canon d40 vs nikon d300

[gdt]

I am beginning to think I'd prefer the new Nikon d300 , even though I've been a happy Canon user for years.

I'd hate to start learning a new system and adding expensive senses to my already large collection, but the d300 sounds like a dream.

Anyone care to help me decide either way ;) ?

*******

thanks for the wise replies......

[VTEC_EATER]

I would say, wait for the reviews on both cameras, then based on those reviews, make your decision. If you are invested heavily into Canon with many expensive lenses, then I would say stick with Canon. If you are still using the kit lens with maybe a 50/1.8 and a 70-300/4-5.6 then you really aren't that invested and switching to another system wont be as hard.

[GaryS]

If you are a happy Canon user now, I personally think you are nuts for considering a system switch!

Not because there is anything wrong with Nikon (the new ones sound awesome) but because I don't its worth the huge conversion of lenses and accessories to change systems, just for a new body. At some point (18 months), Canon will release a new better body, and you will want to switch back. And a year later, Nikon will do the same thing again.... and again...

Go take photos.... Upgrade to a new body within your system when it has a feature that you NEED.

Only change systems when your photos are so good that someone is PAYING you to convert!

[gdt]

Great advice.....

:)

[TNB]

Myself, I would try to demo both camera bodies before making a switch either way. And if so-called Canon or Nikon lenses hold their value as great as some claim, there really shouldn't be that much difficulty selling the lenses at that much of a loss for one model in order to purchase lenses for the newer model. And since Nikon has also released several new lenses, who knows, a few other Nikon lenses may show up for sale at a reduced price or used at a bargan. Over all, it really is a personal choice--personal preferences (one body over the other) and how much want's to give up to move up and/or switch.

[Glasstream15]

One thing to consider is the fact that there is a 35 to 40% price difference. They really are not competitors. And the price difference between the D300 and 5D is about the same 35% give or take percent.

D300 is a new in between and hits a fairly bare niche. 40D is an upgrade of the 30D. And D300 sorta falls right between the 40D and 5D. Actually, pretty good aim sliding it into a wide open gap.

YMMV

[timmciglobal]

Since no one's used a production D300 and very few have used a production 40D I'd say any opinion is useless.

D300 isn't out till November and who knows how availability will be, 40D is out soon but again ? on availability.

The 40D is a great camera. Will the d300 be better? Who knows, time will tell.

Tim

[Rooz]

i doubt too many people will get their hands on a d300 before xmas.

[Rex914]

I'd hate to start learning a new system and adding expensive senses to my already large collection, but the d300 sounds like a dream.

Those are great reasons for not switching. If you were pulled in by the D3, then that would be a whole different story, but don't you think it's impulsive to consider switching over a single body? Bodies come and go while lenses are timeless.

- Jon

[aparmley]

If you are a happy Canon user now. . .

Just think how happy of a Nikon user you will be!

(I was fairly well invested in Canon; XT, 30D, 17-55 IS, 70-300 IS, 50 1.4, 35 f/2.0, 85 1.8) I came out a head in the switch too, about 1K ahead. Sure, I didn't replace the Canon 17-55 IS but I didn't need it.

The latest batch of new cameras announced by both camps just confirms the switch for me - IMHO I am shooting with camera system I believe is best for me. You should make your decision based on the same reasoning - What is better for you?

Now bring on the AF-S primes.

[timmciglobal]

The sigma 18-50 HSM macro should be a nice addon for a D300.

Tim

[Glasstream15]

I think if I was going to spring for the D300, I'd probably put another 30% with it and get a 5D. Or the 6D when it comes out.

But right now my XT does everything I want it to do.

[DonSchap]

I saw the EOS 40D over at Calumet Photographic, while I was there on Saturday ... picking up some photo-level paper. Other than the 3-inch LCD ... and a couple other things (like the row of side buttons now along the bottom of the camera) ... EOS 20D users are going to feel right at home with it ... because it is a 20D with an "ala SONY-style" rewrap.

Like I've said ... I don't need to burn another $1300 for basically the same thing I'm already shooting. If the 20D goes down, that's a different issue ... but to trade to this ... NOPE. Where's the in-body-IS? That'd be the trade-up "gotcha" and it's just not there! The 10.1 sensor isn't even worth a look.

I even went the extra mile to try an argue myself into the "advantages", actually holding it in my hand ... and not reading it on paper ... and they just weren't enough. I won't miss the rather minute differences in most of my normal shooting.

Just no incentive to even bother. :(

[coldrain]

This is just getting silly, Don. I hope you will soon stop these posts time and time again about your in-body IS.

Just about everything of the 40D is better than of the 20D.
The view finder is bigger and brighter, the focus screens are exchangable, the dynamic range is quite a bit enhanced, the higher ISO settings perform better, the AF system has been enhanced a LOT, the LCD is a lot bigger, and offers 30 frames per second live view when needed, among other things.

It is very clear why Canon and Nikon do not offer in-body IS. Keeping these posts up in every thread do get tiring.

But lets go over it once more:
- Canon and Nikon offer full frame, which will not allow in-body IS.
- In-lens IS is a lot better at tele lenghts (where IS is more important). In-lens IS is the better system, and shows through the viewfinder what the IS does.
- In-lens and in-body IS can not co-exist. Introducing in-body IS with an in-lens IS lens range is a consumer's nightmare.

[Glasstream15]

Don,

Since it is beginning to seem like the most important feature to be found in any camera is in-body IS, PLEASE do us all a favor and go buy an Oly. Canon and Nikon will NEVER offer that. So please deal with it.

[Rooz]

don already has a camera with in-body IS. he has a sony alpha.

[DonSchap]

Side by side, with SONY & Canon, I have learned to appreciate what you can and cannot do with a camera that has

IN-THE-BODY ... IS!

Get a clue, guys. I'm not shooting from the hip with these cameras ... there is a sizable difference at 1/60 ... 1/30 and yes, even 1/15 in what you can actual get and not get between these DSLRs, handheld.

IF ... and this is not a big IF ... just a little one ...

IF Canon put IS in the body ... and made it work with the IS-equipped lenses, already out there ... simply by shutting it down in the body, when the IS-lens was mounted (the technology already exists), then they would simply dominate the entire DSLR world like no one else. The decision not to is simply stubborn and stupid. I have no respect for this kind of abuse, when it is so obvious.

