Is Nikon lagging behind in the DSLR category?

I have been waiting for Nikon to catch up with Cannon for several months now. When Cannon introduced its new 18MP camera and won the award for the best DSLR of last year, I figured it wouldn't take too long before Nikon introduced a similiar product. Or better yet a 24MP that the average joe could afford. I know MPs aren't everything but the Cannon model had many other features that seems to put it ahead of Nikon and the price was relatively affordable as well. What's up Nikon? Are we asleep at the switch? I see Ashton K pushing lower end DSLRs and a brief mention of the now older D90 in the TV commercials. Does that mean that Nikon will finally be coming out with a D90 replacement. I am not huge into video but when Cannon is into 1080p at a good pricepoint and Nikon is still old school with 720p they seem to be behind there also. Granted if you aren't into the video feature, I just see it as another thing that could break. In any case lets get with the program ! I have all this money invested in Nikon lenses. If I didn't, I may be rethinking my desicion to go Nikon ! Any thoughts?

Reputedly they make the best high MP (D3X) and the best high ISO (D3s) cameras so I would say that it is Canon that needs to catch up. Sometimes you gotta pay to get the best.

I could care less about video so that doesn't enter into my camera buying decision....I might feel differently if it did.

Mark hit the nail wright on the head with his opinion. The D3s and D3x are the best two camera's on the market at this time. They are incredible period.

I'm a Canon shooter who feels that Canon is behind, especially when it comes to noise levels in low light.

Since the introduction of Nikon's D3, Canon has had no answer to the superiority of Nikon's top DSLRs in this regard. Add to this the recall of Canon's 1DMkIII for focusing problems and the quick abandonment of the noisy-heavy G10 and you have to wonder whether design and quality control at Canon are slipping.

That said, the 5DMkII seems to be one that Canon got right.

When looking at the results, I am not sure that it makes a big difference who has the highest pixel count. In fact, the trend is less marketing driven and more quality driven towards lower pixel densities, since generally speaking noise levels tend to be lower with fewer pixels. The glass is the real investment anyway. Bodies come and go and are constantly upgraded, but you don't really see that many really new lens offerings from either mfgr.

When I decide to get video, I will go straight to a video camera. Admittedly, the quality of the D90 and comparable DSLR video is oustanding, but the platform is not particularly ergonomically suited for video.

I ditto what Mark says and don't believe the hype over the Canon 7D (which I presume is what you were reffering to in regards to the 18MP camera). There have been quite a few people on NPN who have returned theres or sent exchanged them because of quality control issues. This is not to say the 7D isn't a fine camera (Before purchasing my D300s I briefly flirted with the idea of switching to Canon for the 7D) but the 7D has little advantage of the D300s (more MPs but we know the truth behind that) and from what I've seen slightly better ISO handeling and $100 less on the price point. But the D300s is certainly on par with it and I have no regrets nor have I heard of anyone having an QC issues with the D300s.

- Luke

I was a Canon shooter for many years and I switched to Nikon last year and haven't looked back yet. If you are just shooting landscape, flowers, and occassional family stuff then it doesn't matter which brand you shoot if you are mostly under iso 400. If you are a serious wildlife shooter and need the higher iso with low noise or want the very best image quality then Nikon has them all beat IMO. Is Nikon cheap...not by any means. The D700/D3 and the D3x are simply the best DSLR out there right now. Can the average person tell the difference in quality between the the top canon and the top nikon....probably not. However when it comes to low noise at high ISO then no one can touch the NIkon D700/D3. The dynamic range that can be captured on the Nikon D3x is amazing. I feel as a general rule the pro Nikon lenses are sharper, but canon still has a select few that are better, especially their teleconveters. I own both the D3x and the D700 (formerly owning the 1DsIII and the 1DIII) and I find the low noise ability and amazing image quality of the D700 makes the better camera value on the market right now. I use it 80% of the time.

Don't be to hard on Nikon because right now most would agree that Nikon is the current king of DSLR's. Canon is trying to close that gap lately though, but they still seem to be MP driven instead of overall image quality (ie noise, dynamic range, etc).

If I read between the lines it sounds like you' re waiting for the price to come down on the high performance bodies. That will be a very long wait. Even at these high prices it seems that Nikon can't build them fast enough.

Before anyone makes such sweeping statements, realize there are others out there who are shooting other things besides nature and landscape where the so-called short comings of either camera may not be an issue. Some of those same people rely heavily on the video feature now available in DSLRs where traditional video cameras can't compete.

NIKON, WAY TO GO

I agree that for low light conditions, ya can't beat the Nikons. But, as one who shot Nikons and recently switched to Canon, I really like the image quality better of the Canons. But you know how it goes, it's just like a favorite sports team, everyone has an opinion and everyone thinks theirs is the best. In this case, both Canon and Nikon have superb DSLR's and it's just a matter of personal preference and shooting style/subjects. Besides, it's the photographer that is the most important!

And I only saw one mention of the D700. Low light shooter to the max!

I have been shooting with Nikon equipment for over 40 years and yes, I am a huge fan of the cameras. Having said that; when I decided to jump into digital imaging from 35mm I did some homework and considered the offerings from Canon. I decided to stay with Nikon and my first DSLR was a Nikon D60 which has given me some very good images. I recently added to the collection with a Nikon D300s which I believe is the best APS-C sensor camera on the market today. I think the real key is in the lenses and not so much the latest and greatest body. Good glass lasts for a very long time no matter what you are plugging it into. Just my take on it.

There really is a good enough.
My dearly departed Fuji S2 Pro was actually good enough.
My D200 was also good enough, until I dropped it into the trout stream.
So, I bought a D300s, very spiffy. I don't see any increased praise for my photos.

When I first saw this I thought it was a joke. Some great comments.

I am a Canon Shooter. The OP seemed like a post from a few years ago during the 1D3 fiasco of Canon during which many lamented that Canon was behind the times. Now I truly think all is equal. Nikon = better noise at ISO higher than 1000 in 7D and higher than 3200 in 1D4. However Canon 1D4 and 7D have more detail in both these situations.

I have produced outstanding prints - notice I said prints, not pixel peeping on the computer - with ISO 1600 with 7D and ISO 3200 with 1D4, both with significant crops.

So, I would say that Nikon and Canon both produce outstanding bodies and lenses worthy of any professional's consideration. The differences and which is better is a matter of shooting style and personal preferences.

To all Nikon, Canon, Sony, Olympus, Pentax, etc shooters - get out there and make images. Your brain and vision is more important than any hardware!

I'm not sure what "lagging behind" means. They've always stayed a step or two ahead of our needs, which means we get to buy last year's "latest" as this year's discount. Suits us fine when we're paying for camera gear using our shutter releases.

"To all Nikon, Canon, Sony, Olympus, Pentax, etc shooters - get out there and make images. Your brain and vision is more important than any hardware! "

I couldn't agree more, Ed!

Sometimes I think we forget that technology is a means to end; the end being the images that come from the heart.

--P