Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why can't we just take pictures?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 5:33:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

What ever happened to, "I like this camera line, so I'll buy some more
of this?" When did photo guys become such avid market-watchers? And
for all the Canoniacs trumpeting their "market" position, why do you
feel the need to do this?


About a month ago, I attended my son's college graduation. I was
shooting (horrors!) film in my Nikon F2 with motor drive and 80-200
f2.8 ED zoom lens. Several times, I walked in to the area reserved
for the pro's and no one stopped me, I guess because I looked "pro."

Then I made the "mistake" of asking one of the pro's about the monopod
she was using. She took one look at me, and asked me when I would go
digital. When I told her that I would go Nikon digital (look at the
bagful of Nikon lenses), she sniffed and said that I was making a
mistake by not going Canon. Even on front of my wife and
mother-in-law.

More about : pictures

Anonymous
July 4, 2005 5:58:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Father Kodak" <dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> wrote in message
news:h87jc1hbk9ehgrrkoqv3uouhuhpgghul30@4ax.com...
> What ever happened to, "I like this camera line, so I'll buy some more
> of this?" When did photo guys become such avid market-watchers? And
> for all the Canoniacs trumpeting their "market" position, why do you
> feel the need to do this?

A question was asked about the two biggies.
I answered that question with some facts about the market...which can play a
part when people consider the future of their system of choice.

Nikon makes fine equipment.
Canon makes fine equipment.
Many other manufacturers make fine equipment.

I think the problem in this case is that of an extremely defensive person
(you) who feels the need for affirmation.
Why do you care so much about what others do?
Why can't you just confidently use your gear without being applauded all the
time about your choices?
Ther are always going to be people who think their system is superior, and
that all other gear stinks.
They are just ignorant.
However...there is nothing wrong with people voicing perferences, and
delineating why one may be preferable over another.

> About a month ago, I attended my son's college graduation. I was
> shooting (horrors!) film in my Nikon F2 with motor drive and 80-200
> f2.8 ED zoom lens. Several times, I walked in to the area reserved
> for the pro's and no one stopped me, I guess because I looked "pro."
>
> Then I made the "mistake" of asking one of the pro's about the monopod
> she was using. She took one look at me, and asked me when I would go
> digital. When I told her that I would go Nikon digital (look at the
> bagful of Nikon lenses), she sniffed and said that I was making a
> mistake by not going Canon. Even on front of my wife and
> mother-in-law.

Awww... You poor thing..
-You had your camera system questined...IN FRONT OF YOUR MOTHER IN LAW!!
Heaven forbid!
July 4, 2005 7:32:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Father,
NO problem. Your mother-in-law already knew you are stupid. But, in front of
your wife was inexcusable.

A happy Nikon owner

"Father Kodak" <dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> wrote in message
news:h87jc1hbk9ehgrrkoqv3uouhuhpgghul30@4ax.com...
> What ever happened to, "I like this camera line, so I'll buy some more
> of this?" When did photo guys become such avid market-watchers? And
> for all the Canoniacs trumpeting their "market" position, why do you
> feel the need to do this?
>
>
> About a month ago, I attended my son's college graduation. I was
> shooting (horrors!) film in my Nikon F2 with motor drive and 80-200
> f2.8 ED zoom lens. Several times, I walked in to the area reserved
> for the pro's and no one stopped me, I guess because I looked "pro."
>
> Then I made the "mistake" of asking one of the pro's about the monopod
> she was using. She took one look at me, and asked me when I would go
> digital. When I told her that I would go Nikon digital (look at the
> bagful of Nikon lenses), she sniffed and said that I was making a
> mistake by not going Canon. Even on front of my wife and
> mother-in-law.
Related resources
Anonymous
July 4, 2005 11:40:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Father Kodak" <dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> wrote in message
news:h87jc1hbk9ehgrrkoqv3uouhuhpgghul30@4ax.com...
> What ever happened to, "I like this camera line, so I'll buy some more
> of this?" When did photo guys become such avid market-watchers? And
> for all the Canoniacs trumpeting their "market" position, why do you
> feel the need to do this?
>
>
> About a month ago, I attended my son's college graduation. I was
> shooting (horrors!) film in my Nikon F2 with motor drive and 80-200
> f2.8 ED zoom lens. Several times, I walked in to the area reserved
> for the pro's and no one stopped me, I guess because I looked "pro."
>
> Then I made the "mistake" of asking one of the pro's about the monopod
> she was using. She took one look at me, and asked me when I would go
> digital. When I told her that I would go Nikon digital (look at the
> bagful of Nikon lenses), she sniffed and said that I was making a
> mistake by not going Canon. Even on front of my wife and
> mother-in-law.

I went Nikon simply because I have a bag full of Nikon lenses. Can't go
wrong either way. Canon/Nikon. Hatfields/McCoys. Same thing. I wish this
group would stop the feud.
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 2:52:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Father Kodak wrote:

> Then I made the "mistake" of asking one of the pro's about the monopod
> she was using. She took one look at me, and asked me when I would go
> digital. When I told her that I would go Nikon digital (look at the
> bagful of Nikon lenses), she sniffed and said that I was making a
> mistake by not going Canon.

A lot of pros that were "early adopters" had no choice but to go the
Canon route, since Canon had the high resolution, low-noise, low
crop-factor, professional cameras available, and Nikon dis not.

Did you ask her why she thought it was a mistake? It was probably due to
the availability of full frame bodies.
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 4:27:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

In article <h87jc1hbk9ehgrrkoqv3uouhuhpgghul30@4ax.com>, Father Kodak
<dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> wrote:

> What ever happened to, "I like this camera line, so I'll buy some more
> of this?" When did photo guys become such avid market-watchers? And
> for all the Canoniacs trumpeting their "market" position, why do you
> feel the need to do this?

We don't take pictures.

We take PHOTOGRAPHS.

This makes us important and knowledgeable.

duh.
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 5:21:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Steven M. Scharf <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:

> Did you ask her why she thought it was a mistake? It was probably due to
> the availability of full frame bodies.