This isn't voodoo, guys, three major players have IS-equipped camera systems. THREE! You tell them to stop using it and switch. Canon doesn't have to switch ... they have the luxury of sporting BOTH! No new lenses ... but ALL lenses. I ask you, how inclusive is that idea?

So ... "get real" and ask for what will help you in your photography. I've seen this tool work and what it does for both old MF lenses, old AF lenses and the newer (non-IS-equipped) ones. Quit complaining about the obvious and don't defend a mistake. It just becomes silly. Believe me when I say, "If you had it ... you would use it." Who's fooling who?

In time, it will reduce the overall cost of current IS-equipped lensing, as people will opt NOT to spend that kind of money for high-end lensing and still get some nifty looking low-light stuff with rather average low-end lensing. Sure, long-glass will probably not benefit nearly as much as the short-glass, but most photographers are not beyond 200mm, anyway, expecially at slow shutter-speeds.

Canon CAN have BOTH (not one over the over ... but BOTH!) ... if THEY want to. It has been common knowledge since 2004. I say, make them want to. We will ALL benefit from the decision and immediately, not later. :cool:

Sadly, in reviewing these posts, I would have to guess that "common sense" really isn't that common, these days. (sigh)

[coldrain]

Getting really tired of these posts... You may find it humorous or funny, Don, but it really polutes threads.

YOU CAN'T HAVE IS IN A LENS AND IN THE BODY!
THEY DO NOT WORK TOGETHER!

COMING UP WITH ALL KINDS OF SILLY SOLUTIONS IN YOU POSTS TO THESE PROBLEMS IS NOT REALISTIC.

You can NOT retrofit all sold EOS lenses with some kind of coding. You can NOT make bigger sensors move.
And the bottom line is... In-body IS is INFERIOR.

Now drop posting the same rant over and over again, have some respect for others.

[Riley]

You can NOT retrofit all sold EOS lenses with some kind of coding. You can NOT make bigger sensors move.
And the bottom line is... In-body IS is INFERIOR.

no it isnt....
1/ its more cost effective (based on E510 less than $100)
2/ IS works on all your format glass
3/ most IS lenses are only 3 stops anyway, IS will be moving from 3 stops to 5 stops quite soon.
4/ OIS lenses are aperture limited for the same reasons that larger FF sensors are slower to move, the moving part needs to be limited in size/mass, that means the aperture will likely be smaller and the lens slower.
5/ recent comparison of Olympus IS compared to Panasonic OIS saw OIS defeated, these cameras where in the same sensor format.
6/ Canon dont market IS because they rather you purchase OIS optics, OIS optics are more suitable for larger sensor 1.3x and 35mm cameras because IS is a lot less effective with larger heavier sensors. But as Don points out, Canon could market both, just as 4/3rds does, but no... the photographer would not use an OIS lens with an active IS camera

[TNB]

YOU CAN'T HAVE IS IN A LENS AND IN THE BODY!
THEY DO NOT WORK TOGETHER!

Sony has a switch to turn off image stabilization and my Nikon lenses have a switch to turn off image stabilization (VR), so why can't Canon/Nikon add IS/VR to the bodies like Sony and have a switch as well and/or like Don wrote in his post... (which to me doesn't mean have IR/VR turned on at the same time in both the camera body and the lens)?

IF Canon put IS in the body ... and made it work with the IS-equipped lenses, already out there ... simply by shutting it down in the body, when the IS-lens was mounted (the technology already exists), then they would simply dominate the entire DSLR world like no one else.

Perhaps, it's just a matter of NOT wanting to add in-camera IS/VR, not a matter of not being able to add the feature.

[Glasstream15]

Perhaps, it's just a matter of NOT wanting to add in-camera IS/VR, not a matter of not being able to add the feature.

Give that man a cigar!!!! They are not going to do it in the forseeable future because THEY DON'T WANT TO!! It is just exactly that simple. If you do not like their way of doing things, there are other manufacturers. Just vote with your wallet.

And, since I started shooting races with a Nikon 35mm SLR in 1963 using 300mm lenses with no AF, AE or IS, I guess I'm just not used to having IS. I'm still trying to get used to auto-focus. Quite often I can do it quicker and more accurately than the camera anyway. And that goes for just about any camera. I grew up using Leica IIIs and Rollies. Then early, non-auto SLRs.

Just learn to use what the equipment gives you and learn to see the picture and you'll be very happy.

And yes, I would love to be driving a Ford GT. But they won't make one for the price of a Grand marquis, so I'm stuck with that. And damned happy to have it because it is so far above my old 1951 Chevrolet. And my Canon XT is so far above that old Rolie or Petrie, maybe even the Leicas. Maybe not. But I doubt seriously if there is a prime lens of moderate, say f3.5, aperture that is in any way better than the old Zeiss Tessar in that old Rollie.

Dang I wish I had some of those cameras back. No auto anything but they sure as hell took great pictures.

[erichlund]

no it isnt....
1/ its more cost effective (based on E510 less than $100)
2/ IS works on all your format glass
3/ most IS lenses are only 3 stops anyway, IS will be moving from 3 stops to 5 stops quite soon.
Nikon's already doing 4 stops on their lenses (since 18-200, 2 years now), I'm sure they will be happy to make it even better when the technology gets "challenged".
4/ OIS lenses are aperture limited for the same reasons that larger FF sensors are slower to move, the moving part needs to be limited in size/mass, that means the aperture will likely be smaller and the lens slower.
I guess you are saying that all the big f2.8 lenses with VR/OS/IS are a myth???
5/ recent comparison of Olympus IS compared to Panasonic OIS saw OIS defeated, these cameras where in the same sensor format.
Olympus vs. Panasonic, aren't they like sleeping together???
6/ Canon dont market IS because they rather you purchase OIS optics, OIS optics are more suitable for larger sensor 1.3x and 35mm cameras because IS is a lot less effective with larger heavier sensors. But as Don points out, Canon could market both, just as 4/3rds does, but no... the photographer would not use an OIS lens with an active IS camera
So, are you suggesting that Canon and Nikon should make smaller sensors so they too could put image stabilization on their sensors, but at the same time increase noise due to pixel density increase? Thank you, but I'll take a pass.

