New Person

[daredevil123]

I maybe wrong with the figures as i dont check them all the time as i mentioned.

yes i know its not a matter of system. and i dont say that canon quality is better than nikon and the other way around.

well alpha or not it does not take away my entitlement to say my own opinion right?
just like what i've said... with sales or not i will die with a canon in my hand.

there is so many reason i say that. first of all i am not rich and i could not afford
to buy a new line up of system again. secondly i know my system very well.
i know when it will underexpose or over expose in lenses that i stick.

well i guess you hit that right. this debate will never end but its a healthy discussion that can open each others eyes.

i have opened my eyes that is why i realized that i got no choice but to die with a canon system.

and btw: about the eternity of 3 years in the business world? thats why they have point and shoot. just take a look at Apple Inc. how many years in a row do you think apple is being eaten alive by PC.

thanks to ipod and iphone they got their shares back

Yup, i am merely pointing out facts that are contrary to your "IMPOSSIBLE, and Nikon is not even close to Canon in DSLR market share" statement. Nikon has indeed caught up and is just 1% below Canon for 2008. It is anybody's game for 2009, and with the strong sales of D90, D700 and D5k, I wouldn't be surprised if Nikon will take the lead in market share in 2009.

I totally respect your opinions on why sticking to Canon make sense to you.

And also btw, Apple's comeback started with the iMac. It may not be that apparent in SG, but when I was still working in the US, the iMac was almost revolutionary when it was launched and sales in the states were amazing.

 

[Rashkae]

so, for this 2010, i like to start it again...be a "new person" in photograhy...lookin for new dslr (maybe canon or nikon ; which one is leading brand), budget about 1k, and seriously can play wit this toy (their setting, lens and others).....and not too simple bcos im not easily get satisfied, need something new that can explore again again and again..

Both Canon and Nikon have about 35% of the market, so they are tied.

But in the sub-1k range, Sony and Pentax are the strongest options.

 

[daredevil123]

Both Canon and Nikon have about 35% of the market, so they are tied.

But in the sub-1k range, Sony and Pentax are the strongest options.

This is so true. :thumbsup:

 

[daredevil123]

Get the terms right or else it will be very confusing. prosumer is usually the term for PnS with manual controls or super zooms with fixed non-interchangeable lens. See my comments in red below. Also your pricing is also all off. You can also check with the Nikon price guide for a better idea in pricing.

For DX,
For entry level, you can get
D3000 (ard 1-1.2K) or D5000 (ard 1.5K)
street prices for D3000 is around 900 and D5k is around 1200 (both with 18-55 kit)

For prosumer, you can get
D90 (ard 1.8K) or D300s (ard 3.4K)
D90 (enthusiast) is around 1700 with 18-105 kit
D300s is semi-pro. around 2.5k body only. But there is purchase with purchase option to get the battery grip for $99.

For FX,
For prosumer, you can get
D700 (dunno how much)
D700 is also semi-pro and runs around 3.4k body only

For professional, you can get
D3, D3s, D3x (All >>> 5K)

 

[spidejep]

regardless your choice of brand, again the person behind the camera matters the most.
Set your budget, get the camera, start shooting and start sharing. All questions will be answered automatically.

 

[fergo]

......forum with such good discussion and good open minded opinion means we will learn a lot with every participants opinion. nothing personal and no heart feelings.

+1 :thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[laposto]

Both Canon and Nikon have about 35% of the market, so they are tied.

But in the sub-1k range, Sony and Pentax are the strongest options.

Rashkae, have you compared the alpha and canon side by side in terms of quality.. FF to FF.
dont mind thee size of the sensor as long as they are both 35mm.. what do you think about it? i mean personally what have you noticed?

i had been reading about the A system since last year around september-october and they offer some features that are unique in the market, and both include improvements in sensor and processor design that Sony says will deliver better high ISO image quality. One unique feature is Auto HDR, where the camera captures two images and merges them into one High Dynamic Range image.

 

[Rashkae]

Rashkae, have you compared the alpha and canon side by side in terms of quality.. FF to FF.
dont mind thee size of the sensor as long as they are both 35mm.. what do you think about it? i mean personally what have you noticed?

i had been reading about the A system since last year around september-october and they offer some features that are unique in the market, and both include improvements in sensor and processor design that Sony says will deliver better high ISO image quality. One unique feature is Auto HDR, where the camera captures two images and merges them into one High Dynamic Range image.