Yep -- because someone shooting graduation ceremonies couldn't possibly get
by without full frame! After all, those are all about the super-wide-angle
lenses. And high-profile gigs like that pay well enough to make it a good
business investment, too.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 9:39:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Sheldon wrote:

> I went Nikon simply because I have a bag full of Nikon lenses. Can't go
> wrong either way. Canon/Nikon. Hatfields/McCoys. Same thing. I wish this
> group would stop the feud.

There is no feud. Discussing the relative merits of equipment is a
legitimate topic on thia group.

There is no reason for a non-pro to not stick with the body that matches
their existing lenses (if the existing lenses are any good!). The
reasons that Canon dominates the professional digital market are well
known, but they don't apply to amateur equipment.
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 9:39:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
news:p 2pye.3870$8f7.3558@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Sheldon wrote:
>
>> I went Nikon simply because I have a bag full of Nikon lenses. Can't go
>> wrong either way. Canon/Nikon. Hatfields/McCoys. Same thing. I wish
>> this group would stop the feud.
>
> There is no feud. Discussing the relative merits of equipment is a
> legitimate topic on thia group.
>
> There is no reason for a non-pro to not stick with the body that matches
> their existing lenses (if the existing lenses are any good!). The reasons
> that Canon dominates the professional digital market are well known, but
> they don't apply to amateur equipment.

I don't know why a pro would have to dump a bunch of Nikkor lenses to go
with Canon. If I went pro, I would probably buy a Fuji S3, and keep all my
lenses. (assuming that I really needed to go digital)
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 9:39:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:2v6dnZqGoJD5tlffRVn-3w@comcast.com...
>
> "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
> news:p 2pye.3870$8f7.3558@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> Sheldon wrote:
>>
>>> I went Nikon simply because I have a bag full of Nikon lenses. Can't go
>>> wrong either way. Canon/Nikon. Hatfields/McCoys. Same thing. I wish
>>> this group would stop the feud.
>>
>> There is no feud. Discussing the relative merits of equipment is a
>> legitimate topic on thia group.
>>
>> There is no reason for a non-pro to not stick with the body that matches
>> their existing lenses (if the existing lenses are any good!). The reasons
>> that Canon dominates the professional digital market are well known, but
>> they don't apply to amateur equipment.
>
> I don't know why a pro would have to dump a bunch of Nikkor lenses to go
> with Canon. If I went pro, I would probably buy a Fuji S3, and keep all my
> lenses. (assuming that I really needed to go digital)

One reason pros have been moving toward Canon has been that Canon been the
fps champ for some time now...along with their comparatively long and
extended reach into stabilized lenses for pros. Sports and photojournalists
greatly benefit from both of these technologies. It's only been in recent
months that Nikon has finally come out with a DSLR that can keep up with
Canon's 1D Mark II's fps, and relatively recently that Nikon has entered the
stabilization game. Canon still has about three times the offerings that
Nikon does.

Nikon's new pro DSLR offering looks to be a GREAT piece of equipment...but
their problem in recent years is that Canon's ability to release updated pro
bodies has far out-paced Nikon. I personally know a number of sports
shooters who switched for this very reason.

Nikon is perfectly capable of making world-class stuff that is on-par with
Canon. They just seem so danged SLOW at getting around to it. They've lost
a lot of pro customers to Canon over the last three of four years
especially. It started with Canon's release of the 1D...then the 1Ds...and
especially with the 1D Mark II...and now the 1Ds Mark II. Over that same
period, Nikon has not kept pace.

For me, none of the above was a clincher, as I don't own any of those
models...but when I do, I'll have a bunch of Canon IS glass to stick on
them. Had Nikon offered IS early on, I might have well adopted thier
system.

And to "Father Kodak"...
....No. This post is NOT slamming Nikon gear.
Read carefully.
Nikon has been slow on the draw, but shen they finally draw, they have good
stuff.
They'd just better pick up the pace!!!
I'm rooting for Nikon as I always have...because I don't want my gear's
maker (Canon) to get a corner on my end of the market. Competition is good
for everyone on the purchasing end...
So.... GO NIKON GO!!
;) 
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 9:44:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Father Kodak wrote:
> What ever happened to, "I like this camera line, so I'll buy some more
> of this?" When did photo guys become such avid market-watchers? And
> for all the Canoniacs trumpeting their "market" position, why do you
> feel the need to do this?
>
>
> About a month ago, I attended my son's college graduation. I was
> shooting (horrors!) film in my Nikon F2 with motor drive and 80-200
> f2.8 ED zoom lens. Several times, I walked in to the area reserved
> for the pro's and no one stopped me, I guess because I looked "pro."
>
> Then I made the "mistake" of asking one of the pro's about the monopod
> she was using. She took one look at me, and asked me when I would go
> digital. When I told her that I would go Nikon digital (look at the
> bagful of Nikon lenses), she sniffed and said that I was making a
> mistake by not going Canon. Even on front of my wife and
> mother-in-law.

To me she sounds like a loose cannon!

Seriously, there are people like that who react with excess sensitivity
to the minutest of comments however sincere they were meant to be and
are vociferous in their vindiction.

Although generalizations are too often scorned at I think there is some
truth in my impression that the camera brand one is loyal to says
something about the person and his preferences. I have learned to
loathe Canon thanks to the people who shoot Canon and the photos I've
seen them post online. Too often if I'd loathed the photo it proves to
have been shot with a Canon digital! They are the mob for all I care
and their photos are usually the canonical examples of *tasteless
glitz* that's lacking in art and lacking in refinement! I've played
this game many times a year ago where I would look at a gallery of
thumbnails on usefilm or other sites and just by sight I could usually
tell who shot Canon digital, who shot Olympus, who shot Leica and who
shot medium format even at 160x120 pixels or whatever small size.

I'm sure there are some fine folks who are strictly utilitarian towards
their Canon gear, but the brand attracts too many pretentious idiots
and the idea of me joining that horde makes me cringe. I won't be
surprised if the manners of some reflected that too.
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 11:22:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Right! "Picture' is a term for a painting. Cameras take photographs,
not 'pictures'.