I'm of the feeling that if you want a camera with built-in stabilazation, buy one that has it. Leave our Canons and Nikons alone. We don't need your unnecessary complications.

[coldrain]

The so called comparisson between Olympus and Panasonic was between a Panasonic/Leica standard zoom lens with in-lens IS and an E-510 with standard zoom lens.

No idea what is so interesting about that, the problem of in-body IS shows up with longer lenses where the IS's effectiveness takes a nosedive (even though it is more important in tele focal lengths).

And the fact that in-body IS has to precisely match the focal lenght, yet with every lens you see a shift in focal length when focussing at different distances will make in-body IS even less accurate, especially with some lenses.

Just the usual post, it does not make a difference if we come with good arguments, the same posts will crop up over and over again from the same people.

[fionndruinne]

Don, why not invest in an Olympus system? I'd think the E-510 has a lot to offer over the A-100, which is a bit dated now, and never was good noise-wise (neither is the E-510 particularly, but the customizable noise reduction is a plus). I'd imagine Olympus will continue to use in-body IS, and their DSLR line is getting better. If Sony doesn't put out a suitably good new DSLR, I would think Olympus the better way to go.

[DonSchap]

It is wholly obvious that some people have no idea what an ON/OFF-switch does. Time to go back to school, I guess.

As for Canon's APS-C line of cameras, they SHOULD put IS in every single one. This would quiet the chorus of IN-THE-BODY afficianados and also satisfy the full-sensor jockeys, who won't have it, but in their lenses.

It's not too hard to imagine the benefit that the less-financially-well-off would gleen from such a move. I know exactly what I and others could do with it, regardless of "Coldrain's" feelings what-so-ever, on the subject. I feel no need to go to high-priced lensing to get basically the same thing for a lot less, with what I already own.

We've gone over the average cost of IS-lenses ... and it is not pretty.

If I need better lensing or IS-in-the-flippin'-lens, I know my way to the Camera Retail Shop. I'll make that decision, then.

So, you might request that Canon continue to do as THEY wish ... I prefer another route ... the provider of services does as I, the customer/consumer, wishes ... because I'm paying for it. And when I pay for it ... I want what I want. :p

Technologically, we are there ... make it happen, Canon. Keep the 28-135 IS and the 18-55 IS lenses. I'll make use of the fleet of fine and sharp focusing f/1.8-f/2 PRIMES that I already have. Anti-shake me until I smile, again :D

Those are the marching orders for the EOS 50D IS. You'll see my money then.

Welcome to my world, Coldy. $$$ :cool:

Although, I must say: If Canon dropped the price another $300 for the EOS 40D ... or tossed in a EF 24-105mm f/4 IS USM ... I might just be persuaded to "look the other way" for a little bit. Then again, maybe not. It still sounds like a cheap buy-off! LOL ... oh well. :rolleyes:

[TNB]

It is wholly obvious that some people have no idea what an ON/OFF-switch does. Time to go back to school, I guess.
Do they offer a reading course at that school too? :D

[DonSchap]

Do they offer a reading course at that school too? :D

Nah. They only teach with ... PICTURES and ICONS. :p

28276 OR 28277 ?

Is that a question?

[TNB]

Nah. They only teach with ... PICTURES and ICONS. :p
Too funny. At least that should "help" in the "fast food" industry--just push the "hamburger" icon on the register, then "fries", and so on.

[Riley]

So, are you suggesting that Canon and Nikon should make smaller sensors so they too could put image stabilization on their sensors, but at the same time increase noise due to pixel density increase? Thank you, but I'll take a pass.

No I am not, that should be quite obviously unnecessary as both the Sony and the Pentax have IS in 1.5x crop sensors, and since Canon use smaller 1.62x crop sensors it is clearly do-able. My caveat was for 35mm sensors, for they are much larger and heavier requiring more power to defeat the mass momentum, for which the energy requirements are in the order of 50x that of 4/3rds sensors, it would therefore be a lot less effective on 35mm sensors.

[erichlund]

Canon's just put out their 40D, 1DMkIII, and 1DsMkIII. They're not going to put it on their eventual 6D (assuming that's the number).

Nikon's just put out their D300 and D3(H????). They're not going to put it on they're D3X.

So, for Canon and Nikon, we're looking at 18 months to 2 years before the next cameras in these ranges hit the market. So, Don should really be cheering on Sony and whoever else will be coming out with a camera in APS-C sensor, because neither Canon nor Nikon will introduce this except to keep abreast of the competition. They do not consider a Sony consumer cam competition for their semi to fully pro lines. Nikon lops Sony in with those "Consumer Electronics" companies, to paraphrase one of their marketing reps.

[Riley]

Canon's just put out their 40D, 1DMkIII, and 1DsMkIII. They're not going to put it on their eventual 6D (assuming that's the number).

Nikon's just put out their D300 and D3(H????). They're not going to put it on they're D3X.

yes might be interesting to see what happens to 5D, im feeling like it will be upgraded early next yr. The 35mm sensor and 1.3x crop cameras are a mere 2-3% of Canon production though, the meat and potatoes in dSLR sales are the APS C cameras. APS C exists not just because its cheaper, it is technically a good solution.

I am sure the presence of D3 will increase interest and sales for larger 35mm sensor dSLRs, but i dont expect the world stats will change too radically after sales have settled in around a year from now.


So, for Canon and Nikon, we're looking at 18 months to 2 years before the next cameras in these ranges hit the market. So, Don should really be cheering on Sony and whoever else will be coming out with a camera in APS-C sensor, because neither Canon nor Nikon will introduce this except to keep abreast of the competition. They do not consider a Sony consumer cam competition for their semi to fully pro lines. Nikon lops Sony in with those "Consumer Electronics" companies, to paraphrase one of their marketing reps.

Well Don can speak for himself, but my interpretation of what he is saying is that not offering IS is a competitive mistake, not to say that it wont happen particularly for APS C. My guess is that Nikon will add IS first to their APS C cameras, although Canon may well do it for 400D/XTi which might be taking rather a battering in sales about now.

Sony seem small fry for the moment, but they are a very much larger organisation than Nikon or Canon, and should be recognised for the threat that they really are. Their stated intent is to move into the #1 spot, and it seems they also are looking at professional level cameras. It remains to be seen if this can become a SONY reality, but meanwhile its all good for for camera users, who benefit from revitalised competition between brands.

