanding photographers using this equipment today, but I'd like to think that 10 years not only marks me as a loyal customer but also means that I might know a thing or two about Nikon's product line and where it is lacking. And, lately, when compared to Canon, slow to market and very lacking has been all Nikon is providing. So much so that, despite the expense, I'm considering switching.
First, let's start with the big guns — the Full Frame Sensor Digital camera. The EOS 5D, Canon's Full Frame Sensor camera was announced August 22nd, 2005. Two years later, on August 23th, 2007, Nikon announces the Nikon D3, its first full frame sensor. They are both 12MP cameras with the same sensor size. The Nikon has a few new features (like Live Preview, and a newer image processor) but, for the most part, the cameras are functionally the same with roughly the same quality of output. Yet Canon's version was available two years earlier. And, get this, Canon's version debuted at $2500, half the price of the Nikon D3.
The new Nikon D3 as well as the new Nikon D300 announced at the same time, both boast a new "Live Preview" feature that has never been seen before on a digital SLR. Whether it's useful to you or not isn't important, it's innovation and lots of people are looking for it. The new Canon EOS 40D announced just a few days prior to the Nikon also has this Live Preview feature. So much for innovation being Nikon's strong point. And, while the D300 is 12MP to the 40D's 10MP, the 40D is almost $500 less expensive. I'd gladly give up 2 of my 12MP for $500.
Or, perhaps you're looking for a Point and Shoot to complement your dSLR. You want something that will give you manual control, high quality output, and a decent focal range in a much smaller package. And, if possible, you'd still like to be able to use the wireless flash system you bought to go with your dSLR in case you need a little more light. In the Canon world, you've got two choices in their current line: The 12MP Powershot G9 with a 35-210mm f/2.8-4.8 lens for $500 or the 8MP Powershot S5 IS with a 36-432mm f/2.7-3.5 for $420. In the Nikon world, however, you only have the Nikon P5100 with a 35-123mm f/2.7-5.3 lens for $400. Prior to the current camera line, both companies had cameras available with similar qualities to the above at similar price points. While both of the Canon offerings are a bit more expensive than the Nikon, the lenses in both cases are far superior. And, then sensor size on the Nikon is the same size as the Powershot S5s. The G9, for $100 more, has a huge (therefore, less noisy) sensor.
The best selling cameras in the US are Canons. Canons are almost always less expensive than their Nikon equivalents or, if priced more, offer a lot of features for that extra cash. Canon almost always releases the next level of features before Nikon does. Most Canon cameras have equal or greater image quality when compared to Nikons. Canon glass is used by professionals worldwide and is considered by many to be some of the best in the world.
Obviously, Nikon's Research and Development team and Marketing team are asleep. They're about to lose a customer and I seriously doubt I'm the only one.





















Pretty much all cameras produce roughly the same quality. What specifically do you want to do with your current camera system that you cannot do, but could do if you bought Canon instead?
The only things I can think of is full frame DoF, full frame detail and possibly full frame noise control.
The price of Nikon and Canon cameras are clearly staggered because of performance differences. D40 is 6MP and hence cheaper than the 400D. The D80 has more features than the 400D and is more expensive. Same with 40D and D300: they are both great cameras at their price points. I'm not interested in compacts, but if I was, then as I like wide angle, the GX100 looks interesting.
Lenses are a moot point at the pro level. Both make excellent lenses and I don't see a lot missing from either 2.8 pro line. As I have kids, I can't afford (justify!) a 70-200VR anyway! I'm in the "consumer" lens market and Nikon's consumer lenses appear slightly better than their Canon equivalents. Not that I print large enough to be able to see the differences anyway! Canon's does IS at shorter focal ranges, which is good, but they don't have an 18-200 IS, so there's a bit of swings and roundabouts. I reckon that in body IS is plenty good enough for consumers who want all their lenses stable anyway.
Lens pricing is similar enough to not worry about in the UK:
70-300VR = £330, 70-300IS = £365
EF50mm = £69, 50mm Nikkor = £79
70-200VR = £1148, EF70-200 2.8L = £1247
Wide angle is in Canon's favour:
EF-S 10-22mm = £474, 12-24mm f/4 AF-S = £649 (Nikkor is constant aperature though)
Same story with Macro:
EF100mm Macro = $349, 105mm VR Micro = £498 (Nikkor has VR though)
In short, from where I stand, I can't see a lot of difference in practical terms of what I can actually afford to buy at the time point that I can buy it.
i.e. the basic question is what practical difference will it make to your shots?
Regards,
Rob…
Posted on 27-Sep-07 at 2:21 am | Permalink