Steve Cutchen wrote:
> In article <h87jc1hbk9ehgrrkoqv3uouhuhpgghul30@4ax.com>, Father Kodak
> <dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> wrote:
>
> > What ever happened to, "I like this camera line, so I'll buy some more
> > of this?" When did photo guys become such avid market-watchers? And
> > for all the Canoniacs trumpeting their "market" position, why do you
> > feel the need to do this?
>
> We don't take pictures.
>
> We take PHOTOGRAPHS.
>
> This makes us important and knowledgeable.
>
> duh.
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 12:17:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:1srye.7428$Eo.4847@fed1read04...
> I'm rooting for Nikon as I always have...because I don't want my gear's
> maker (Canon) to get a corner on my end of the market. Competition is
> good for everyone on the purchasing end...
> So.... GO NIKON GO!!
> ;) 

Now that's a sentiment I can definitely agree with. GO NIKON (and Leica,
and Pentax, and Olympus)!

Walt
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 12:27:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On Mon, 4 Jul 2005 19:40:54 -0600, "Sheldon"
<sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:

>
>"Father Kodak" <dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> wrote in message
>news:h87jc1hbk9ehgrrkoqv3uouhuhpgghul30@4ax.com...
>> What ever happened to, "I like this camera line, so I'll buy some more
>> of this?" When did photo guys become such avid market-watchers? And
>> for all the Canoniacs trumpeting their "market" position, why do you
>> feel the need to do this?
>>
>>
>> About a month ago, I attended my son's college graduation. I was
>> shooting (horrors!) film in my Nikon F2 with motor drive and 80-200
>> f2.8 ED zoom lens. Several times, I walked in to the area reserved
>> for the pro's and no one stopped me, I guess because I looked "pro."
>>
>> Then I made the "mistake" of asking one of the pro's about the monopod
>> she was using. She took one look at me, and asked me when I would go
>> digital. When I told her that I would go Nikon digital (look at the
>> bagful of Nikon lenses), she sniffed and said that I was making a
>> mistake by not going Canon. Even on front of my wife and
>> mother-in-law.
>
>I went Nikon simply because I have a bag full of Nikon lenses. Can't go
>wrong either way. Canon/Nikon. Hatfields/McCoys. Same thing. I wish this
>group would stop the feud.
>

Exactly! To the poster who told ME that *I* was defensive, he missed
the point completely. He should have held up a mirror to his face as
he typed that response.

Perhaps it's time for a some rec.photo groups devoted to each major
brand. Then we could get rid of these pointless discussions and talk
about PHOTOGRAPHS and questions and comments about PHOTOGRAPHS.

I wasn't being defensive. I wasn't being offensive. I was
expressing annoyance at people who are defensive/offensive and all the
flame wars thereof.

Father Kodak
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 12:29:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On Mon, 4 Jul 2005 15:32:07 -0700, "MrB" <brooksro@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Father,
>NO problem. Your mother-in-law already knew you are stupid. But, in front of
>your wife was inexcusable.
>
>A happy Nikon owner

I'm also a happy Nikon owner, and my wifed doesn't much care about
the brand. She just wants the results, that is, good pictures to show
her friends.

And that's the real lesson.
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 12:29:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On Mon, 04 Jul 2005 22:52:20 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
<scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:

>Father Kodak wrote:
>
>> Then I made the "mistake" of asking one of the pro's about the monopod
>> she was using. She took one look at me, and asked me when I would go
>> digital. When I told her that I would go Nikon digital (look at the
>> bagful of Nikon lenses), she sniffed and said that I was making a
>> mistake by not going Canon.
>
>A lot of pros that were "early adopters" had no choice but to go the
>Canon route, since Canon had the high resolution, low-noise, low
>crop-factor, professional cameras available, and Nikon dis not.
>
>Did you ask her why she thought it was a mistake? It was probably due to
>the availability of full frame bodies.

No, because (1) she was in a bit of a hurry, and (2) "Frankly, I don't
give a damn."
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 12:30:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 01:21:39 -0000, Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com>
wrote:

>Steven M. Scharf <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:
>
>> Did you ask her why she thought it was a mistake? It was probably due to
>> the availability of full frame bodies.
>
>Yep -- because someone shooting graduation ceremonies couldn't possibly get
>by without full frame! After all, those are all about the super-wide-angle

Does that apply to the two Princeton PR types standing next to me who
were shooting with a non-full frame Canon?

>lenses. And high-profile gigs like that pay well enough to make it a good
>business investment, too.
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 12:32:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 05:39:33 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
<scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:

>Sheldon wrote:
>
>> I went Nikon simply because I have a bag full of Nikon lenses. Can't go
>> wrong either way. Canon/Nikon. Hatfields/McCoys. Same thing. I wish this
>> group would stop the feud.
>
>There is no feud. Discussing the relative merits of equipment is a
>legitimate topic on thia group.

In principle you are right. In reality, people are guilty of
feuding, judging by the tone of some of their postings.
>
>There is no reason for a non-pro to not stick with the body that matches
>their existing lenses (if the existing lenses are any good!). The
>reasons that Canon dominates the professional digital market are well
>known, but they don't apply to amateur equipment.
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 1:16:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Jeremy Nixon wrote:
..
>
>
> Yep -- because someone shooting graduation ceremonies couldn't possibly get
> by without full frame! After all, those are all about the super-wide-angle
> lenses. And high-profile gigs like that pay well enough to make it a good
> business investment, too.
>
And the rage for superwide lenses came after the good old days. In old
days no one liked wierd perspective of extreme wide angle. 35mm FL
lenses were the limit most people would use. The rage was long
telephoto :-)
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 1:18:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Steven M. Scharf wrote:
> Sheldon wrote:
>
>> I went Nikon simply because I have a bag full of Nikon lenses. Can't
>> go wrong either way. Canon/Nikon. Hatfields/McCoys. Same thing. I
>> wish this group would stop the feud.
>
>
> There is no feud. Discussing the relative merits of equipment is a
> legitimate topic on thia group.
>
> There is no reason for a non-pro to not stick with the body that matches
> their existing lenses (if the existing lenses are any good!). The
> reasons that Canon dominates the professional digital market are well
> known, but they don't apply to amateur equipment.