[DonSchap]

Well then, just prepare for the marketing scam of all time, my friend.

May I present to you the ...

"Nifty-fifty" w/ IS !!! :eek:
28283


I figure if they (Canon) can take that crappy kit lens and throw IS on it and say ... "there you go!" Well, you've just got to do the EF 50mm f/1.8, too! It's only fair .. taking a $69 LENS and adding a $250 upgrade to it, because you are too darn stubborn to put IS in-the-body.

Man ... where does reality begin and this tom-foolery end? I feel like I'm in a Twilight Zone episode or something. This just cannot be happening! Canon marketing is actually trying to fool all of the people, all of the time.

This has got to rate right up there with ... bottled water. :eek:

[Rooz]

Well Don can speak for himself, but my interpretation of what he is saying is that not offering IS is a competitive mistake, not to say that it wont happen particularly for APS C. My guess is that Nikon will add IS first to their APS C cameras, although Canon may well do it for 400D/XTi which might be taking rather a battering in sales about now.

why is it a competitive mistake ? :confused: what evidence suggests that this is the case ?

reduced sales ? nope.
reduced profits ? nope.
reduced market share ? nope.
massive sales of in-body IS cameras ? nope.
reduction of new in-lens IS lens' ? nope, (quite the contrary).
reduction of new in-lens IS consumer grade lens' ? nope, again...quite the contrary.
lack of support from 3rd party lens manufacturers of in-lens IS ? nope, and again...quite the contrary.

so again, i ask you why is it a mistake ? why would nikon or canon move to in-body IS cos a handful of people are saying they want it ? i don;t see a business case for it at all.

i keep hearing about this "mistake" and about canon/ nikon not listening to consumers who are demanding it. who is demanding it and how are they doing so. in-body IS cameras are not selling at the same rate as their nikon/ canon competitors so where is this ground swell of support and outrage from consumers ? :confused: sorry...every indicator any nikon/ canon exec would be looking at suggests that in-body IS is in fact not the competitive advantage that some claim it to be.

will nikon go with in body VR ? well...again...i ask why would they ? they just stripped down their dslr in the d40 and it sells like all buggery cos its cheap and cheerful. this thing has been stripped of so many features but still it flies out the door. so why would they increase the size, weight and cost to the consumer of their best selling dslr ? especially when you can have a 55-200VR lens for $250. not to mention their 18-200VR which is probably the most popular, best selling lens nikon have ever made...and at prices well above retail to boot !

this is a dead end and some of y'all need to just accept it.

[Riley]

why is it a competitive mistake ? :confused: what evidence suggests that this is the case ?

reduced sales ? nope.
reduced profits ? nope.
reduced market share ? nope.
massive sales of in-body IS cameras ? nope.
reduction of new in-lens IS lens' ? nope, (quite the contrary).
reduction of new in-lens IS consumer grade lens' ? nope, again...quite the contrary.

Actually, this is what I believe Don's position to be, not that I disagree with him, but lets leave that aside for a moment.

Canon are losing position to Nikon, the latest numbers are from Japan, and they conclude that Canon is now #2. Japan is 13% of the global market, and a key indicator of this major statistic. It will take another year for this to become the new global reality. Nikon presently hold 47.5% v/s Canon 36.5% of Japan. And newer threats are emerging from SONY Pentax and others, who will not replace either short term, but will take with them market share.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D3/znikonpress07_dslrmonthly.jpg
the trend line looks be be holding away from Canon, so tell me, how will Canon recover ? Not by doing nothing me thinks...


lack of support from 3rd party lens manufacturers of in-lens IS ? nope, and again...quite the contrary.

so again, i ask you why is it a mistake ? why would nikon or canon move to in-body IS cos a handful of people are saying they want it ? i don;t see a business case for it at all.

i keep hearing about this "mistake" and about canon/ nikon not listening to consumers who are demanding it. who is demanding it and how are they doing so. in-body IS cameras are not selling at the same rate as their nikon/ canon competitors so where is this ground swell of support and outrage from consumers ? :confused: sorry...every indicator any nikon/ canon exec would be looking at suggests that in-body IS is in fact not the competitive advantage that some claim it to be.

will nikon go with in body VR ? well...again...i ask why would they ? they just stripped down their dslr in the d40 and it sells like all buggery cos its cheap and cheerful. this thing has been stripped of so many features but still it flies out the door. so why would they increase the size, weight and cost to the consumer of their best selling dslr ? especially when you can have a 55-200VR lens for $250. not to mention their 18-200VR which is probably the most popular, best selling lens nikon have ever made...and at prices well above retail to boot !

this is a dead end and some of y'all need to just accept it.

D40 is the least likely candidate for IS because of its low price virtues, no different to Olympus 410 which doesnt have IS, perhaps D40x and up though. Certainly its the lower rank/higher volume dSLRs that are going to be most under pressure from competitive force.

Whatever your belief, the stats are changing out of Canon's favour, and this much of Don's synopsis holds true, and in this I agree with him. Despite the notion that FF is the emerging force, it is really quite the opposite, featuresets at a price are what get new users attention, and according to Olympus stats, new users are 36% of new dSLR buyers.

The spike in SONY sales visible on the chart provided will re-appear when their new cameras come out, if that happens ready for Nov/Dec sales period, traditionally the greatest sales period, the data set will be all over the place, but this time SONY's stat will hold, and you can bet both Nikon and Canon will be thinking just what Don is saying. They will be considering increasing the marketability of their cameras featureset.

Now how is that a bad thing for Nikon and Canon users, particularly since they will have better choices to act upon.

[coldrain]

Haha, nice graph. As anyone can see, Canon and Nikon are selling a lot and exchanging markering share with eachother, and the in-body IS stuff remains where it is.

In-body IS is inferior technically by quite some margin. It has big down sides.
In-body IS and in-lens IS can not co-exist, they would mess things up badly.

Already we see what a big confusion the switch by Nikon to just AF-S is causing for customers, what lens will work, what lenses are supported, customers only find out about this after the choice, most of the time.
Same happening with Pentax and their new USM lens range.

Now what would a "Don" solution bring?
You would either have lenses with IS telling the camera body there is in-lens IS, and to turn the inferior in-body IS off. Or you would have to leave it to the cumstomer to switch in-body IS off when in-lens IS is available.

