This is great news! I'm perfectly happy with the D2X and not inclined to pick up the D2Xs, simply because the "nips and tucks" that Rob cites aren't that significant for my use. But in the ways of the digital market, the new model will cause a significant drop in the price of the D2X, and I'll go there in a hurry to pick up another.
The D2X is already a terrific unit, so anyone buying the improved version will be served well. Can't go wrong either way!
I am not shooting digital yet, so I would be intersted in other people's take on this. Doesn't it seem like Nikon is sitting back while Canon is going full speed ahead in terms of pushing the envelope? Sure Canon had a small step up in the 30D I guess, but then they also delivered the 5D - which looks to be a really solid camera. And now with the possibility of a 22MP SLR in the fall (can't wait)...
I was really hoping for something a little more substantial in terms of the next Nikon offering, and this is a bit of a disappointment... At least jump up in MP (16 at least?) AND include these new features??
Posted by Scott Buckel on June 1, 2006 at 10:56 AM
I have and really like my D2X - it is a great camera. The new version does not offer much to me as I do not use the high speed crop mode. The people that do, I think will really like it with the new masking.
It seems to me that Nikon's business model is not to have a new body coming several times a year, but to me it seems that Canon has that business model. Isn't this D2X to D2Xs like the Canon's 1D N upgrade from the 1D MarkII that came out late last year?
Nikon was always slower to market, but usually with superior products, even in the film days. This is why I used Nikon cameras in my 35mm days - you can't beat an F-series for reliability and ergonomics in my opinion. If I had to go back to 35mm I would pick up an old F3 over just about anything.
When it comes to digital I think Nikon missed the boat - Canon stole the pro market from under their feet with the EOS line and continued to get products out faster. Unless Nikon changes their product development strategy I personally feel they will have a hard time taking the lead position again.
Anyway, to me it's not too important other than I think competition is good. When I needed a digital camera, Canon was a better bang for the buck so I went for it. I still miss the Nikon ergonomics though.
Didn't realize you had Nikon in your past, Guy. Your points are exactly on the mark in my experience.
I was PO'ed at Nikon over unrelated issues when we started digital, so I bought the D30 and 5 lenses to spite them. Got PO'ed at Canon over the D60 fiasco, so I dumped it all and went back to Nikon (via the Fuji S2, which used Nikon lenses at first). Contemporary Canon's have lots to offer over Nikons, but therein lies the problem for me and my wife: We have collected over 40 Nikon lenses in the last 30 years, and dumping them to replace with Canon would be brutal. By virtue of our lens collection, we're pretty well stuck with Nikon for the time being.
If Canon manages breakthroughs beyond 22mp, on the order of MF back resolutions, it may force our hand. We have a large collection of MF gear gathering dust in our studio. If a manufacturer comes out with a digital back competitive in prices with Canon 35mm bodies (as opposed to current $20-30,000), we would pick that up and resume using MF for all our commercial work. But if Canon nudges their sensors up to 30mp or higher for under $10k, we'll probably dump the whole Nikon setup and the whole MF setup to cover a complete conversion to Canon.
What seeds of wisdom are hidden in our experiences? Prior purchases of lenses and other gear pretty much confine you to the same brands in moving to digital, unless you are willing to take enormous financial hits. If I was starting out today, it would be Canon all the way and Nikon would never cross my lips. It could still happen, but we'd take such a beating it has been easy to put off.
WOW, I started with Minolta so my move to Canon with an EOS 1's in 1993 was easy! My move back to Canon was only due to the TS-E lenses. Without them I'd probably be shooting a D2x or still using the view camera.
For those who may not be aware of Rob Galbraith (Guy's initial link) I suggest you check his site every so often. He's got good info and as far as my experience goes he calls 'em like he sees 'em (i.e not "brand blind"). The Nikon vs. Canon thing is parallel to the PC vs. Mac debate in many ways. At the end of the day, buy the unit that works for you and meets your technical threshold requirements (2 page spreads, prints decorating your walls, sharing images with grandma via email or maybe just posting on NPN). Let's put it this way, design and development competition is good for the industry and being number 2 in this industry doesn't mean you have to take your ball and go home. As I stated in a previous post about the rumoured 22MP Canon, at the end of the day it's still the brain behind the viewfinder that makes the image. A camera is just a tool. If your excitement over gear coming down the technical pipe is equal to the excitement you get making images then great... but the former should never eclipse the later.
