I don't think that Nikon's D3H will keep up with Canon. Since Canon let their cat out of the bag first, I think Nikon realized that the D3H isn't enough.
I have no idea what logic you're using here, but Nikon hasn't been sceduled to release the D3H until summer- all accounts are that it's on track and will likely match the Canon body performance-wise. What leap of logic brings you to "Nikon realized" for a body they're still working on that's on schedule?
See, if you're not a fanboy, or you don't have very, very specific requirements, even if it *didn't* have "better" stats it wouldn't matter- the D3H pretty-much has to replace the D2H and make D2H shooters happy to upgrade. That's its primary market. Even if the D3H edges out the mkIII in stats *that* doesn't matter either, it just had to satisfy folks upgrading from the earlier Canon body.
By all reports and a careful analysis of the specs, the MkIII handily met that goal- including taking some things that have traditionally been only on Nikon bodies like an independent AF button. That's good- it means Canon's listening to their customers and providing them with a tool that meets their needs and adds all the features that that class of customer wants.
The D2Hs can do what.....8 fps at something like 4 MP? Even if Nikon offers an 8 MP camera that shoots at 8 fps, it's still lagging. The D2Xs can shoot at 8 fps, but again with a crop, where it's only shooting photos at 5 or 6 MP at that speed.
Don't give in to the megapixel myth. More megapixels aren't always better, since they tend to introduce diffraction issues once the photosites get small enough. The D2x has been shooting 6MP at 8FPS in high-speed crop mode for two years in the hands of customers as of tomorrow. Those 6MP prints will do full-bleed images just fine- and at the correct viewing distance they'll do straight 11x14s with aplomb. What exactly would more megapixels bring to the table besides the ability to crop the crop and diffraction at a larger aperture? While HSC mode was heralded by half the camera media and all the Nikon fanboys as delivering "two cameras in one" or "a free D2H with a high megapixel body," the D2H crowd really hasn't budged- it's not the right tool for that job (it's not a bad tool for that job, but it's not the right one.)
The D2H was released in what? November of 2003? I'm hardly impressed that it's taken either manufacturer this long to up the ante, but I am impressed that both of them took their time to do so- hopefully that means we'll all benefit more than if they'd rushed it.
The fact that you can up-res a 2H shot and deliver a full bleed cover when it's got 1/3 the resolution of the D2x says a lot about how well done that body/sensor combination was. That's a positive thing because neither Nikon nor Canon need to shorten their pro body R&D cycles down to the P&S level, we'd all just lose out on reliability and interesting/useful improvements versus gimicks.
I do think that better timing and technique helps tremendously, and that 10 fps isn't really that much better than 8 fps (it's all adequate), but some people are going to want it just to have it --- just to say "I can shoot at 10 fps".
Sure, but they're the folks you'll see on DPReview switching from Nikon to Canon every year or so and complaining bitterly about both at some point- if not the same time.
failsafe1 said:
After your note I saw where Nikon was increasing the high end iso but not the low end. It looks like they are trying to decrease noise so it should be interesting. Competition is a great thing. I use both systems so a new Nikon body at the office would be nice. I could not find anything on the new rumored Nikon body would be full frame. I really like the low iso's so having a setting of 50 is very appealing.
Low ISOs aren't easy on digital sensors, artificially damping the signal that much just sort of kills the images- I'll have to see if I can dig up the articles I've seen about it. The natural ISO of most of Nikon's sensors (and I don't think Canon's are too different, but I'd appreciate data if it is) is about ISO200. You're better off throwing an ND filter in front of the lens than trying to let the electronics deal with the shift in range. What pisses me off the most is not being able to find any ND drop-ins for my 400/2.8, and ND grads are completely out of the question. A Cokin holder and 2-3 Lee filters should give you the same basic effect (I've heard the Cokin filters aren't true neutral and cast to magenta.)