The 2nd option will mean many messed up photos, and a big annoyance for the customer. The 1st option will be even worse. You would have non-IS lenses, IS lenses that can not tell the body it has IS (they do not tell a camera body that), and the "new" IS lenses that would be able to tell the body to switch the inferior in-body IS off.

Talking about creating a crap situation for every customer, to please the Dons... lots of customer confusion.
Not "every lens just works"... no, having to know about what lens is AF-S and what lens is not. What lens is DX/EF-S, what lens is not. What lens needs me to switch in-body IS on, what lens needs me to swich in-body IS off. What lens is pre in-lens IS encoding, what lens is after.

No, Nikon and Canon have the superior IS systems, and they will add IS to more and more lenses of their ranges.
Canon just introduced a 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS for less money than what that range will cost you on any in-body IS camera, and with better IS results than for instance a Sony A100 with Tamron 18-250mm lens.
Nikon introduced their 50-200 VR earlier this year, also for a very low price. This is indicative for what Nikon and Canon plan to do.

They will communicate to customers about why in-lens IS is superior.

And above it was said that in-body IS would get more effective in future. It will not. The only way to make it one stop more effective is to move the sensor twice as much in distance. That simply is not possible.
In-body IS with tele lenses will remain stuck at 1-2 f-stops effectiveness.

[Rooz]

i was about to say something similar. that graph shows inbody IS is not catching on. canon lost ground to nikon who do not support in-body IS. so i dont know how that relates to in body IS at all.

[erichlund]

Here's the best part about that graph. KM had nearly 20% of the market share. Sony's managed to run that right into the ground, now standing at about 2%. Olympus is the strongest of the weak competitors, the real innovator among them. What did Canon and Nikon take from that? Live View and Sensor shake.

With Nikon's market share surging, Canon has to be watching them for clues more than a marginal product on the edge of the market. I don't expect Canon to change their upper echelon much, but watch for them to introduce a competitive entry level camera again. They've got to be concerned at how they've had to price the 400D in order to compete with the D40, especially when the 400D has more of the feature set of the D80.

[fionndruinne]

Guess what, Canon: an entry-level DSLR which is actually entry-level, and has a price to prove it, sells!

Especially when care is taken to make every feature that entry-level camera does possess, work, and work well! *coughXTidustreductioncough*

Should be interesting to see Canon follow Nikon in producing a true entry-level DSLR, and dump a lot of their precious XTi's features in order to find a realistic price.

[r3g]

This thread is entertaining stuff... http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/majagame5/smileys/popcorn.gifhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/majagame5/smileys/popcorn.gifhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/majagame5/smileys/popcorn.gifhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/majagame5/smileys/popcorn.gifhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/majagame5/smileys/popcorn.gifhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/majagame5/smileys/popcorn.gifhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/majagame5/smileys/popcorn.gifhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/majagame5/smileys/popcorn.gif

[Rex914]

i was about to say something similar. that graph shows inbody IS is not catching on. canon lost ground to nikon who do not support in-body IS. so i dont know how that relates to in body IS at all.

Not because of that but because it's because N and C have been in top positions for so long that the rest pretty much have no chance of gaining appreciable market share. I don't remember the last time I saw an Oly, Sony or Pentax on the street. Heck, I think I've seen more film Pentaxes than those 3.

To take a more visible example, take Apple, which has such great press coverage but has a measly single digit market share that's dwarfed by the likes of Dell, HP and Acer. I see plenty of Macs on the street, but the reality is that they still hold 5% of the market despite their stellar efforts.

This doesn't mean that Oly/Sony/Pentax can't be successful. Market share is not everything, and if they are profiting from this business (they are), that's what matters, and on the flip side, they do contribute a lot in the way of innovation because they can take more risks.

You have to remember that for informed buyers like us, the system counts the most when buying a DSLR. I'm not all of a sudden going to hop to Sony because their new camera is fantastic because the lens lineup is not up to par, selection-wise, to the Canon/Nikon lineup. That's why we all go for Canon and Nikon, because they have the most comprehensive systems out there, and that isn't going to change overnight.

Now, as for the Canon/Nikon flip-flop, that's something that will take more than a few paragraphs to explain, but I imagine that you guys are smart enough to decide why that's happened.

- Jon

[Rooz]

Not because of that but because it's because N and C have been in top positions for so long that the rest pretty much have no chance of gaining appreciable market share. I don't remember the last time I saw an Oly, Sony or Pentax on the street. Heck, I think I've seen more film Pentaxes than those 3.

To take a more visible example, take Apple, which has such great press coverage but has a measly single digit market share that's dwarfed by the likes of Dell, HP and Acer. I see plenty of Macs on the street, but the reality is that they still hold 5% of the market despite their stellar efforts.

This doesn't mean that Oly/Sony/Pentax can't be successful. Market share is not everything, and if they are profiting from this business (they are), that's what matters, and on the flip side, they do contribute a lot in the way of innovation because they can take more risks.

You have to remember that for informed buyers like us, the system counts the most when buying a DSLR. I'm not all of a sudden going to hop to Sony because their new camera is fantastic because the lens lineup is not up to par, selection-wise, to the Canon/Nikon lineup. That's why we all go for Canon and Nikon, because they have the most comprehensive systems out there, and that isn't going to change overnight.

Now, as for the Canon/Nikon flip-flop, that's something that will take more than a few paragraphs to explain, but I imagine that you guys are smart enough to decide why that's happened.

- Jon

you've missed the point of what i was saying. statements have been made that in-body IS is a competitive advantage and that C&N have not been listening to consumer cry out for in-body IS.

my point is that the graph above and all the other things i mentioned do not indicate that in-body IS is a competitive advantage at all. it also doesn't indicate consumers are demanding it.

if in-body IS was such a KEY feature then we would have seen a move to the bodies that have it. similar for example to the massive move to canon in pro bodies due to FF. stats indicated that FF was a critical feature and people were prepared to move systems to have it. if in-body IS was so important to the consumer, we would have seen a shift of some sort which just hasn't happened yet.

if you were a Canon R&D exec for example, what reasons could you use to justify to the CEO that a move to in-body IS was a competitive edge and something the market wanted ? no key business result areas show that is the case.