Posted by Scott Buckel on June 2, 2006 at 10:26 AM
Many of these posts have me thinking about something.
I only occasionally, mostly in the past, worked with marketing folks. I am a science/technology guy that supports product development with some knowledge of marketing (probably enough to be dangerous). I am wondering if the marketing folks at Nikon are thinking about would uses there cameras and who are the major consumers. I am thinking that Nikon thinks that the editorial, commercial and photojournalism markets may be their largest base of clients. These are cases where a good print no larger than the average magazine is a big as you need to go. Therefore you really do not need to have the zillion megapixel camera. As Peter said it is what is behind the camera that matters and I think Nikon believes/knows this. I am not really sure what Canon's marketing department thinks (I really do not pay attention to their advertisements), but they are part of a much larger company with about a 10 fold greater development budget. Isn't it amazing that the company with the larger budget comes out with more products per year (yes, budgeting for my group has started for this year!)?
Nature photographers are not, unfortunately, the major base of camera sales from what I understand. As a nature photographer I really like seeing details in my captures, but as one of the smaller bvases of sales, will companies really cater to us? I am thinking it is unrealistic.
16 years ago when I bought my first Nikon I bought it for the same reasons as Guy, I really like the ergonomics of Nikon. Their digital bodies to me have that same feel, and for me, the Canon cameras do not have those same properties for me. Having recently used the Canon 1DMk2, it felt really funny to me. As I tell colleagues that want to know what the best camera is, I tell them to go and handle the camera and buy the one that has the best ergonomics. It would be nice for NIkon to have more than one TSE lens. . .I think it would be great if Nikon had a series of DO lenses.
Hank - you have a great idea, I think I may look for a good used D2X to have as a back up!
I'm still digesting my experiences at the WPPI convention in Las Vegas this April. There were over 600 exhibitors at the week long trade show. WPPI is "Wedding and Portrait Photographers International," a pretty specific group made up largely of seasoned pros numbering in the tens of thousands, with 15,000 converging on the convention. Most regard nature photography as a bit of a lark- certainly fun, but not something they would count on for income commensurate with the effort involved in startup. I haven't seen any analysis, but I'd bet a large portion have storefronts and multiple employees, and have probably been in business at least 10 years. We've been members and attended conferences every other year for the last 15 years, giving me the opportunity to watch trends both in the vendors and in the members.
For this conversation, it's important to summarize that these photographers have a whole lot of experience with print sales, large prints, photo labs and daily client contact. They're demanding about print quality, and like us, most make their real money on very large prints (including canvases) turned out by a lab somewhere rather than "home" printed. They also use their cameras all day long, often ten or twelve hours a day and six days a week.
It's kind of a funny market when it comes to detail in photos and especially large prints. You simply DON"T want to show every pore, wrinkle, blemish and age spot in subjects' skin. You often use some variety of soft filter on the camera or alternatively a variety of Photoshop techniques to soften specific parts of an image. Photos definitely have to "feel" sharp and detailed while not revealing skin problems. All this while being prepared to turn out prints as big as 30x40" from a shoot, since those are your moneymakers.
With all that for background I have to say that in a week I never once heard mention, much less discussion or debate about sensor size and megapixels. There are simply much more important factors in image quality. All the labs provide tables of file size needed for various print sizes, but that's about as close as it comes. And you would be amazed what big prints they turn out from comparatively small files- again for a high dollar, demanding clientel. We regularly turn out 20x30's from the 6mp Fuji S2, and 30x40's are a snap with the D2X.
So in that environment and market, you have to ask what's all the rip about megapixels. "My sensor is bigger than your sensor" is a good lounge lizard line, but you won't find many folks interested on the floor of the convention.
Ergonomics is a huge issue with these folks who carry and use their cameras constantly.
At the trade show Nikon had by far the largest booth (along with facilities for hourly seminars and demos) and attracted a lot more traffic than Canon. The biggest ding against the D2X is its weight.
The folks visiting Canon had very little interest in any of the 1Ds incarnations, rather they were looking at smaller, lighter and cheaper models. Most folks I listened to prefered the "feel" of Nikon over Canon.
Further insights:
Mac had a huge booth and a similar setup to Nikon for hourly demos. No other computer company was on hand. It seemed like every second or third booth was a software company, and though Mac was hugely used by attendees, probably 2/3's of the software wouldn't work on a Mac.
