If you've been watching DPReview.com or the other sites, you probably know that a whole bunch of shiny new cameras have been announced recently. Probably the most exciting action is happening in the $3000 full-frame D-SLR market. The entrants are the Canon 5D-Mark II, the Nikon D700, and the Sony A900. Sony has the highest resolution (24mp), followed by Canon (21mp) and Nikon (12mp). Nikon has arguably the most sophisticated autofocus, the highest frame rate, and appears to be built to survive a small atomic blast. Canon has respun the same sensor that was already in their top-of-the-line 1Ds-Mark III, meaning they were able to keep costs down and produce what's likely to be a very big seller. Canon even tosses in a 1080p video mode. (Nikon has a 720p video mode in its much cheaper D90 camera.) Clever. Sony is trying to jump out in front of everybody with its high resolution, but is it actually a good camera? Would anybody seriously want to buy into the Sony (nee Konica-Minolta) camera system?

Personally, I bought the Nikon D700 before these announcements, and I'm not feeling the slightest regret. 12mp is plenty of resolution, and I love the amazing autofocus and the see-in-the-dark aspect of the sensor.

The other clever thing brewing is in what we might call the "advanced point-and-shoot" market. In addition to the usual crop of "super zoom" cameras, there are a few cameras angling to be the camera that a pro might stuff in the bag as a spare, or that an "advanced amateur" might pick up who cares more about image quality than size. Canon just announced the G10, which is competing with Panasonic's new LX-3 (also sold as the Leica D-Lux 4, but appears to be exactly the same camera). The Panasonic/Leica is lower resolution (a feature, not a bug), and has a wider-angle lens with a wider aperture. The Canon has an optical rangefinder (which nobody will ever use) and has big, chunky knobs, versus the fiddly-looking buttons on the Panasonic. Nikon has the new P6000 which is closer to the Canon than the Panasonic in its general specs, but has a vaguely proprietary raw file format versus the theoretically more accessible raw formats of Canon and Panasonic/Leica.

(Tom Knoll, one of the chief Adobe wizards on this, wrote of the P6000 raw files: "Adobe will attempt to support its raw format just like it attempts to support other camera's raw formats--by reading the data directly" versus using the Vista-specific WIC libraries which Nikon is supporting.)

Anyway, I've already got the D700, but my wife is hating our cheap point-and-shoot and I'm thinking of getting one of the Canon G10, Nikon P6000, or Panasonic LX3. Any thoughts on this (or on other camera topics)?

And I completely forgot to mention the other clever new in-between option, the Panasonic G1, which is the first shipping camera with the new "Micro Four Thirds" system -- basically you get interchangeable lenses, like on a D-SLR, but they eliminate the optical viewfinder and mirrorbox, making it more like a point-and-shoot.

I'm still only interested in ultra-compact cameras that can shoot well in low light. My next camera might be a Fuji FinePix F60fd.

I know that if I really wanted to shoot in low light, I'd be using a DSLR, but then I'd never have the camera with me when I really wanted to shoot something. I need something that can fit in my pocket.

We've got a Fuji F50fd. In low light, it's noisy but tolerable, if it manages to get your shot in focus. Unfortunately, the autofocus mechanism is total crap, and we've been unhappy with the results. Thus my wife is pushing me to get something to replace it.

Is it possible that the '60 will fix that issue?

Dunno. None of the review sites really pound on the autofocus systems in low light, so there's no easy way to know in advance short of having somebody else take the plunge.

Sorry, I know very little about this market, but I was under the impression that Nikon was now using Sony's optics.

Nikon uses Sony's *sensors*, not their optics!

Canon has the sensor size/density and the processor. Sony has the sensor size/density. Nikon have the body and the OS.

Final image quality comparisons still need to be made to see what the end result is, but the above, except for the new Sony splash, seems to be the recurring story for the past few years.

Personally, I couldn't stand to use any of the existing Canon bodies full time. They all feel cheap compared to the Nikons and feature a real lack of ergonomic thought.