[DonSchap]

you've missed the point of what i was saying. statements have been made that in-body IS is a competitive advantage and that C&N have not been listening to consumer cry out for in-body IS.

my point is that the graph above and all the other things i mentioned do not indicate that in-body IS is a competitive advantage at all. it also doesn't indicate consumers are demanding it.

if in-body IS was such a KEY feature then we would have seen a move to the bodies that have it. similar for example to the massive move to canon in pro bodies due to FF. stats indicated that FF was a critical feature and people were prepared to move systems to have it. if in-body IS was so important to the consumer, we would have seen a shift of some sort which just hasn't happened yet.

if you were a Canon R&D exec for example, what reasons could you use to justify to the CEO that a move to in-body IS was a competitive edge and something the market wanted ? no key business result areas show that is the case.

Regardless of apparent market research ... people are buying IS-equipped cameras in the "Super-zoom" and "P&S" world. They are asking for it at the camera counter. You can't ask for something that Canon or Nikon simply won't even put in their DSLR cameras. I'm certain the move by the sales staff is to offer some kind of IS-equipped lens to offset this lack of in-the-body IS.

Canon and Nikon obviously have ignored the tend with this aspect of camera design. More power to them, but my "needs" say I would benefit quite a bit if I could have this feature with my (14 - 200mm) PRIME and MACRO imaging. Not having it has just me having to tote a tripod ... an avoidable nuisance to be sure. :(

Perhaps, as you have mentioned, the only major reason the other camera companies haven't boldly increased market share is because of the lack of lenses available to them. Admittedly, there is a lot of internal squabbling between third-parties and some of the major players. Tokina no longer supports a SONY/Minolta mount.

But SONY has a major jump on Pentax and Olympus ... having Minolta's originally designed "G" line of lenses, but they haven't marketed it as effectively to let the world know it's there. These powerhouse lenses are easily on par with Canon's "L" series and are priced accordingly.

I would suggest that everybody be prepared for next year ... as things are about to change. :D

[Ray Schnoor]

Regardless of apparent market research ... people are buying IS-equipped cameras in the "Super-zoom" and "P&S" world. They are asking for it at the camera counter.
That is why Canon and Nikon offer these types of cameras with in-the-body IS. I'm sure that "if" or "when" people start buying dSLR's with in-the-body IS in greater numbers, Canon and Nikon will be sure to offer it. Looking at the numbers, though, it sure isn't happening now with Nikon/Canon holding 85+% of the dSLR market.

But SONY has a major jump on Pentax and Olympus ... having Minolta's originally designed "G" line of lenses, but they haven't marketed it as effectively to let the world know it's there. These powerhouse lenses are easily on par with Canon's "L" series and are priced accordingly.
That's a great marketing scheme... "No need to buy any of our new lenses, you can find plenty of old Minolta lenses hanging around to put on your new Alpha."

Ray.

[coldrain]

The compact digital cameras from Canon and Nikon with IS do not have in-body IS, but in-lens IS.

[Rooz]

I would suggest that everybody be prepared for next year ... as things are about to change. :D

i hope you get your wish and the new alpha is everything you want it to be. i also sincerely hope its a great dslr and brings some heat onto C&N. the sooner they get a scare from sony and their pricing, the sooner they drop their prices which means the sooner i get a d300 and coldy gets a 40d. :D

oh...by the way did i mention ?

http://www.hyscience.com/PigsFly.jpg

[DonSchap]

That is why Canon and Nikon offer these types of cameras with in-the-body IS. I'm sure that "if" or "when" people start buying dSLR's with in-the-body IS in greater numbers, Canon and Nikon will be sure to offer it. Looking at the numbers, though, it sure isn't happening now with Nikon/Canon holding 85+% of the dSLR market.


That's a great marketing scheme... "No need to buy any of our new lenses, you can find plenty of old Minolta lenses hanging around to put on your new Alpha."

Ray.

You know, this is not entirely fair ... the Canon EOS 30D (aka the "Canon 20D MkII") was RELEASED over 18-months earlier, before in-the-body IS ... before the "Dark Side." There was no point in asking for in-the-body IS ... it just wasn't there ... Minolta had closed up shop and was in transition ... with no real proven record, yet, on its invention.

So, if you had purchased a Canon EOS 30D ... you had no reason to buy another DSLR ... for a long time. You still might not. It's a great camera. It should last for years. My EOS 20D is providing excellent operation and good throughput ... why fight success? If I do actually purchase a new camera body ... it's out of vanity, not a real need (which is entirely the point that I am really trying to make, here).

So we all went and bought supportive glass for our camera choice ... so now there is even less inertia, if you will, to jump to another camera brand. So if you bought one ... where's the market? It's stuck!

Canon glass => Canon body
Nikon glass => Nikon body (in the case of the D40 ... okay, half the glass :p )

Only newbie prosumers are are going to be the mobile-market. The initial move to prosumer camera from the serious 35mm film-bunch basically has already happened.

Now, it's the second wave of the "What else ya got?" consumer ... who is jaundiced by the initial offerings and are just waiting for Canon to finally "complete the APS-C circle", with, of course, in-the-body IS.

Market share? Restart the counters. Nothing from earlier wave matters. Only the NEW prosumers coming in. Then, you'll have an accurate reflection of the times and NOT someone's time-honored and wallet-honored collection of glass making the decision for them!

The truth shall set you free ... and worse yet, I could be dead-on instead of dead-wrong. What are they paying me, here?

Obviously, the "full-frame" wave or tsunami is on the way. If you don't see that coming, close your eyes ... it's going to hurt. APS-C is getting stagnant ... we're arguing about the validity of in-the-body-IS, when, in the larger picture of it all ... full-frame is the only real change coming worth noting.

The playing-hand has been tipped ... so watchout for pig-droppings! :eek:

[coldrain]

Full frame Sony.... without IS then, since sony has no in-lens IS.
Smells like pig droppings alright! :eek:

[DonSchap]

Full frame Sony.... without IS then, since sony has no in-lens IS.