Except when mfg no longer makes film SLRs :-)

My wife fell in love with the Tamron 30-300 mm lens. However, since Oly
doesn't make film SLRs anymore, she couldn't buy a version to fit her
OM-1 or OM-PC. So she bought a new Nikon N70 just to buy that lens.
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 2:33:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

In article <E4jye.3742$8f7.2636@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
Steven M. Scharf <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:
>Father Kodak wrote:
>
>> Then I made the "mistake" of asking one of the pro's about the monopod
>> she was using. She took one look at me, and asked me when I would go
>> digital. When I told her that I would go Nikon digital (look at the
>> bagful of Nikon lenses), she sniffed and said that I was making a
>> mistake by not going Canon.
>
>A lot of pros that were "early adopters" had no choice but to go the
>Canon route, since Canon had the high resolution, low-noise, low
>crop-factor, professional cameras available, and Nikon dis not.

That's rather revisionist. It was a long time before Canon had a reply to
the Nikon D1 - that was the camera that the early adopters were using. When
they did launch their first real DSLR (not counting the early Kodak Canon
mount bodies), it was a consumer model - the D30, which would have been
unsatisfactory for the sort of thing the D1 was good at.

By the time Canon caught up, and arguably passed Nikon in the "professional"
digital market, the people buying DSLRs weren't "early adopters" any more.
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 2:33:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Chris Brown" <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote in message
news:li0qp2-1l7.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org...
> In article <E4jye.3742$8f7.2636@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Steven M. Scharf <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:
>>Father Kodak wrote:
>>
>>> Then I made the "mistake" of asking one of the pro's about the monopod
>>> she was using. She took one look at me, and asked me when I would go
>>> digital. When I told her that I would go Nikon digital (look at the
>>> bagful of Nikon lenses), she sniffed and said that I was making a
>>> mistake by not going Canon.
>>
>>A lot of pros that were "early adopters" had no choice but to go the
>>Canon route, since Canon had the high resolution, low-noise, low
>>crop-factor, professional cameras available, and Nikon dis not.
>
> That's rather revisionist. It was a long time before Canon had a reply to
> the Nikon D1 - that was the camera that the early adopters were using.
> When
> they did launch their first real DSLR (not counting the early Kodak Canon
> mount bodies), it was a consumer model - the D30, which would have been
> unsatisfactory for the sort of thing the D1 was good at.

That's all quite true.
Nikon started out with a clear lead.
That has dramatically changed, though, and ever since the 1D, Canon has been
trumping Nikon.
Nikon has been very slow to respond since that time.

> By the time Canon caught up, and arguably passed Nikon in the
> "professional"
> digital market, the people buying DSLRs weren't "early adopters" any more.

True again.
But Canon has managed to capitalize on existing users. They've given people
good reason to upgrade, and have given Nikon a kick in the pants.

Nikon makes fantastic stuff, but Canon just keeps rolling out significantly
upgraded bodies.
1Ds, 20D, 1D Mark II, 1Ds Mark II... Each of these have severely cramped
Nikon's game.
I hope Nikon gets with it, or we're gonna end up paying more for Canon
stuff.
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 4:20:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On the subject of sensor size and lenses, see this:

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/c014.html

Steven M. Scharf wrote:
> Mark² wrote:
>
> > Nikon is perfectly capable of making world-class stuff that is on-par with
> > Canon.
>
> This was true in the days of film, when sensors came on a roll, and
> every 35mm sensor was available for every 35mm camera. Nikon's biggest
> problem right now is that they have to depend on an external supplier
> for sensors, while Canon has invested heavily in sensor design. For
> Nikon to catch up with Canon, they need some larger, lower-noise sensors.
>
> > They just seem so danged SLOW at getting around to it. They've lost
> > a lot of pro customers to Canon over the last three of four years
> > especially. It started with Canon's release of the 1D...then the 1Ds....and
> > especially with the 1D Mark II...and now the 1Ds Mark II. Over that same
> > period, Nikon has not kept pace.
>
> Because Nikon has no 1.3 or 1.0 crop factor sensor to put into a body.
> The Fill-Factory full-frame sensors, used by Kodak, are not very good,
> and Nikon will not use them.
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 4:57:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Father Kodak" <dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> wrote in message
news:1j9lc1t7t835rg57m031ikak4847f2cif7@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 4 Jul 2005 19:40:54 -0600, "Sheldon"
> <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Father Kodak" <dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> wrote in message
>>news:h87jc1hbk9ehgrrkoqv3uouhuhpgghul30@4ax.com...
>>> What ever happened to, "I like this camera line, so I'll buy some more
>>> of this?" When did photo guys become such avid market-watchers? And
>>> for all the Canoniacs trumpeting their "market" position, why do you
>>> feel the need to do this?
>>>
>>>
>>> About a month ago, I attended my son's college graduation. I was
>>> shooting (horrors!) film in my Nikon F2 with motor drive and 80-200
>>> f2.8 ED zoom lens. Several times, I walked in to the area reserved
>>> for the pro's and no one stopped me, I guess because I looked "pro."
>>>
>>> Then I made the "mistake" of asking one of the pro's about the monopod
>>> she was using. She took one look at me, and asked me when I would go
>>> digital. When I told her that I would go Nikon digital (look at the
>>> bagful of Nikon lenses), she sniffed and said that I was making a
>>> mistake by not going Canon. Even on front of my wife and
>>> mother-in-law.
>>
>>I went Nikon simply because I have a bag full of Nikon lenses. Can't go
>>wrong either way. Canon/Nikon. Hatfields/McCoys. Same thing. I wish
>>this
>>group would stop the feud.
>>
>
> Exactly! To the poster who told ME that *I* was defensive, he missed
> the point completely. He should have held up a mirror to his face as
> he typed that response.
>
> Perhaps it's time for a some rec.photo groups devoted to each major
> brand. Then we could get rid of these pointless discussions and talk
> about PHOTOGRAPHS and questions and comments about PHOTOGRAPHS.
>
> I wasn't being defensive. I wasn't being offensive. I was
> expressing annoyance at people who are defensive/offensive and all the
> flame wars thereof.
>
> Father Kodak