I've taken too much time and space for this Scott, but I wanted to follow up on your insights. The "nature" market is indeed very small in the larger scheme, but so is the group represented by WPPI. The total market is huge, but it's made up of lots of smaller markets with fairly specific requirements. How the companies choose to serve the larger market- whether lots of products to appeal to lots of clients or fewer products aimed more generally- seems very much to be a strategic decision.
As much as we love and debate the world of nature photography, we're a small fish in a big pond. I believe the manufacturers consider our needs, but I don't think we dominate their thoughts in trying to sell to all the fish in the pond. There are simply too many other uses for digital cameras and criteria for application of their files.
I haven't liked the 'noise' problem with the D2X and have a feeling that the moderately priced D200 will be better in this respect. I am guessing/hoping that in all other respects I wont be disappointed when I finish my part exchange soon, when my dealer gets some new stock as he has sold out of D200's now.
It seems like a wrong move to buy a 'cheaper' camera in this area but looking at the specs of both cameras I think the D2X tried to wring too much out of too small a sensor.
I'm not acquainted with a noise problem with the D2X, but the longest I've shot so far is 2 minutes @ ISO 400. I did some night shots at that setting and didn't find any noise in the shadows. Using it at 1600 and 3200 ISO at shutter speeds down to 1/4 second, I've been delighted with the results- much, much better than film rated at the same ISOs. Our comparisons with the D200 have been limited. For all-day work (as described in my last post) the weight of the D2X is an issue for my wife, so she's going to pick up the D200.
We just finished an all day job (long day!) photographing interiors of a new hotel/restaurant for their ads and web site. Even my hiney was dragging by the end, and it was a delight to pick up her Fuji S2 now and then. Most shots were lit with studio lights @ 100 ISO to 400 ISO (the range need for balancing interior lighting with exterior light for showing scenes through the windows over the course of the day) and shutter speeds no lower than 1/15. We had to shoot the Honeymoon Suite with a red heart-shaped hot tub in an alcove off the bedroom, with all three walls of the alcove mirrored. Setting up that shot required almost two hours of trial and error, and ultimately had to be shot using long exposures with ambient or candles rather than studio lights (ISO 400, f/11, 30 seconds for candlelit scenes). No noise there, but shots so good that the hot tub started looking really good to our tired bodies!
In truth, the feature list is so long compared to the price on the D200 it's a much better buy than the D2X, giving you something like 95% of the features for a third of the price. If it had been around when I was buying, I'd probably have bought it rather than the D2X simply as a smart business move (for our general needs). Still love the D2X, but in truth when the D2Xs comes along, I'm more likely to pick up a couple of D200's for backup rather than a single used D2X.
I read everything carefully and dont see any improvement that will effect me in any serious way by upgrading. Besides, it appears that Nikon is going to offer many of these upgrades in the form of a firmware update
I have printed from RAW images on the 6 Mp Canon 10D to 20x30 with no problem. Very sharp, nice color subtlety. I shoot the 8.2 Mp 20D now, which has a much better sensor than the 10D and DRebel did, and 20x30s are easy, with 30x40s awaiting a client who wants some thing that big. I shoot predominantly nature and sell prints online. One catch with Mp count is that some glossy mag photo editors insist on images from a 12 Mp or larger camera. Certainly, a 12 Mp jpeg makes a double-page spread easy to achieve, but I've asked some mag experts why they wouldn't take RAW images from the 8.2 Mp 20D when I can make stunning 13x19 prints at 300 dpi, which are larger than their largest needs. I've never gotten a satisfactory answer.
At any rate, I'm not in a hurry to get a camer with more megapixels. If I can make wonderful prints to 30x40 (and bigger, in fact), why go nuts and pay gazillions of dollar for a 12, 16 or 22 Mp camera? It IS nice to shoot a bigger sensor when cropping becomes a factor, which is why I dream of a 1Ds MarkII, but that's basically the only reason. My next body will be the 1D MarkIIn for its blazing speed.
Like the Nikon D2X upgrade that started this post, Canon's upgrades from 20D to 30D and 1D MarkII to 1D MarkIIn are incremental and not especially important to me.
Discussion
14 replieshttp://robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-7895-8338
Guy
The D2X is already a terrific unit, so anyone buying the improved version will be served well. Can't go wrong either way!
I was really hoping for something a little more substantial in terms of the next Nikon offering, and this is a bit of a disappointment... At least jump up in MP (16 at least?) AND include these new features??
It seems to me that Nikon's business model is not to have a new body coming several times a year, but to me it seems that Canon has that business model. Isn't this D2X to D2Xs like the Canon's 1D N upgrade from the 1D MarkII that came out late last year?
