Omar
Aktiv medlem
Hej
VS-tråd!
Intressant sammanfattning från nätet.
"Pros starting switching to Canon en mass a long time ago.
First of all, there was autofocus. Canon started introducing autofocus supertelephotos back in the late '80s. They could do so because Canon had chosen to put their autofocus system inside the lens using a purely electronic interface between the lens and body. Their first AF telephoto was the 300/2.8L with USM, in 1987 Other brands chose to put the autofocus motor inside the camera body, driving the lens from there. That's fine for smaller lenses, but inadequate for bigger, longer lenses. As a result, Nikon would not introduce their first autofocus supertelephoto until 1993, some 5 YEARS after Canon. And it wouldn't be until 1996 that Nikon would introduce supertelephotos with AF-S (their version of USM), 10 YEARS after Canon. So Nikon's lateness in introducing autofocus to their supertelephoto lenses is a major reason why you see so many Canon lenses along the sidelines of major sporting events than Nikon. Years ago, given the choice between shooting a sporting even with autofocus or manual focus telephotos, most pros chose autofocus; most pros chose Canon because only Canon offered it.
And while we're on telephoto lenses, Canon introduced IS years before Nikon. Canon introduced their first IS lens back in 1995. They quickly added IS to their supertelephoto lenses. Nikon would not introduce their first VR lens until 5 years after Nikon. And they would not introduce their first VR lens longer than 200mm until 2003, with the 200-400/4 VR. But they still don't have VR in anything longer than 400mm. Canon, on the other hand, has had IS in lenses up to 600mm since the 1990s. And on top of that, Canon priced their IS supertelephotos hundreds of dollars less than Nikon's supertelephotos without VR. For example, to this day, the Canon 500/4 IS sells for $ 5,499.95, while the Nikon sells for $ 7,199.95! Same lens, no IS, and $1700 more!!! So given this choice, again, most pros chose Canon because only Canon offered it-- and for a lot less money, too.
Then came the issue of camera bodies. Again, talking about sports pros, Nikon had the 2.7mp 5fps Nikon D1H, while Canon had the 4mp 8fps Canon 1D. Given the choice between shooting at 2.7mp at 5fps, versus 4mp at 8fps, most pros chose 4mp and 8fps. Again, Canon came out the winner. In fact, the Canon 1D was such a pivotal body, offering the best option for resolution and speed at the time, that Sports Illustrated heavily went to Canon at the time. Read this article:
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6453-6821
Excerpt:
"The switchover began in earnest in the second half of 2002, and it was Canon's EOS-1D that really made it possible, says Phil Jache. That camera provided the combination of framing rate and image resolution necessary for the magazine's day-in, day-out demands, and the large majority of SI's staff images are made with it."
It wasn't until about 3 years later that Nikon finally introduced their answer to the 1D, with their D2H which finally offered 4mp at 8fps. But by then, Canon was replacing their 1D with the 8mp 8.5fps Canon 1D MKII. Not only was the 1D MKII of higher resolution, but it handled high ISO better too. So again, given the choice between Nikon with their D2H or Canon with their 1D MKII, most pros chose Canon.
You also have to remember that Nikon didn't break the 6mp barrier in their pro DSLRs until March 2005 with their D2X! Their previous highest resolution pro body was the D1X, introduce way back in 2001, with only 5.4mp. Canon had introduced the 11mp Canon 1Ds back in 2002. They had introduced the 8mp Canon 1D MKII in 2004. They had introduced the 8mp Canon 20D in 2004 also. And on top of that, they replaced the 11mp 1Ds with the 16.7mp 1Ds MKII in 2004 also! At the higher resolution levels, waiting until 2005 to get past 5.4mp was a big mistake for Nikon. So if you wanted a pro body with more than 6mp, for years only Canon offered it.
Then there's the FF thing. Canon's been offering FF since 2002. That's a long time. If you want FF, again, only Canon offers it.
Canon also has much faster update cycles than Nikon. Nikon took 4 years to replace the D1X. They took 4 years to replace the D100. They took 3 years to replace the D1H. Canon's pro bodies are generally replaced in less than 3 years. The 1Ds was introduced in September 2002, replaced by the 1Ds MKII in September 2004. The 1D was introduced in December 2001, replaced by the 1D MKII in April 2004. So with much longer update cycles, a lot of Nikon users simply lose patience and move to Canon. Furthermore, Canon's short update cycles ensure that Canon is never too far away from something new."
Källa: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1032&thread=18891814&page=6
Ekonomin hos Canon och Nikon.
Saxat från nätet (tas med nypa salt ?)
"Profits can only be evaluated in comparison to competitors. The fact that Nikon made money last year is not necessarily attributed to their competitive advantage but rather to the increased demand for digital cameras.
Here are some numbers from the annual reports, rounded to billions of yen.
Nikon (Imaging products) Sales: 417
Nikon (Imaging products) Operating income: 34
Canon (Cameras) Sales: 879
Canon (Cameras) Operating income: 174
So, as you can see, not only Canon sales ar emore than double (I even ignore the fact that Nikon rolls scanners into their imaging category), but their operating margin is much higher, so they make more money on each camera they sell.
On top of making higher profits, Canon looks into the future as well -- Canon's R&D expenses for 2005 not including those for business machines amounted to 170 billion yen, while Nikon spent a total of 27.
So, in summary, the future for Nikon looks relatively bleak, according to their own annual report."
Källa:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/r...1814&page=1
MVH
Omar Brännström
VS-tråd!