The reason you heard that from me was because in another thread (coulple
days ago) where I noted that Canon's market share was increasing over
Nikons...you IMMEDIATELY declared me another George Preddy and announced
your "plonking" of me on that declaration. Totally ridiculous overreaction.
If you'd been here for any length of time (I've been here for years) you'd
know that I have NEVER slammed Nikon. To the contrary, I was the first
person on this forum to point to significant info on Nikon's latest pro DSLR
and voiced how impressive it seemed to be.
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 6:59:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:
>There is no reason for a non-pro to not stick with the body that matches
>their existing lenses (if the existing lenses are any good!). The
>reasons that Canon dominates the professional digital market are well
>known


You mean the deep discounts and free loans.
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 7:00:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

casioculture@gmail.com wrote:

>
>
>Father Kodak wrote:
>> What ever happened to, "I like this camera line, so I'll buy some more
>> of this?" When did photo guys become such avid market-watchers? And
>> for all the Canoniacs trumpeting their "market" position, why do you
>> feel the need to do this?
>>
>>
>> About a month ago, I attended my son's college graduation. I was
>> shooting (horrors!) film in my Nikon F2 with motor drive and 80-200
>> f2.8 ED zoom lens. Several times, I walked in to the area reserved
>> for the pro's and no one stopped me, I guess because I looked "pro."
>>
>> Then I made the "mistake" of asking one of the pro's about the monopod
>> she was using. She took one look at me, and asked me when I would go
>> digital. When I told her that I would go Nikon digital (look at the
>> bagful of Nikon lenses), she sniffed and said that I was making a
>> mistake by not going Canon. Even on front of my wife and
>> mother-in-law.
>
>To me she sounds like a loose cannon!
>
>Seriously, there are people like that who react with excess sensitivity
>to the minutest of comments however sincere they were meant to be and
>are vociferous in their vindiction.

<rest of diatribe snipped>


She sounds just like that Mike Henley guy who used to post here.

I wonder where he is now.
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 8:02:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>She sounds just like that Mike Henley guy who used to post here.
>
>I wonder where he is now.


I don't suppose her name is Sabineellen?
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 8:04:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Don Stauffer <stauffer@usfamily.net> wrote:

>Jeremy Nixon wrote:
>.
>>
>>
>> Yep -- because someone shooting graduation ceremonies couldn't possibly get
>> by without full frame! After all, those are all about the super-wide-angle
>> lenses. And high-profile gigs like that pay well enough to make it a good
>> business investment, too.
>>
>And the rage for superwide lenses came after the good old days. In old
>days no one liked wierd perspective of extreme wide angle. 35mm FL
>lenses were the limit most people would use. The rage was long
>telephoto :-)


The rage for superwide lenses started *when they became affordable*.
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 8:39:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

casioculture@gmail.com wrote:

> I'm sure there are some fine folks who are strictly utilitarian towards
> their Canon gear, but the brand attracts too many pretentious idiots
> and the idea of me joining that horde makes me cringe. I won't be
> surprised if the manners of some reflected that too.

Wait, so you're deciding what brand to use based on the personalities
of the people who use that equipment? Very business-savvy. Good luck
with that.
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 8:58:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Tony Polson wrote:

> No-one is complaining, simply pointing out - in a calm and measured
> manner - the marketing techniques that Canon have employed to gain
> market dominance.

Yes. All those professionals subjected to these "marketing techniques"
are just unthinking automatons. Dupes. Marks. They can't think for
themselves. They receive a call from the highly trained psychological
masters that work in a deep, nuclear-hardened, shelter in Japan and
they become putty in their hands! One press release from the Inner
Sanctum Sanctorum of Canon and credit card numbers are spoken
spontaneously. Stimulus, response, stimulus, response!

> It seems a pity that you cannot be as calm and measured when replying,
> but you seem to take any criticism of your beloved Canon brand as a
> very personal sleight.

I see: so when Canon does what Nikon did, or is certainly free to do,
then 'criticism' is permitted. Do we need any more proof you are are
an intellectually dishonest retard?

> I wonder why.

You are incapable of it.

> (That's a rhetorical question. No answer is sought, nor required.)

Yes, your problems with cognitive dissonance are well known.
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 8:58:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

<casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120567471.130729.117840@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Father Kodak wrote:
>> What ever happened to, "I like this camera line, so I'll buy some more
>> of this?" When did photo guys become such avid market-watchers? And
>> for all the Canoniacs trumpeting their "market" position, why do you
>> feel the need to do this?
>>
>>
>> About a month ago, I attended my son's college graduation. I was
>> shooting (horrors!) film in my Nikon F2 with motor drive and 80-200
>> f2.8 ED zoom lens. Several times, I walked in to the area reserved
>> for the pro's and no one stopped me, I guess because I looked "pro."
>>
>> Then I made the "mistake" of asking one of the pro's about the monopod
>> she was using. She took one look at me, and asked me when I would go
>> digital. When I told her that I would go Nikon digital (look at the
>> bagful of Nikon lenses), she sniffed and said that I was making a
>> mistake by not going Canon. Even on front of my wife and
>> mother-in-law.
>
> To me she sounds like a loose cannon!
>
> Seriously, there are people like that who react with excess sensitivity
> to the minutest of comments however sincere they were meant to be and
> are vociferous in their vindiction.
>
> Although generalizations are too often scorned at I think there is some
> truth in my impression that the camera brand one is loyal to says
> something about the person and his preferences. I have learned to
> loathe Canon thanks to the people who shoot Canon and the photos I've
> seen them post online. Too often if I'd loathed the photo it proves to
> have been shot with a Canon digital! They are the mob for all I care
> and their photos are usually the canonical examples of *tasteless
> glitz* that's lacking in art and lacking in refinement! I've played
> this game many times a year ago where I would look at a gallery of
> thumbnails on usefilm or other sites and just by sight I could usually
> tell who shot Canon digital, who shot Olympus, who shot Leica and who
> shot medium format even at 160x120 pixels or whatever small size.
>
> I'm sure there are some fine folks who are strictly utilitarian towards
> their Canon gear, but the brand attracts too many pretentious idiots
> and the idea of me joining that horde makes me cringe.

