02-13-2011, 11:43 PM
[quote name='thw' timestamp='1297405576' post='6051']
D90/D300 vs 50D: Canon's mistakes: (1) they should not have introduced a high pixel count sensor when they were not ready (before the 7D)[/quote]
There's nothing suggesting that Canon couldn't do a 15MP sensor well. Why would they make the 7D a 18MP if they hadn't mastered 15MPs? Also people who kept saying the 50D was noisy were 40D users who were looking things at 100%. The only mistake that Canon did was expecting average camera users to understand digitisation and magnification. Even the 40D had the D300 matched in terms of noise. If the D300 had an edge in this area, it's because of its noise reduction in the RAW that people had no control over and didn't know about. Take a look at this scientific analysis of the 50D's sensor (link in quote):
[url="http://astrosurf.com/buil/50d/test.htm"]"The improvement of the 50D detector's with regard to the 40D compensate completely the pixel size reduction. It is a beautiful performance for the 50D..."[/url]
[quote name='thw' timestamp='1297405576' post='6051']
(2) their fear of cannibalizing the 1D3 sales caused them to excessively cripple the 50D.
[/quote]
That's just plain misinformation... the 50D had lots of improvements over the 40D that made it closer to the 1D: ( a ) improved AF, ( b ) AF micro adjust, ( c ) much much nicer LCD over the much hated 40D LCD, ( d ) a much better implementation of Auto ISO, ( e ) contrast detect AF in LV, ( f ) better sRAW options, ( g ) higher selectable ISOs, ( h ) UDMA card support with 20% more continuous shots, etc. Even the 1D3 didn't have some of these features.
[quote name='thw' timestamp='1297405576' post='6051']
There would not have been a 7D if the D300 wasn't so successful.
[/quote]
I think you're fabricating the context a bit here... the D300 was popular among people who pulled out their cheque books to spend $6000 on a D2x the night before it was announced and the D200 users who were stuck at ISO400 with P&S users for years. If you look back at the reviews/tests from that time, there were no significant reasons for anyone to switch from a 40D to a D300 or vice versa just for the camera... that also includes the final AF performance (see tests).
It's the D3 that made Nikon a more appealing platform for high-end cameras and the D300 was on the upgrade path and it was also great as a second body to a D3. Canon came up with the 7D to compete with the platform that is Nikon... not because of anything special the D300 had by itself.
[quote name='thw' timestamp='1297405576' post='6051']
D3 vs 1D3: How Canon could sell a professional sports camera with serious AF issues is beyond me.
[/quote]
It could be argued that prior to the D3, Nikon didn't have a camera that was advanced enough to have such problems <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> This thing is blown out of proportion on the internet... not everyone had the AF problems and Canon did fix it for the ones who had it. They even indicated the updated versions of the 1D3 on the boxes that went on for sale. Also if the problems were as big as you say they were then why would people shoot Canon at major sports events at all until the 1D4 came along recently? To get fired? I think that answers the question.
[quote name='thw' timestamp='1297405576' post='6051']
Rumors have it that because Canon's very own 5D2 cannibalized sales of their 1Ds3 (notwithstanding the primitive 5D2 AF sensor),[/quote]
That first part of your sentence contradicts with the second part... if the 5D2's AF is that bad, how do you think it could "cannibalise" sales of a much more advanced camera? The first part is indeed true and for that there are one of two possibilities here: (1) people don't use AF or (2) the 5D2's AF is fine.
Seriously... anyone who reads the specs and the dpreview forums and say the 5D2's AF is not good just hasn't even picked up a 5D2 or they just haven't learned how to use the camera.
GTW
D90/D300 vs 50D: Canon's mistakes: (1) they should not have introduced a high pixel count sensor when they were not ready (before the 7D)[/quote]
There's nothing suggesting that Canon couldn't do a 15MP sensor well. Why would they make the 7D a 18MP if they hadn't mastered 15MPs? Also people who kept saying the 50D was noisy were 40D users who were looking things at 100%. The only mistake that Canon did was expecting average camera users to understand digitisation and magnification. Even the 40D had the D300 matched in terms of noise. If the D300 had an edge in this area, it's because of its noise reduction in the RAW that people had no control over and didn't know about. Take a look at this scientific analysis of the 50D's sensor (link in quote):
[url="http://astrosurf.com/buil/50d/test.htm"]"The improvement of the 50D detector's with regard to the 40D compensate completely the pixel size reduction. It is a beautiful performance for the 50D..."[/url]
[quote name='thw' timestamp='1297405576' post='6051']
(2) their fear of cannibalizing the 1D3 sales caused them to excessively cripple the 50D.
[/quote]
That's just plain misinformation... the 50D had lots of improvements over the 40D that made it closer to the 1D: ( a ) improved AF, ( b ) AF micro adjust, ( c ) much much nicer LCD over the much hated 40D LCD, ( d ) a much better implementation of Auto ISO, ( e ) contrast detect AF in LV, ( f ) better sRAW options, ( g ) higher selectable ISOs, ( h ) UDMA card support with 20% more continuous shots, etc. Even the 1D3 didn't have some of these features.
[quote name='thw' timestamp='1297405576' post='6051']
There would not have been a 7D if the D300 wasn't so successful.
[/quote]
I think you're fabricating the context a bit here... the D300 was popular among people who pulled out their cheque books to spend $6000 on a D2x the night before it was announced and the D200 users who were stuck at ISO400 with P&S users for years. If you look back at the reviews/tests from that time, there were no significant reasons for anyone to switch from a 40D to a D300 or vice versa just for the camera... that also includes the final AF performance (see tests).
It's the D3 that made Nikon a more appealing platform for high-end cameras and the D300 was on the upgrade path and it was also great as a second body to a D3. Canon came up with the 7D to compete with the platform that is Nikon... not because of anything special the D300 had by itself.
[quote name='thw' timestamp='1297405576' post='6051']
D3 vs 1D3: How Canon could sell a professional sports camera with serious AF issues is beyond me.
[/quote]
It could be argued that prior to the D3, Nikon didn't have a camera that was advanced enough to have such problems <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> This thing is blown out of proportion on the internet... not everyone had the AF problems and Canon did fix it for the ones who had it. They even indicated the updated versions of the 1D3 on the boxes that went on for sale. Also if the problems were as big as you say they were then why would people shoot Canon at major sports events at all until the 1D4 came along recently? To get fired? I think that answers the question.[quote name='thw' timestamp='1297405576' post='6051']
Rumors have it that because Canon's very own 5D2 cannibalized sales of their 1Ds3 (notwithstanding the primitive 5D2 AF sensor),[/quote]
That first part of your sentence contradicts with the second part... if the 5D2's AF is that bad, how do you think it could "cannibalise" sales of a much more advanced camera? The first part is indeed true and for that there are one of two possibilities here: (1) people don't use AF or (2) the 5D2's AF is fine.
Seriously... anyone who reads the specs and the dpreview forums and say the 5D2's AF is not good just hasn't even picked up a 5D2 or they just haven't learned how to use the camera.
GTW