Nikon was always slower to market, but usually with superior products, even in the film days. This is why I used Nikon cameras in my 35mm days - you can't beat an F-series for reliability and ergonomics in my opinion. If I had to go back to 35mm I would pick up an old F3 over just about anything.
When it comes to digital I think Nikon missed the boat - Canon stole the pro market from under their feet with the EOS line and continued to get products out faster. Unless Nikon changes their product development strategy I personally feel they will have a hard time taking the lead position again.
Anyway, to me it's not too important other than I think competition is good. When I needed a digital camera, Canon was a better bang for the buck so I went for it. I still miss the Nikon ergonomics though.
Guy
I was PO'ed at Nikon over unrelated issues when we started digital, so I bought the D30 and 5 lenses to spite them. Got PO'ed at Canon over the D60 fiasco, so I dumped it all and went back to Nikon (via the Fuji S2, which used Nikon lenses at first). Contemporary Canon's have lots to offer over Nikons, but therein lies the problem for me and my wife: We have collected over 40 Nikon lenses in the last 30 years, and dumping them to replace with Canon would be brutal. By virtue of our lens collection, we're pretty well stuck with Nikon for the time being.
If Canon manages breakthroughs beyond 22mp, on the order of MF back resolutions, it may force our hand. We have a large collection of MF gear gathering dust in our studio. If a manufacturer comes out with a digital back competitive in prices with Canon 35mm bodies (as opposed to current $20-30,000), we would pick that up and resume using MF for all our commercial work. But if Canon nudges their sensors up to 30mp or higher for under $10k, we'll probably dump the whole Nikon setup and the whole MF setup to cover a complete conversion to Canon.
What seeds of wisdom are hidden in our experiences? Prior purchases of lenses and other gear pretty much confine you to the same brands in moving to digital, unless you are willing to take enormous financial hits. If I was starting out today, it would be Canon all the way and Nikon would never cross my lips. It could still happen, but we'd take such a beating it has been easy to put off.
I only occasionally, mostly in the past, worked with marketing folks. I am a science/technology guy that supports product development with some knowledge of marketing (probably enough to be dangerous). I am wondering if the marketing folks at Nikon are thinking about would uses there cameras and who are the major consumers. I am thinking that Nikon thinks that the editorial, commercial and photojournalism markets may be their largest base of clients. These are cases where a good print no larger than the average magazine is a big as you need to go. Therefore you really do not need to have the zillion megapixel camera. As Peter said it is what is behind the camera that matters and I think Nikon believes/knows this. I am not really sure what Canon's marketing department thinks (I really do not pay attention to their advertisements), but they are part of a much larger company with about a 10 fold greater development budget. Isn't it amazing that the company with the larger budget comes out with more products per year (yes, budgeting for my group has started for this year!)?
Nature photographers are not, unfortunately, the major base of camera sales from what I understand. As a nature photographer I really like seeing details in my captures, but as one of the smaller bvases of sales, will companies really cater to us? I am thinking it is unrealistic.
16 years ago when I bought my first Nikon I bought it for the same reasons as Guy, I really like the ergonomics of Nikon. Their digital bodies to me have that same feel, and for me, the Canon cameras do not have those same properties for me. Having recently used the Canon 1DMk2, it felt really funny to me. As I tell colleagues that want to know what the best camera is, I tell them to go and handle the camera and buy the one that has the best ergonomics. It would be nice for NIkon to have more than one TSE lens. . .I think it would be great if Nikon had a series of DO lenses.
Hank - you have a great idea, I think I may look for a good used D2X to have as a back up!
I'm still digesting my experiences at the WPPI convention in Las Vegas this April. There were over 600 exhibitors at the week long trade show. WPPI is "Wedding and Portrait Photographers International," a pretty specific group made up largely of seasoned pros numbering in the tens of thousands, with 15,000 converging on the convention. Most regard nature photography as a bit of a lark- certainly fun, but not something they would count on for income commensurate with the effort involved in startup. I haven't seen any analysis, but I'd bet a large portion have storefronts and multiple employees, and have probably been in business at least 10 years. We've been members and attended conferences every other year for the last 15 years, giving me the opportunity to watch trends both in the vendors and in the members.
For this conversation, it's important to summarize that these photographers have a whole lot of experience with print sales, large prints, photo labs and daily client contact. They're demanding about print quality, and like us, most make their real money on very large prints (including canvases) turned out by a lab somewhere rather than "home" printed. They also use their cameras all day long, often ten or twelve hours a day and six days a week.