It seems odd that you'd allow your impression of USERS to determine whether
you'll exclude equipment from your considerations. That seems a rather
silly and unintelligent approach. I think you should re-think a bit.
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 9:09:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Jeremy Nixon wrote:

> Indeed, I'd sort of rather it wasn't full-frame.

Then you are a deeply clueless.

> So why would any of the above matter to a photographer?

Full frame sensors matter in the same way that medium format matters.

> Or am I one of
> the last of a dying breed, photographers who actually care about the
> pictures more than the hardware used to make them?

The bogus "holier than thou" fallacy. There is a famous joke about
this:

A guy stops to talk to a beautiful woman.

"Hello, I must say, you are about the most beautiful women
I have ever met."

"Thank you very much."

"I was wondering if you'd sleep with me for a million dollars?"

"A million dollars!" She thinks for a moment and answers, "Yes,
I would sleep with you for a million dollars."

"How about five bucks?"

"Five bucks! What kind of woman do you think I am?"

"We've already determined that. Now we are just haggling over money."


> What I find amusing, though, is how many of the people who go on and on
> endlessly about the inherent superiority of Canon due to full-frame
> sensors have no intention of ever actually *buying* a 1Ds2.

Lack of money != no intention. Nitwit.
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 9:59:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

William Graham wrote:

> I don't know why a pro would have to dump a bunch of Nikkor lenses to go
> with Canon. If I went pro, I would probably buy a Fuji S3, and keep all my
> lenses. (assuming that I really needed to go digital)

The Fuji F3 is not such a great camera, certainly not something a
professional would consider. The flash sync speed alone would eliminate
it from consideration, not to mention the lack of mirror lock-up. It got
dpreviews lowest rating, "Above Average."

The reasons that so many Nikon film-SLR pros have gone the Canon route
have more to do with low-noise/high-ISO capability, the availability of
bodies with a 1.3 and 1.0 crop factor, the availability of many lenses
for which Nikon has no equivalent, and of course the fact that Canon has
had a better product line-up.

The D2x was not available until very recently, and a lot of pros tend to
be early adopters (the equipment cost, while not insignificant, is not
the over-riding factor for a successful professional). You still see
some of the old Foveon professional cameras in portrait studios, though
they have mostly been retired, and replaced by something in the Canon 1D
series (the Foveon camera used a Canon lens mount).

Certainly a lot more professional photographers, that used Nikon film
bodies, have moved to Canon for digital SLRs, that the other way around.

I do wish that Nikon would come out with a competitor to the Canon 1Ds
MarkII, 1D MarkII, and the Canon 20D. The lack of competition is not
good for consumers. It was much more even back in the old days of film,
where every manufacturer had every "sensor" available to them. Hopefully
the D100 replacement is not far off, and the rumor of Nikon working to
obtain or develop larger sensors in order to come out with full frame,
and close to full frame, D-SLRs, is true.

Steve
http://digitalslrinfo.com
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 10:01:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

stacyreeves wrote:
> casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > I'm sure there are some fine folks who are strictly utilitarian towards
> > their Canon gear, but the brand attracts too many pretentious idiots
> > and the idea of me joining that horde makes me cringe. I won't be
> > surprised if the manners of some reflected that too.
>
> Wait, so you're deciding what brand to use based on the personalities
> of the people who use that equipment? Very business-savvy. Good luck
> with that.

Not so much users, but brand loyalists. I personally have no problem
*using* whatever.
July 5, 2005 10:35:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Father Kodak wrote:


>
> Perhaps it's time for a some rec.photo groups devoted to each major
> brand. Then we could get rid of these pointless discussions and talk
> about PHOTOGRAPHS and questions and comments about PHOTOGRAPHS.
>

Good luck. I tried to discuss end results and wanted to see example of what
people were talking about concerning subjective parts of imaging qualities
and got flamed. Seems spec sheets and optical resolution/noise testing
mainly at ISO 1600 is all that matters?
--

Stacey
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 11:01:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:1srye.7428$Eo.4847@fed1read04...
>
> "William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:2v6dnZqGoJD5tlffRVn-3w@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
>> news:p 2pye.3870$8f7.3558@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>> Sheldon wrote:
>>>
>>>> I went Nikon simply because I have a bag full of Nikon lenses. Can't
>>>> go wrong either way. Canon/Nikon. Hatfields/McCoys. Same thing. I
>>>> wish this group would stop the feud.
>>>
>>> There is no feud. Discussing the relative merits of equipment is a
>>> legitimate topic on thia group.
>>>
>>> There is no reason for a non-pro to not stick with the body that matches
>>> their existing lenses (if the existing lenses are any good!). The
>>> reasons that Canon dominates the professional digital market are well
>>> known, but they don't apply to amateur equipment.
>>
>> I don't know why a pro would have to dump a bunch of Nikkor lenses to go
>> with Canon. If I went pro, I would probably buy a Fuji S3, and keep all
>> my lenses. (assuming that I really needed to go digital)
>
> One reason pros have been moving toward Canon has been that Canon been the
> fps champ for some time now...along with their comparatively long and
> extended reach into stabilized lenses for pros. Sports and
> photojournalists greatly benefit from both of these technologies. It's
> only been in recent months that Nikon has finally come out with a DSLR
> that can keep up with Canon's 1D Mark II's fps, and relatively recently
> that Nikon has entered the stabilization game. Canon still has about
> three times the offerings that Nikon does.
>
> Nikon's new pro DSLR offering looks to be a GREAT piece of equipment...but
> their problem in recent years is that Canon's ability to release updated
> pro bodies has far out-paced Nikon. I personally know a number of sports
> shooters who switched for this very reason.
>
> Nikon is perfectly capable of making world-class stuff that is on-par with
> Canon. They just seem so danged SLOW at getting around to it. They've
> lost a lot of pro customers to Canon over the last three of four years
> especially. It started with Canon's release of the 1D...then the
> 1Ds...and especially with the 1D Mark II...and now the 1Ds Mark II. Over
> that same period, Nikon has not kept pace.
>
> For me, none of the above was a clincher, as I don't own any of those
> models...but when I do, I'll have a bunch of Canon IS glass to stick on
> them. Had Nikon offered IS early on, I might have well adopted thier
> system.
>
> And to "Father Kodak"...
> ...No. This post is NOT slamming Nikon gear.
> Read carefully.
> Nikon has been slow on the draw, but shen they finally draw, they have
> good stuff.
> They'd just better pick up the pace!!!
> I'm rooting for Nikon as I always have...because I don't want my gear's
> maker (Canon) to get a corner on my end of the market. Competition is
> good for everyone on the purchasing end...
> So.... GO NIKON GO!!
> ;) 
>
Yes. Nobody just, "goes pro"....they have some specialty, like taking baby
pictures, or sports pictures, or studio portraits, or weddings....And they
just start making money doing it. So the camera they choose depends on
what's best for the job. It would be stupid to spend a bunch of money for IS
lenses if you were just doing studio portraits from a tripod, for example.
But if you were doing hand held shots of action, then such lenses might be a
good investment.....
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 11:15:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Mark² wrote:

> Nikon is perfectly capable of making world-class stuff that is on-par with
> Canon.

This was true in the days of film, when sensors came on a roll, and
every 35mm sensor was available for every 35mm camera. Nikon's biggest
problem right now is that they have to depend on an external supplier
for sensors, while Canon has invested heavily in sensor design. For
Nikon to catch up with Canon, they need some larger, lower-noise sensors.

> They just seem so danged SLOW at getting around to it. They've lost
> a lot of pro customers to Canon over the last three of four years
> especially. It started with Canon's release of the 1D...then the 1Ds...and
> especially with the 1D Mark II...and now the 1Ds Mark II. Over that same
> period, Nikon has not kept pace.

Because Nikon has no 1.3 or 1.0 crop factor sensor to put into a body.
The Fill-Factory full-frame sensors, used by Kodak, are not very good,
and Nikon will not use them.
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 11:21:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Mark² wrote:

> I think the problem in this case is that of an extremely defensive person
> (you) who feels the need for affirmation.
> Why do you care so much about what others do?
> Why can't you just confidently use your gear without being applauded all the
> time about your choices?

Argh, if these people stopped posting on Usenet, we'd see a big
reduction in the number of posts. I'll never understand the need that
some people have for constant affirmation that whatever they chose to
purchase, it the best choice for everyone. I can take any item I have
purchased and tell someone several reasons why it's the wrong choice for
them, as well as explaining the positive attributes of the item.

The motivation for me creating "http://digitalslrinfo.com" was to have a
single location where the pros and cons of each digital SLR could be
evaluated in a clear and unbiased manner. Not everyone cares about the
same things when selecting a product.

> However...there is nothing wrong with people voicing perferences, and
> delineating why one may be preferable over another.

Well stated.
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 11:45:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:Gphye.7299$Eo.283@fed1read04...
>
> "Father Kodak" <dont_bother@IDontCare.COM> wrote in message
> news:h87jc1hbk9ehgrrkoqv3uouhuhpgghul30@4ax.com...
> > What ever happened to, "I like this camera line, so I'll
> > buy some more of this?" When did photo guys become > > such avid
market-watchers? And for all the Canoniacs
> > trumpeting their "market" position, why do you feel the
> > need to do this?

[SNIP]

> > About a month ago, I attended my son's college
> > graduation. I was shooting (horrors!) film in my Nikon
> > F2 with motor drive and 80-200 f2.8 ED zoom lens.
> > Several times, I walked in to the area reserved for the
> > pro's and no one stopped me, I guess because I looked
> > "pro."
> >
> > Then I made the "mistake" of asking one of the pro's
> > about the monopod she was using. She took one look
> > at me, and asked me when I would go digital. When I
> > told her that I would go Nikon digital (look at the
> > bagful of Nikon lenses), she sniffed and said that I was
> > making a mistake by not going Canon. Even on front of
> > my wife and mother-in-law.
>
> Awww... You poor thing..
> -You had your camera system questined...IN FRONT OF > YOUR MOTHER IN LAW!!
> Heaven forbid!

[REARRANGED]

> I think the problem in this case is that of an extremely
> defensive person (you) who feels the need for affirmation.

Sounds to me like the sniffy 'pro.' was the much more insecure one in this
encounter, not our esteemed OP.


Peter
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 12:09:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:p g4lc1hjghcf5on8e2hot0h4po82koeus0@4ax.com...
> "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:
> >There is no reason for a non-pro to not stick with the
> >body that matches their existing lenses (if the existing
> >lenses are any good!). The reasons that Canon
> >dominates the professional digital market are well known
>
>
> You mean the deep discounts and free loans.
>

Absolutely - something all the amateur pontificators around here seem to
forget.

Nikon 'invented' the technique of using sales to professional (primarliy
sports and press) photographers as a loss leader - but Canon watched
carefully, learned well, and then beat them at their own game. And that
level of amateur sales income is half of why Canon can come out with new
models, bigger sensors, and more image stabilised lenses faster than Nikon
can - the other half being Canon's cash cow office equipment business.

A lot of people I know switched reluctantly because they prefered the look
of Nikon glass, but Canon's pampering of the press & PR photographer
combined with the range of IS lenses and high fps bodies more or less forced
them to switch when everyone else was doing so for the same reasons.

I don't much like the 'Canon look' for lenses either, and it is depressing
that now just about every newspaper picture and a growing percentage of
magazine ones has exactly the same look as every other one - I hope we can
get back to both some competition and less 'sameness' amongst press, PJ,
sports and PR photography soon.



Peter
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 12:09:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Bandicoot wrote:

> Nikon 'invented' the technique of using sales to professional (primarliy
> sports and press) photographers as a loss leader - but Canon watched
> carefully, learned well, and then beat them at their own game.