Yeah ... what was I thinking? If some company actually figured out a Full-frame in-the-body-IS ... it would probably wipe Canon right off the map. :eek:

Wow, look ... there goes another pig ... better duck! :D

[coldrain]

Yeah ... what was I thinking? If some company actually figured out a Full-frame in-the-body-IS ... it would probably wipe Canon right off the map. :eek:

Wow, look ... there goes another pig ... better duck! :D
Ah yes, so Sony would drop the KM mount and get a wider mount, with bigger heavier lenses than everyone else, just so they can move around a full frame sensor in the bigger image circle. Sounds like a plan Don ;)

[DonSchap]

Ah yes, so Sony would drop the KM mount and get a wider mount, with bigger heavier lenses than everyone else, just so they can move around a full frame sensor in the bigger image circle. Sounds like a plan Don ;)

I'm just going to let the "pig-chips" fall where they may, my friend. It is way beyond my control ... as the force for corporate greed looks into its crystal and yields your favorite "nay-sayer" device ...

FFFFFULL-FRAME ISSSSS


The World of Photography will have never shook so hard! EARTH-QUAKE!!! When Sensor-mass ... hits the gas!

Are we having fun, yet? And you thought your cell phone on "vibrate" was ... sensational.

28350

[coldrain]

I was lucky my Sony full frame A10 has IS... else i could never have taken this shot at 1/3 sec.

Just a shame the flying pig is so much blurred... I guess IS is not always a good idea:(. And a shame the full frame sensor vignetted like hell because it moved out of the image circle while trying to correct the camera shake!

But as a certain Sony fan often says... GET THE SHOT! :D

[T06]

Did I miss anything, whats been happening, are we still using digital as a format, is coldy still arguementive, is don still perceptive to some, is rooz still objectional,. ah well, farts still stink too, but they're not all the same;)

[yewsef]

I would have loved to read about the actual topic but thanks to some people it was high jacked. I am really interested in the D300 vs Canon 40D debate.

[DonSchap]

I would have loved to read about the actual topic but thanks to some people it was high jacked. I am really interested in the D300 vs Canon d40 debate.

That should be: Canon 40D vs Nikon D300

The D40 really is a Nikon ... without a lens motor.

[Glasstream15]

I would have loved to read about the actual topic but thanks to some people it was high jacked. I am really interested in the D300 vs Canon d40 debate.


Thank you Don.

They are in different price classes so therefore are in different feature classes. Comparing the 40D to the D300 is just like comparing the D300 to the 5D. Both cases, the camera that is 35% to 40% more wins.

[yewsef]

That should be: Canon 40D vs Nikon D300

The D40 really is a Nikon ... without a lens motor.


I didnt know that the position of the D matters since I did mention canon, thanks for clarifying it.

[JTL]

And to think...

Don use to argue that IS wasn't a desirable feature! Now he never shuts up about it. Maybe after this thread he'll stop...wait a minute...is that? Is that? It is! Its a pig flying out of my a$$!!!

LMAO (pigs and all) TIBITF!!! :D:D:D

Check some of his older posts and be as amused as I am...:cool:

No offense Don, I just think it's pretty funny! ;)

[DonSchap]

JTL ... I didn't appreciate in-the-body IS until I was able to experience it on the SONY A100. Now, I can honestly say ... I understand why it is a necessary evil with certain people. You actually can get a few more "keepers" by having it, versus the loss of shots you will experience struggling to use a Canon non-IS equipped camera with a regular lens.

I, personally, shoot pretty darn steady w/o IS ... so, for me ... it's not as dramatic as it is for many others.

Not everyone is as lucky to have IS-equipped lensing as some others and rather than saying, "Too bad for you, Pal!" ... I've become an advocate for the silent majority ... realizing how nice it would be to have this feature in the body.

So, laugh as you will ... it has been a year-long education ... and those people who don't believe it would be an asset to their photography are either just being silly or just not in tune with what it can truly provide. Once you have it for low-light assistance in your shooting with ALL of your lenses ... it's pretty simple to see how arrogant it is for some major camera manufacturers not to put it in the camera. :(

Here's to hoping, JTL. I can attest that IS saves some shots.

[JTL]

JTL ... I didn't appreciate in-the-body IS until I was able to experience it on the SONY A100. Now, I can honestly say ... I understand why it is a necessary evil with certain people. You actually can get a few more "keepers" by having it, versus the loss of shots you will experience struggling to use a Canon non-IS equipped camera with a regular lens.

I, personally, shoot pretty darn steady w/o IS ... so, for me ... it's not as dramatic as it is for many others.

Not everyone is as lucky to have IS-equipped lensing as some others and rather than saying, "Too bad for you, Pal!" ... I've become an advocate for the silent majority ... realizing how nice it would be to have this feature in the body.

So, laugh as you will ... it has been a year-long education ... and those people who don't believe it would be an asset to their photography are either just being silly or just not in tune with what it can truly provide. Once you have it for low-light assistance in your shooting with ALL of your lenses ... it's pretty simple to see how arrogant it is for some major camera manufacturers not to put it in the camera. :(

Here's to hoping, JTL. I can attest that IS saves some shots.Don, you know I'm just poking fun. :)

I should actually be encouraging more people to have an open mind and be willing to change views based on practical experience rather than joking about it. I know I sure have learned a lot over the past few years and have my fair share of view changes!

Thanks for being a good sport! :D

[DonSchap]

Don, you know I'm just poking fun. :)

I should actually be encouraging more people to have an open mind and be willing to change views based on practical experience rather than joking about it. I know I sure have learned a lot over the past few years and have my fair share of view changes!

Thanks for being a good sport! :D

Not a problem ... I just popped for another TAMRON lens ... for, uh ... some real close-ups.

More on that ... when it shows up. :D

[Franklin]

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D3/znikonpress07_dslrmonthly.jpg
the trend line looks be be holding away from Canon, so tell me, how will Canon recover ? Not by doing nothing me thinks...



A Nikon graph doing a prediction not just over their sales, but also of their direct competitors.. and the prediction is a trend-break up for themselves and downwards for their greatest competitor. The oddity is that Canon seems to be going upward and Nikon downwards.. and at that point the prediction is a complete 180 degree :p

Amusing especially considering that I will have to wait to get my D300 in December (according to my reseller... dang) who cheerfuly pointed out that he could sell me a 40D right now.

Sorry, that graph holds no value.

[Rooz]

A Nikon graph doing a prediction not just over their sales, but also of their direct competitors.. and the prediction is a trend-break up for themselves and downwards for their greatest competitor. The oddity is that Canon seems to be going upward and Nikon downwards.. and at that point the prediction is a complete 180 degree :p

Amusing especially considering that I will have to wait to get my D300 in December (according to my reseller... dang) who cheerfuly pointed out that he could sell me a 40D right now.