Intressant sammanfattning från nätet.
"Pros starting switching to Canon en mass a long time ago.
First of all, there was autofocus. Canon started introducing autofocus supertelephotos back in the late '80s. They could do so because Canon had chosen to put their autofocus system inside the lens using a purely electronic interface between the lens and body. Their first AF telephoto was the 300/2.8L with USM, in 1987 Other brands chose to put the autofocus motor inside the camera body, driving the lens from there. That's fine for smaller lenses, but inadequate for bigger, longer lenses. As a result, Nikon would not introduce their first autofocus supertelephoto until 1993, some 5 YEARS after Canon. And it wouldn't be until 1996 that Nikon would introduce supertelephotos with AF-S (their version of USM), 10 YEARS after Canon. So Nikon's lateness in introducing autofocus to their supertelephoto lenses is a major reason why you see so many Canon lenses along the sidelines of major sporting events than Nikon. Years ago, given the choice between shooting a sporting even with autofocus or manual focus telephotos, most pros chose autofocus; most pros chose Canon because only Canon offered it.
And while we're on telephoto lenses, Canon introduced IS years before Nikon. Canon introduced their first IS lens back in 1995. They quickly added IS to their supertelephoto lenses. Nikon would not introduce their first VR lens until 5 years after Nikon. And they would not introduce their first VR lens longer than 200mm until 2003, with the 200-400/4 VR. But they still don't have VR in anything longer than 400mm. Canon, on the other hand, has had IS in lenses up to 600mm since the 1990s. And on top of that, Canon priced their IS supertelephotos hundreds of dollars less than Nikon's supertelephotos without VR. For example, to this day, the Canon 500/4 IS sells for $ 5,499.95, while the Nikon sells for $ 7,199.95! Same lens, no IS, and $1700 more!!! So given this choice, again, most pros chose Canon because only Canon offered it-- and for a lot less money, too.
Then came the issue of camera bodies. Again, talking about sports pros, Nikon had the 2.7mp 5fps Nikon D1H, while Canon had the 4mp 8fps Canon 1D. Given the choice between shooting at 2.7mp at 5fps, versus 4mp at 8fps, most pros chose 4mp and 8fps. Again, Canon came out the winner. In fact, the Canon 1D was such a pivotal body, offering the best option for resolution and speed at the time, that Sports Illustrated heavily went to Canon at the time. Read this article:
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6453-6821
Excerpt:
"The switchover began in earnest in the second half of 2002, and it was Canon's EOS-1D that really made it possible, says Phil Jache. That camera provided the combination of framing rate and image resolution necessary for the magazine's day-in, day-out demands, and the large majority of SI's staff images are made with it."
It wasn't until about 3 years later that Nikon finally introduced their answer to the 1D, with their D2H which finally offered 4mp at 8fps. But by then, Canon was replacing their 1D with the 8mp 8.5fps Canon 1D MKII. Not only was the 1D MKII of higher resolution, but it handled high ISO better too. So again, given the choice between Nikon with their D2H or Canon with their 1D MKII, most pros chose Canon.
You also have to remember that Nikon didn't break the 6mp barrier in their pro DSLRs until March 2005 with their D2X! Their previous highest resolution pro body was the D1X, introduce way back in 2001, with only 5.4mp. Canon had introduced the 11mp Canon 1Ds back in 2002. They had introduced the 8mp Canon 1D MKII in 2004. They had introduced the 8mp Canon 20D in 2004 also. And on top of that, they replaced the 11mp 1Ds with the 16.7mp 1Ds MKII in 2004 also! At the higher resolution levels, waiting until 2005 to get past 5.4mp was a big mistake for Nikon. So if you wanted a pro body with more than 6mp, for years only Canon offered it.
Then there's the FF thing. Canon's been offering FF since 2002. That's a long time. If you want FF, again, only Canon offers it.
Canon also has much faster update cycles than Nikon. Nikon took 4 years to replace the D1X. They took 4 years to replace the D100. They took 3 years to replace the D1H. Canon's pro bodies are generally replaced in less than 3 years. The 1Ds was introduced in September 2002, replaced by the 1Ds MKII in September 2004. The 1D was introduced in December 2001, replaced by the 1D MKII in April 2004. So with much longer update cycles, a lot of Nikon users simply lose patience and move to Canon. Furthermore, Canon's short update cycles ensure that Canon is never too far away from something new."
Källa: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1032&thread=18891814&page=6
Ekonomin hos Canon och Nikon.
Saxat från nätet (tas med nypa salt ?)
"Profits can only be evaluated in comparison to competitors. The fact that Nikon made money last year is not necessarily attributed to their competitive advantage but rather to the increased demand for digital cameras.
Here are some numbers from the annual reports, rounded to billions of yen.
Nikon (Imaging products) Sales: 417
Nikon (Imaging products) Operating income: 34
Canon (Cameras) Sales: 879
Canon (Cameras) Operating income: 174
So, as you can see, not only Canon sales ar emore than double (I even ignore the fact that Nikon rolls scanners into their imaging category), but their operating margin is much higher, so they make more money on each camera they sell.
On top of making higher profits, Canon looks into the future as well -- Canon's R&D expenses for 2005 not including those for business machines amounted to 170 billion yen, while Nikon spent a total of 27.
So, in summary, the future for Nikon looks relatively bleak, according to their own annual report."
Källa:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/r...1814&page=1
MVH
Omar Brännström
