Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


Canon 5D Mk II


mightymash 6 111 1 United Kingdom
10 Jun 2008 10:56PM

Quote:Canon sell more cameras than Nikon


Compacts yes. SLRs [b]SOLD[b], look at the growth figures. A quick bit of maths shows Nikon has edged ahead slightly so far this year. Canon still sell more in total.

It's good, it's about time Canon had some decent competition again on the SLR front, I've happened to notice a lot of new Sony's around recently too. Competition is good for us the buyer.

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

mightymash 6 111 1 United Kingdom
10 Jun 2008 11:38PM
Of course growth rate changes, and growth rate so far this year, as in not predicted, suggest that Nikon are selling more Digital SLRs than Canon by a small margin this year. Nikon's growth was 71% compared to 29% with a previous 38% to 42% market split in the previous year.

Canon sold 3.18m DSLR units last, based on growth so far this year they will sell 4.11m. Nikon sold 2.98m last year, 5.13m this year all of course assuming growth continues as it has already.

Trust me when I say it's not just the D40. In the shop I work we sell close to 2 D300s to every 40D despite the low price of the Canon. D200, D40, D40x, D50, D70 and D80 owners are all upgrading to the D300. Not to mention people swapping from Pentax and Olympus.

No one is disputing that Canon sell more cameras in total, or have sold more Digital SLRs. Nikon have however, sold more SLRs than Canon if you add Film to the mix, and Olympus are the all time greatest in compacts. This all has nothing to do with the current market.

I'm sure it's just a blip for Canon in the DSLR market and it will even out again next year. No point arguing over the figures for the last six months, they are just what they are, facts from a limited period.
pcheywood 9 1.3k England
10 Jun 2008 11:52PM
Who cares?

Paul.
Big Bri 13 15.6k United Kingdom
10 Jun 2008 11:54PM
Not me.
Big Bri 13 15.6k United Kingdom
10 Jun 2008 11:56PM
Why ????
Are you a Canon shareholder ?
pcheywood 9 1.3k England
10 Jun 2008 11:57PM

Quote:Why ????
Are you a Canon shareholder ?



Made me laugh anyway!

Paul.
Sus 10 3.2k 9 England
11 Jun 2008 9:03AM
Can I ask, WHY does the 1000D seem to have a lower spec, if anything, than the 450D?

It doesn't work with an RC-1 or RC-5 remote!
SLower continuous rate than 450 (3 vs 3.5)
Fewer autofocus crosspoints
No spot metering?

What is Canon playing at???! THis appears to be like a dumbed down even-more-entry-level DSLR rather than an 'upgrade' What am I missing?
Sabreur 9 767 England
11 Jun 2008 9:12AM

Quote:
What is Canon playing at???! THis appears to be like a dumbed down even-more-entry-level DSLR rather than an 'upgrade' What am I missing?



I think that is exactly what Canon were aiming for. Look at the model number - more digits means lower spec (e.g. 5D vs 40D vs 450D).
MattGrayson 7 622 3 England
11 Jun 2008 9:14AM

Quote:Can I ask, WHY does the 1000D seem to have a lower spec, if anything, than the 450D?

It doesn't work with an RC-1 or RC-5 remote!
SLower continuous rate than 450 (3 vs 3.5)
Fewer autofocus crosspoints
No spot metering?

What is Canon playing at???! THis appears to be like a dumbed down even-more-entry-level DSLR rather than an 'upgrade' What am I missing?



Have Canon said it's an upgrade? I thought it was a whole new classification to compete with the Oly E-420 and Sony A200. If canon are carrying on their tradition of numbering cameras, then the lower the number, the higher the spec. Hence the EOS 1 being the pro model and that would explain the lack of features. Smile
conrad 10 10.9k 116
11 Jun 2008 9:21AM
But over here it costs more than the 450D. That's not competing, is it - at ten euros less than the 1000D, the 450D is a better competitor than the 1000D.
Sus 10 3.2k 9 England
11 Jun 2008 9:25AM
Yeah, I suspected the more digits - lower spec - but it doesn't really make sense when the 450D range are so cheap anyway - oh well, still waiting for the 5D announcement...
mightymash 6 111 1 United Kingdom
11 Jun 2008 9:30AM
I'm sure the rice will drop, but it should really be starting around the 350 mark so it can be more competitive with the likes of the A200 and D40. Somewhere Canon have been lacking. With a spec like that it would make a killing.
javam e2
10 1.1k 19 United Kingdom
11 Jun 2008 10:27AM
If they really expect this to be taken seriously as an 'affordable' entry model it needs to be around the 299 mark 399 max as this is the price point of other manufacturer's entry models.

At the price currently listed on WE of 499, you would have to seriously question the decision making skills of those that buy one now. Give it a few months and it will be much lower than this.

Neil
mattw 10 5.2k 10 United Kingdom
11 Jun 2008 11:35AM
Strange that Canon have called this the 1000D and not 4000D.

500 is way to much. The 400D has a better spec, and they can still be had for 380.


Quote:That's the price quoted on DP Review. Maybe ePz have got the price wrong, as pointed out, how could it be more expensive than the 450D?

Warehouse express are quoting 500 as well.
javam e2
10 1.1k 19 United Kingdom
11 Jun 2008 12:23PM
I suspect it is an attempt to hark back to the film eos days when the 1000 was the entry model, just as the 1 was the top end.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.