Well, these are two separate things really.

for the first question, I've compared the A900 to the 5dMkii. The 5DMkii will definitely have the cleaner high-iso pictures, though at the expense of fine detail. Canon's noise reduction "looks" clean but details are lost, but this may not matter too much when what you need is clean-looking high ISO shots. The A900 is designed as a low-iso body for landscape/studio/portrait shots. If you will be shooting sports events, the 5DMkii is better. But for low-ISO (200-400) use, the sheer detail, sharpness, dynamic range and handling of highlight transitions, the A900/A850 is better. There's a very smooth rolloff from highlights, and so it rarely clips them (compared to the 5DMkii in the same scene). The antialiasing filters on the A900/A850 are optimized for color separation, not ISO noise. So it depends on your needs again.

Your second question is about the A500/A550, which are APS-C cameras and not full-frame. They took a lot of the improvements they're given to Nikon's D90 and D300s in terms of noise handling and applied it to their own cameras. In this case, they took the Nikon approach of having lower ISO noise, but at the expense of color separation. But the Auto HDR really works quite well!

 

[krishna91]

Nikon and Canon have roughly equal market share in the dSLR market. Canon is a larger company because it makes various other electronics like printers and calculators. Whereas Nikon is popular for its optical instruments alone.

At the entry level, brand doesn't matter. Later on, I'd go for Nikon/Canon if I were to turn pro. Sony is catching up as well, with cheaper fullframe options like a900 which have unique features like SSS. Sony a900 could be called a mini d3x for its detail rendition. Also for those who need resolution alone e.g for studio shoots, the cheaper a850 might suffice.

d700 offers 95% of the features of the d3 with a body 60% the size and weight. This makes it a more viable option for people who shoot all types of photography, or a niche area like sports/ photojournalism, and who don't want the large size of the professional series. It offers the best noise performance of a compact professional camera, giving clean pictures even at ISO 6400. It has great weather sealing and is almost a flawless camera, however it lacks the HD video of the 5D Mark II and the resolution of the a900.

5d Mark II is the king of the studio/portraiture and landscape market due to canon's great range and pricing of lenses, as well as above average noise control and a 21 megapixel sensor, and the 1080p HD Video. However it's AF system, frame rate and not-so-great weather sealing might put it to shame beside the d700 when used for other purposes like photojournalism/sports/low light photography.

 

[laposto]

Well, these are two separate things really.
Canon's noise reduction "looks" clean but details are lost)

This is true Rashkae. the noise reduction really works like that. it tries to smoothen the pixels by analyzing the differences of the dots and applying a single wave for all pixels to make them even. its like chemotherapy .

if i will be shooting in a 50 iso using my highest aperture in a very well lighted environment.. which camera will stand out in terms of resolution, crispiness and colors? dont consider the lens in this question. lets just say using a normal wide like 24.

how about the treatment of highlights.. are they better in the A system? For some reason i am not impressed with the handling of canon DSLR's when it comes to highlights. I am considering this year to get a medium format for landscape but i will be using film. i am expecting that A900 should kill mkII in good lighting in low ISO considering the extra MP but will it exceed far or just slight a bit? if it will exceed MK2 low iso image quality about 30-40 percent than i think i want to have an a900 as well. what do you think?

ill check my friends a900 and maybe borrow it for a day or two and see how it goes.

 

[laposto]

walau... so much for the A. let talk about d3x and d3.

The D3X is the same thing as the D3, and the D3 is the better camera for most shots. The D3X only costs Nikon about 300sgd extra in parts over the D3, which translates to 1.4k higher price at retail. Someone wake me up when the price of the D3X gets in line with its actual value, but for 13k+, everyone else is boycotting it, too.

Sure you see noted pros in the brochure: that's because Nikon pays them to go shoot and appear in the brochure. None of those guys bought the D3X; it wasn't available when the brochure was printed... like ken wanabe.. i mean watanabe in canon :bsmilie:

 

[Rashkae]

if i will be shooting in a 50 iso using my highest aperture in a very well lighted environment.. which camera will stand out in terms of resolution, crispiness and colors? dont consider the lens in this question. lets just say using a normal wide like 24.

In this scenario, the A850/A900/Nikon D3x (all using the same base sensor) will stand out. Though of course, if you resize your pics to a web-friendly size, it matters less.

how about the treatment of highlights.. are they better in the A system? For some reason i am not impressed with the handling of canon DSLR's when it comes to highlights. I am considering this year to get a medium format for landscape but i will be using film. i am expecting that A900 should kill mkII in good lighting in low ISO considering the extra MP but will it exceed far or just slight a bit? if it will exceed MK2 low iso image quality about 30-40 percent than i think i want to have an a900 as well. what do you think?

ill check my friends a900 and maybe borrow it for a day or two and see how it goes.

This is the biggest difference in terms of image quality that I have seen between the systems. While both can produce great, sharp images, the highlight treatment seems to suffer the most on the Canon system, though they do the best (for such high pixel density) on high ISO. For my tastes, i prefer the Sony treatment, so that's why i'm using the Sony system.

