The announcements of the Nikon D300 and D3 cameras are good news… for Nikon and Canon photographers.

Until recently, Canon arguably had the DSLR market pretty much locked down. When other manufacturers were selling 6 MP crop sensor bodies, Canon’s bodies used 8 MP sensors. While other manufacturer’s high speed pro bodies used 1.6x crop sensors, Canon’s used a 1.3x sensor. While other manufacturer’s only offered cropped sensors, Canon produced two full frame models.

This week’s announcements may indicate how things will shift in the future. Canon announced the long-expected 1DsMKIII, a 21 MP full frame flagship camera that competes with MF film bodies. At the same time Canon announced the also-expected 40D, a crop sensor 10MP camera with improved features (dust reduction, faster burst rate, etc.) compared to the older 30D.

Meanwhile, Nikon announced the D300, a crop sensor 12+ MP body with state of the art features including a 9 fps burst rate, improved AF system, improved body sealing… and a price that is competitive with the 30D. While Canon users are not likely to sell their cameras and switch to Nikon, first time DSLR buyers and those without large investments in lenses will find that the Nikon camera to surpasses the equivalent Canon on a number of counts.

Nikon also announced the D3, a 12+ MP full frame body. This is a very interesting camera in many ways. It provides the first non-Canon full frame body, finally introducing some competition to the Canon full frame cameras. It offers fast burst rates of 9 (or, with limits, 11) fps in a full frame body, providing serious competition for the Canon 1DMKIII’s 10 fps with a 1.3x crop body.

Additional rumors and announcements indicate that Sony may offer a full frame DSLR before long and that Nikon won’t be the only manufacturer of 12+ MP crop sensor bodies.

I use a Canon 5D and Canon lenses. You might think that I’d be a bit upset to see my company losing its clear lead. On the contrary, I’ve felt for some time that effective competition would be a good thing for Canon photographers and for the camera marketplace in general. With at least three manufacturers now able to compete fairly effectively (and others like Pentax and Olympus offering interesting and novel alternatives) I’m hopeful that we’ll see more attention to careful design and that we’ll see greater price competition in the pro and semi-pro DSLR market.

(Right after posting this message I saw Michael Reichmann’s post on more or less the same subject.)

I have been on two Sierra Nevada backpack trips during the past month… with very different photographic results. The first trip was a six-day visit to the Ediza Lake/Thousand Island Lake area near Mammoth, California. I came back from this trip with a bunch of photographs that I think are very successful – both from the pack trip itself and from a pre-trip visit to Mono Lake. I just returned yesterday from the second trip, a week-long adventure in the highest portion of the southern Sierra Nevada during which we crossed three spectacular 12,000’+ passes – but I didn’t have nearly the photographic success on this trip.

What could explain the difference between the outcomes of the two trips? Probably quite a few things – here’s a short list:

• The nature of the trips – On the first trip we stayed in the same place for as long as three days at a time, providing lots of time to learn the area a bit more thoroughly. On the second trip we moved every day, and some of the days were quite rough. On day three of the trip we travelled cross-country (e.g. – no trail) across a class two 12,600′ pass. The best early morning hours were often spent getting up and onto the trail, and we were tired enough in the evenings that crawling into the sleeping bag was a more attractive proposition than doing photography.
• The weather – On the first trip the clouds built up every day, leading to afternoon thunderstorms on more than half of them. In fact, on several days the clouds had already appeared by dawn. On the second trip we experienced a full week of nearly “perfect” (in the backpacking sense) weather with hardly a cloud to be seen. While the second trip’s weather was arguably better for backpacking, it was not nearly as interesting for photography.
• The terrain and conditions – The timing of the first trip was fortuitous; we hit the peak of this summer’s meager Sierra greenery and flowers east of the Minarets. Two weeks later, much of the spectacular country we traveled though on the second trip was extremely dry and brown. In addition, while traveling over high passes is indeed a spectacular thing, I find them difficult to shoot during the middle of the day, the time when we tended to make our crossings.
• The company – My companions on the first trip were my photographer brother and his family. It was easy (unavoidable, actually! :-) to include photography as an integral part of the trip. My companions on the second trip were the talusdancers, a group of friends who backpack the Sierra together every summer. The main focus of the latter trip was travel through the mountains, not photography.
• Imponderables – Sometimes everything looks like a potential photograph… and sometimes it doesn’t – you either are thinking photographically or you aren’t For whatever reasons, sometimes the mind and the eye seem fully engaged in seeking out photographic images – and at other times it just isn’t happening. It wasn’t happening nearly as often on the second trip as on the first.

All of this is a reflection on the fact that I probably came back from the recent trip with no more than a half dozen – if that – photographs that really “do it” for me. On one level this is a bit disappointing. However, I’ve learned that not every trip produces a ton of great images, and that even the trips that aren’t immediately successful may lead to something more successful in the future.

Besides, it was a great pack trip!