Yet another Nikon-Canon debate

[panocho]

Today I was thinking about the weirdness in Nikon dSLR's nomenclature, which goes, as you all know, as follows:

professional bodies: D1, D2, D3...
pro/amateur bodies: D100, D200, D300...
"higher level" amateur bodies: D70, D80, D90...
"compact" amateur bodies: D50, D40...

so, how to understand it? It doesn't make sense; not to me, at least. Lower numbers, more basic cameras (and lower price numbers as well). OK. Then the numbers go higher, so do the cameras. OK. Then we enter three digits, and the cameras keep going up and away. Fine.... Until we reach the topest top -and suddenly numbers go deep bottom. What?

And then I thought... Canon! That must be it! Seems that Canon does it the proper way: the more zeroes you add in the names, the lower you go in the camera range. Simple (well, let us leave apart that weird -and ugly- US designation, "Rebel").

So the question is: could it had been that Nikon felt somehow forced to use something different, only in order to make it different from Canon, and thus their otherwise weird nomeclature?

 

[ksmattfish]

You should ask marketing specialists as it has nothing to do with photography. I'm sure they have grand ideas about the perfect arrangement of numbers and letters to bamboozle the consumer.

 

[tsaraleksi]

The naming styles for both brands are quite old-- Canon's 1 series has been so called since the debut of the EOS system in the late '80s, and the Nikon pro body name anyway originates with the Nikon F, that became the F2, F3, F4, F5, F6-- F for the name of their mount. It only made sense I suppose to pick up that nomenclature when they went digital.

 

[Garbz]

This reminds me of the debate when AMD first decided to stop selling CPUs based on their raw MHz number. It s a model number. If it made sense it would mean you understand the minds of marketing folk. This to me is a scary concept given how I know a few marketing folk.

 

[panocho]

and the Nikon pro body name anyway originates with the Nikon F, that became the F2, F3, F4, F5, F6-- F for the name of their mount. It only made sense I suppose to pick up that nomenclature when they went digital.

Exactly. I realised that the minute I posted the message. And I felt so stupid! I couldn't help thinking how far deep down into digital I had somehow moved that I had forgot such a basic thing! Me, the one in love with the film Nikon system!!

There is still something one could argue does not make much sense, anyway. But as you point out, Garbz, this would imply "understanding the minds of marketing folk".

So, my whole post was nonsense, pure absentmindness. Sorry about that, and please forgive an idiot who has become so absorved by newer digital cameras that seems to forget what he himself considers the basics!

 

[amby]

hmm..the numbers really doesnt matter to the real photographer[no offence]
as a photographer you always look for the best and you dont wory about the numbers of the odel no. and yeah its a marketing strategy which is decided by the companyand it should not bug the consumer

 

[mrodgers]

This reminds me of the debate when AMD first decided to stop selling CPUs based on their raw MHz number. It s a model number. If it made sense it would mean you understand the minds of marketing folk. This to me is a scary concept given how I know a few marketing folk.

AMD names them as their equivalent to Intel MHz speed. Intel and AMD measure the CPU speed differently with AMD being more accurate I've read. Thus, AMD selling a 2.1 GHz as the AMD 2100 would never sell any as Intel was selling their processors as 3.5 GHz. Thus, they named it the AMD 3500 to make sure it was known to be the equivalent of Intel's 3.5 GHz.

 

[panocho]

hmm..the numbers really doesnt matter to the real photographer[no offence]
as a photographer you always look for the best and you dont wory about the numbers of the odel no.

Never meant that!

 

[Garbz]

Thus, they named it the AMD 3500 to make sure it was known to be the equivalent of Intel's 3.5 GHz.

Yep exactly what I said, marketing. It was still a processor of lower MHz but the shorter pipeline meant for better "performance". Intel followed suit with it's Core processors.