Here's an online article or two with some picture examples:
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2008/12/sony-vs-nikon-v.html

http://www.photocrati.com/compariso...anon-eos-5d-mk-ii-vs-nikon-d700-vs-sony-a900/

 

[Rashkae]

walau... so much for the A. let talk about d3x and d3.

The D3X is the same thing as the D3, and the D3 is the better camera for most shots. The D3X only costs Nikon about 300sgd extra in parts over the D3, which translates to 1.4k higher price at retail. Someone wake me up when the price of the D3X gets in line with its actual value, but for 13k+, everyone else is boycotting it, too.

Sure you see noted pros in the brochure: that's because Nikon pays them to go shoot and appear in the brochure. None of those guys bought the D3X; it wasn't available when the brochure was printed... like ken wanabe.. i mean watanabe in canon :bsmilie:

Errr... The D3X uses the A900 24MP sensor. The D3 is nikon's own 12MP sensor. Or do you mean the D3S? Because the D3X is really not that similar to the D3.

 

[laposto]

Errr... The D3X uses the A900 24MP sensor. The D3 is nikon's own 12MP sensor. Or do you mean the D3S? Because the D3X is really not that similar to the D3.

I mean every word my friend. The D3X is a total no-big-deal. It's not even 24.4MP; Nikon is playing a psychological ploy by accidentally mis-stating the resolution as 24.5MP. Multiply 6,048 x 4,032 and see how many pixels you get.

There is very little visible difference when you only double the area pixel count (12 MP vs. 24 MP). There is only a 42% increase in linear resolution with the D3X (6,048 pixels horizontally) over the D3 (4,256 pixels), which is barely visible. This means that, all else being equal, that images from the D3X can be enlarged only 42% more, while the D3X has half the ISO at the same noise level and half the frame rate

Since the D3X will have to be shot at one stop slower ISO for the same clean results, the added blur for real subjects shot one f/stop wider (or one stop slower shutter speed) often can give softer results on the D3X. Kaboom!

Do you really want to pay a 5.3k+ premium over the D3 for a mere 42% improvement in linear resolution? Why not buy a D3 for speed and low light, and buy a Canon 5D Mark II for high-resolution full-frame shots for 3.8k, and pocket the leftover 1.5k+ to go party? Very, very few photographers know what they're doing well enough to get this sort of sharpness at the sensor, so for most peeps, D3X images will look the same (or worse) than D3 images.

Buy a D700 instead for speed and ease-of-use, or a Canon 5D Mark II if you need ultimate resolution. I'm serious: the D700 handles much better than the D3 if you don't need the frame rate for sports. :think:

 

[laposto]

Errr... The D3X uses the A900 24MP sensor. The D3 is nikon's own 12MP sensor. Or do you mean the D3S? Because the D3X is really not that similar to the D3.

Camera makers use the number of megapixels a camera has to hoodwink you into thinking it has something to do with camera quality. They use it because even a tiny linear resolution increase results in a huge total pixel increase, since the total pixel count varies as the total area of the image, which varies as the square of the linear resolution. In other words, an almost invisible 40% increase in the number of pixels in any one direction results in a doubling of the total number of pixels in the image. Therefore camera makers can always brag about how much better this week's camera is, with even negligible improvements.

This gimmick is used by salespeople and manufacturers to you feel as if your current camera is inadequate and needs to be replaced even if the new cameras each year are only slightly better.

 

[laposto]

the worst part is... despite all of these time.. even we know what they are doing.. we still buy them

 

[laposto]

aha. to much debate were having my friend.. makes my eyes watery and sleepy. lets continue later ya. even vampires need to sleep.. nice topic here. ehehe :thumbsup:

 

[wongcho]

Yup, i am merely pointing out facts that are contrary to your "IMPOSSIBLE, and Nikon is not even close to Canon in DSLR market share" statement. Nikon has indeed caught up and is just 1% below Canon for 2008. It is anybody's game for 2009, and with the strong sales of D90, D700 and D5k, I wouldn't be surprised if Nikon will take the lead in market share in 2009.

You can go to the link below for some discussion on the 2009 comparison:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1036&thread=34084229&page=1

 

[A Whale]

If you're looking for a beginner to mid lvl DSLR, do read up what Sony and Pentax is capable of. Dont blindly follow the masses :bsmilie:

 

[laposto]

You can go to the link below for some discussion on the 2009 comparison:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1036&thread=34084229&page=1

Walau.. Enough of the sales errr.. I know we started this but just drop e sales thing lah it just creates a barrier between nikon and canon users

even canon outsale nikon it doesn't proves that it's a better camera just because everybody buy it.. and vice versa.

This nikon vs canon is over as far I am concern...
Maybe we can just compare them side by side instead of comparing the sales because sales is out of our League as a consumer.

Nikon or canon is nothing but a matter of own preference.