I do think Canon are going to clean house with the new 5D though. Sony should also do very well with its new lineup if the image quality is good. If it's up there with Nikon's image quality, it's made an incredible offering at that price point.

Sorry, wasn't certain which parts. Still, not insubstantial.

I still mourn the theft of my Dad's IVSB

And my dad's '50s-era Nikon Rangefinder.

A slightly different take on it: Canon has the specs that many consumers think they want. Nikon has the specs that working photojournalists know they need. Sony has specs that are trying to out-do Canon at their own game.

Meanwhile, the rumormill is talking about a forthcoming announcement from Nikon on what will be called an MX format, presumably some variant on medium-format with a larger than 24x36mm sensor. If Nikon can undercut the existing medium-format vendors on price while yielding the same quality, they could make a hell of a splash. Or, this whole thing could be pure fiction.



The Canon 5D Mark II is definitely going to be on the buy-it-now path for everybody who owns a 5D, and that alone will make it quite a successful camera. I expect that Canon pros will also pick them up as backup / remote bodies. Canon used to be the only game in town with "full-frame" sensors, giving them a non-trivial sales advantage, even for cheaper bodies. (It's all about selling the system, not an individual camera.) Nikon and Sony now also occupy that same space, although the lower resolution of the present Nikon bodies may hurt them in the perception of people who think more megapixels is a big deal.

Dan, I'm firmly in the Nikon camp even though I have next to nothing invested in glass. Nikon to me means photography. Canon means photocopiers and printers, while Sony brings memories of junky clock radios and crappy HiFi gear.

However, there's no denying the stunning images that come out of the OLD 5D which compare more than favorably to the much more expensive Nikon D3 and the somewhat more expensive D700.

I think the new 5D is going to keep Canon the leader in wedding photography both as a primary body and secondary.

Nikon need a faster processor, even to deal with the sensors and lower resolutions they have in place. More pixels while important for marketing is a specification that's far from useless. Unresolved pixels are next to useless, but given a low noise and a clean image, you can't argue with more data, if for nothing else than just cropping room.

I just want to see all this competition bring cameras like the D700 down to the mid 1000's and D3's and 1Ds's to below 3000.

With regards to Sony, they make so little else that's any good, that there's no way I could take a chance on one of their cameras. Especially when they're still holding on to their proprietary MemoryStick format that has been useless from the day it was conceived (it's always been lower capacity, slower and larger dimensionally than the competition).

As far as larger sensors go, I'd love to see an abandonment of the 35mm frame equivalent. It's still a hold-over that was a matter of convenience when it was first introduced. Let's see a sensor as large as possible within a modern SLR body. Yes, that will bring negative crop factor with current full-frame glass. And the possibility of additional glass expense for newer toys... But damn, a 6x4cm sensor in a D700-sized SLR would be SWEET. For that matter a 6x6.

The new Nikon D3/D700 sensor is marginally better than the old Canon 5D sensor, at least according to a nerdy friend of mine who used both of them side-by-side and settled on the Nikon. He figures that the new Nikon bests the Canon in low-light by at least one stop.

Of course, the 5D came out, what, two years go? It was an excellent sensor in a reasonable but not extravagant body. The new 5D improves the rest of the package in a number of ways. It's an intriguing question whether most of the users of the camera will really leverage its high resolution.

Competition is clearly doing its thing. The Canon 5D Mark II has a sensor that's arguably comparable to the much more expensive 1Ds Mark III. Likewise, the Nikon D700 has the same exact sensor (and autofocus and metering) as the D3, again for much less money.

Of course, cropped-frame sensors will continue to be where the volume sales are for years to come. Semiconductor yields are always higher when the dies are smaller.

Not to mention rootkit viruses. Because of that fiasco, Sony has not received a dime of my money since November of 2005, and never will receive another.

tanstaafl.

Video from the 5D Mark II:

http://blogs.smugmug.com/don/2008/09/22/amazing-canon-5d-mkii-hd-video-footage/