Sorry, that graph holds no value.

so they're predicting the past are they ? lol

[Franklin]

so they're predicting the past are they ? lol


The dotted line was their predicition for the (then-) future. Look at the downward scale and note the odd line up:

05-5/9 06-1/5/9 07-1/5/6(/7) all of a sudden the distances become single months. The impact on the graphic would be even more dramatic, if they use the original scale Nikon would gain as much in 1 month as they ever did in a quarter and Canon would loose as much as they gained in the first quarter... what would be the trigger for sucha spectacular july month? AFAIK nothing special was happening then?

Such a weird scale+ such a dramatic prediction disqualifies it for me. It would be amusing if someone has the real sales numbers (its in the past now), that way we would know for sure if this graph is worthy of our attention :)

[Rooz]

its quite common knowldge that nikon have dominated the dslr market in japan now going on 9 months or so. these things generally see-saw anyhow, sometimes canon is on top, sometimes nikon is on top. kinda like a good marriage.

i don;t really care who sells more cameras either way as long as someone makes what i want i'm happy. what makes me even happier is sony getting serious and competing with some intensity. then we get another big player which can only mean one thing...better prices.

[Riley]

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D3/znikonpress07_dslrmonthly.jpg

you will find the dotted lines are based on data collected but not yet supported by CIPA, notice too that the other makers data ends at 2007/6

you will find the data is correct when it is released in the quarterly reports come October somewhere

[Esoterra]

...Canon glass => Canon body
Nikon glass => Nikon body (in the case of the D40 ... okay, half the glass :p )...


Nikon glass => Nikon body or Fuji Body.

I have to agree with Aparmleys 1 post back on page -88392340984239872394723 , seeing the recent lack lustre Canon offerings compared to Nikons grand entrance, reaffirms my decision to start out with Nikon. All in all, they both offer great systems, but you cant help but get all warm and fuzzy inside knowing you have something to look forward to...another awesome camera to upgrade to! It's a grand day to be a Nikonian lol!

[Gintaras]

I was lucky my Sony full frame A10 has IS... else i could never have taken this shot at 1/3 sec.

Just a shame the flying pig is so much blurred... I guess IS is not always a good idea:(. And a shame the full frame sensor vignetted like hell because it moved out of the image circle while trying to correct the camera shake!

But as a certain Sony fan often says... GET THE SHOT! :D

coldy, nice capture and great colors

[Gintaras]

Don, if you miss IS-in-camera so much then why you pick Sony and not Pentax or Olympus (the latter also has live preview).:rolleyes:

what i personally do not like about sony is that you overpay for their brand but get same quality as with many other brands. just a personal observation.

[Rooz]

Don has alot of old KM glass so the sony was a sensible choice. besides which the new a700 looks a heck of alot better than the oly or pentax at the moment.

[DonSchap]

Don, if you miss IS-in-camera so much then why you pick Sony and not Pentax or Olympus (the latter also has live preview).:rolleyes:

what i personally do not like about sony is that you overpay for their brand but get same quality as with many other brands. just a personal observation.

Gintaras - The fact is, it is very difficult to shake an old friend ... and the Minolta line has always been my camera of choice.

My Canon adventure was just that .... Minolta was asleep and I needed a digital solution pretty fast. I decided if I were going to shell out all that cash, it would be with a proven system and I'd get by. Nikon was still whipping back and forth with the D70, at the time, and that made me nervous, so I decided to back away, back then.

Then, of course, as it always seems to happen, SONY finally released the A100 just when I had nearly bought all the glass I planned on using for the Canon system. I decided to ride the Canon for another year or two, using both Canon and SONY systems to see if they would finally adopt an "in-the-body-IS" architecture, also ... but NO! That did not happen after two complete camera cycles (30D and 40D). Well ... Canon isn't happening for another cycle, as far as I am concerned.

My decision is to stick with my roots and the SONY A700 offers just about everything you could for from an APS-C sensor camera. "Live View" isn't ready for prime time, SONY tells us, and I accept that, since I really had no plans on using it, anyway. (Kind of like all those Canon users who would NOT use IS-in-the-body, even if the camera body came with it, just because in-the-lens-IS is just "so much better", they wouldn't consider it. Yeah, okay then. How do you argue with that kind of logic?)

So my plan is to sell all the Canon-glass to someone else that can really use it, unless it survives to see another Canon (the EOS 50D IS, perhaps). It's all in great shape ... because I just take care of things and will survive in storage. (I've done it before with the Minolta-glass ;) One thing ... packed well, glass lasts and lasts. That is one big backpack FULL of retired glass.

That's the long and short of it. No Pentax, no Samsung, no SIGMA, no Olympus, no Nikon ... and no more Canon. I'm just saying "No." I've done my turn. How much financial pain can a man endure? :confused:

I suggest you take a peek at Jeff's SONY A700 "preview" ... and appreciate just how nice a rig this is promising to be. Believe me, I'll be the first to raise a flag if it messes up.

[Gintaras]

How much financial pain can a man endure? :confused:

do not mind me this joke but your comment reminds me of my friend who had similar misfortune but with selling and buying houses in which he used to live. for this reason no one in the world would convince him that real estate can be a profitable investment. :p

Now seriously Don, your point taken. I had a look at A700 preview already and it sounds all nice. I had Sony DSC 717 (if you remember that digi monster) and enjoyed it. Still I am bit suspicious of Sony products which are often overpriced for similar quality and repair can cost ops. This is my personal bias against Sony of course. In any case if you want good DSLR with IS in camera Sony looks like "a killer" at least on paper. I have no idea about Minolta except for D7 which I once borrowed from my friend so no comment on their glass.

[Nautique]

I'm not sure which camera you finally decided to purchase. Both are great examples of advanced digital technology. I included my personal file for each so you can have the documentation and customer service information you need all in one place.

Canon 40D (http://personafile.com/Canon-Digital-Camera-SLR-EOS-40D-10.1-Megapixel-3%22-LCD-Monitor-P013803002112.htm)

Nikon D300 (http://personafile.com/Nikon-Digital-SLR-12.3-Megapixel-Digital-Camera-D300-P182080000109.htm)