It's kind of a funny market when it comes to detail in photos and especially large prints. You simply DON"T want to show every pore, wrinkle, blemish and age spot in subjects' skin. You often use some variety of soft filter on the camera or alternatively a variety of Photoshop techniques to soften specific parts of an image. Photos definitely have to "feel" sharp and detailed while not revealing skin problems. All this while being prepared to turn out prints as big as 30x40" from a shoot, since those are your moneymakers.
With all that for background I have to say that in a week I never once heard mention, much less discussion or debate about sensor size and megapixels. There are simply much more important factors in image quality. All the labs provide tables of file size needed for various print sizes, but that's about as close as it comes. And you would be amazed what big prints they turn out from comparatively small files- again for a high dollar, demanding clientel. We regularly turn out 20x30's from the 6mp Fuji S2, and 30x40's are a snap with the D2X.
So in that environment and market, you have to ask what's all the rip about megapixels. "My sensor is bigger than your sensor" is a good lounge lizard line, but you won't find many folks interested on the floor of the convention.
Ergonomics is a huge issue with these folks who carry and use their cameras constantly.
At the trade show Nikon had by far the largest booth (along with facilities for hourly seminars and demos) and attracted a lot more traffic than Canon. The biggest ding against the D2X is its weight.
The folks visiting Canon had very little interest in any of the 1Ds incarnations, rather they were looking at smaller, lighter and cheaper models. Most folks I listened to prefered the "feel" of Nikon over Canon.
Further insights:
Mac had a huge booth and a similar setup to Nikon for hourly demos. No other computer company was on hand. It seemed like every second or third booth was a software company, and though Mac was hugely used by attendees, probably 2/3's of the software wouldn't work on a Mac.
I've taken too much time and space for this Scott, but I wanted to follow up on your insights. The "nature" market is indeed very small in the larger scheme, but so is the group represented by WPPI. The total market is huge, but it's made up of lots of smaller markets with fairly specific requirements. How the companies choose to serve the larger market- whether lots of products to appeal to lots of clients or fewer products aimed more generally- seems very much to be a strategic decision.
As much as we love and debate the world of nature photography, we're a small fish in a big pond. I believe the manufacturers consider our needs, but I don't think we dominate their thoughts in trying to sell to all the fish in the pond. There are simply too many other uses for digital cameras and criteria for application of their files.
It seems like a wrong move to buy a 'cheaper' camera in this area but looking at the specs of both cameras I think the D2X tried to wring too much out of too small a sensor.
Be interested to hear your views.
We just finished an all day job (long day!) photographing interiors of a new hotel/restaurant for their ads and web site. Even my hiney was dragging by the end, and it was a delight to pick up her Fuji S2 now and then. Most shots were lit with studio lights @ 100 ISO to 400 ISO (the range need for balancing interior lighting with exterior light for showing scenes through the windows over the course of the day) and shutter speeds no lower than 1/15. We had to shoot the Honeymoon Suite with a red heart-shaped hot tub in an alcove off the bedroom, with all three walls of the alcove mirrored. Setting up that shot required almost two hours of trial and error, and ultimately had to be shot using long exposures with ambient or candles rather than studio lights (ISO 400, f/11, 30 seconds for candlelit scenes). No noise there, but shots so good that the hot tub started looking really good to our tired bodies!
In truth, the feature list is so long compared to the price on the D200 it's a much better buy than the D2X, giving you something like 95% of the features for a third of the price. If it had been around when I was buying, I'd probably have bought it rather than the D2X simply as a smart business move (for our general needs). Still love the D2X, but in truth when the D2Xs comes along, I'm more likely to pick up a couple of D200's for backup rather than a single used D2X.
http://robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-7895-8372
I dont get it
At any rate, I'm not in a hurry to get a camer with more megapixels. If I can make wonderful prints to 30x40 (and bigger, in fact), why go nuts and pay gazillions of dollar for a 12, 16 or 22 Mp camera? It IS nice to shoot a bigger sensor when cropping becomes a factor, which is why I dream of a 1Ds MarkII, but that's basically the only reason. My next body will be the 1D MarkIIn for its blazing speed.
Like the Nikon D2X upgrade that started this post, Canon's upgrades from 20D to 30D and 1D MarkII to 1D MarkIIn are incremental and not especially important to me.