Exactly. It's amusing to read the sour-grapes posts claiming that the
reason for Canon's dominance is that they provide discounts and loaners
to professionals. Nothing stops Nikon from doing the same thing, other
than the fact that Canon now has the digital equipment, and certain
lenses, that Nikon lacks.

Nikon was the one that used this marketing technique first, and to
complain about Canon doing the same thing is ludicrous.

> And that
> level of amateur sales income is half of why Canon can come out with new
> models, bigger sensors, and more image stabilised lenses faster than Nikon
> can

Canon made the strategic decision to invest heavily in sensor
technology, and they are now reaping the rewards. Nikon chose to buy
most of their sensors from a third party, and not to make the same sort
of investment, and they are paying the price for this decision. Being
first to market is of especially important significance, since you're
able to lock in future purchases of lenses and other accessories. It's
not like buying a car, where it's a standalone item.

- the other half being Canon's cash cow office equipment business.

Nikon's parent corporation has other businesses as well. As does Nikon
itself. Nikon thought that the ROI on sensor development would not be
worth the investment. Maybe they are right, since the pro market is a
very small part of the total market.
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 12:23:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Bandicoot" <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote:

>"Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.net> wrote in message
>news:p g4lc1hjghcf5on8e2hot0h4po82koeus0@4ax.com...
>> "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:
>> >There is no reason for a non-pro to not stick with the
>> >body that matches their existing lenses (if the existing
>> >lenses are any good!). The reasons that Canon
>> >dominates the professional digital market are well known
>>
>>
>> You mean the deep discounts and free loans.
>>
>
>Absolutely - something all the amateur pontificators around here seem to
>forget.


I should also have mentioned the generous "sponsorship" of what might
otherwise appear to be "impartial" review sites.


>Nikon 'invented' the technique of using sales to professional (primarliy
>sports and press) photographers as a loss leader - but Canon watched
>carefully, learned well, and then beat them at their own game. And that
>level of amateur sales income is half of why Canon can come out with new
>models, bigger sensors, and more image stabilised lenses faster than Nikon
>can - the other half being Canon's cash cow office equipment business.
>
>A lot of people I know switched reluctantly because they prefered the look
>of Nikon glass, but Canon's pampering of the press & PR photographer
>combined with the range of IS lenses and high fps bodies more or less forced
>them to switch when everyone else was doing so for the same reasons.
>
>I don't much like the 'Canon look' for lenses either, and it is depressing
>that now just about every newspaper picture and a growing percentage of
>magazine ones has exactly the same look as every other one - I hope we can
>get back to both some competition and less 'sameness' amongst press, PJ,
>sports and PR photography soon.


When changing from Nikon (35mm) I was not in the least attracted by
Canon glass. I wanted a certain "look" and Canon don't have it,
except in one or two fixed focal length lenses. Pentax had the look I
wanted. So did Zeiss and Leica, but at a price I couldn't afford.

Nikon had some superb lenses, just not in the focal lengths I wanted,
especially 35mm, where I liked none of the Nikkors I used or tried.
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 12:23:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:36nlc11qo0m4nv2knrrjqh5il9fg8ao2bh@4ax.com...
> "Bandicoot" <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote:
>
>>"Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.net> wrote in message
>>news:p g4lc1hjghcf5on8e2hot0h4po82koeus0@4ax.com...
>>> "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:
>>> >There is no reason for a non-pro to not stick with the
>>> >body that matches their existing lenses (if the existing
>>> >lenses are any good!). The reasons that Canon
>>> >dominates the professional digital market are well known
>>>
>>>
>>> You mean the deep discounts and free loans.

When Nikon has full frame, large scale IS offerings, 16MP, and CMOS
smoothness, then perhaps you can claim that it's only about discounts.
Until that time, you are full of devensive, rationalizing doo-doo.
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 12:32:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:

>William Graham wrote:
>
>> I don't know why a pro would have to dump a bunch of Nikkor lenses to go
>> with Canon. If I went pro, I would probably buy a Fuji S3, and keep all my
>> lenses. (assuming that I really needed to go digital)
>
>The Fuji F3 is not such a great camera, certainly not something a
>professional would consider.


The Fujifilm Finepix S3 (not F3) sells almost entirely to professional
wedding and portrait photographers, who greatly value its dynamic
range. The ability to retain highlight detail without completely
filling in the shadows is almost unique among DSLRs, and buyers seem
happy to accept any shortcomings it might have.

Of course we all know that, if it was a Canon product, and performed
exactly the same as it does with the Fuji badge, you would be singing
its praises from the rooftops.
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 12:32:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:2qnlc1hmrcuv09adau1dbs00jt0r4rjbgg@4ax.com...
> "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:
>
>>William Graham wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know why a pro would have to dump a bunch of Nikkor lenses to go
>>> with Canon. If I went pro, I would probably buy a Fuji S3, and keep all
>>> my
>>> lenses. (assuming that I really needed to go digital)
>>
>>The Fuji F3 is not such a great camera, certainly not something a
>>professional would consider.
>
>
> The Fujifilm Finepix S3 (not F3) sells almost entirely to professional
> wedding and portrait photographers, who greatly value its dynamic
> range. The ability to retain highlight detail without completely
> filling in the shadows is almost unique among DSLRs, and buyers seem
> happy to accept any shortcomings it might have.
>
> Of course we all know that, if it was a Canon product, and performed
> exactly the same as it does with the Fuji badge, you would be singing
> its praises from the rooftops.

Isn't it amazing how Steven "knows" the Fuji isn't such a great camera and
that so many Nikon users have switched to Canon for DSLRs, and all of the
other claims he makes as if they are factual? Sometimes there's not much
difference between he and a troll.
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 12:32:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:zPCye.937$js.803@fe10.lga...
> "Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:2qnlc1hmrcuv09adau1dbs00jt0r4rjbgg@4ax.com...
>> "Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote:
>>
>>>William Graham wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't know why a pro would have to dump a bunch of Nikkor lenses to
>>>> go
>>>> with Canon. If I went pro, I would probably buy a Fuji S3, and keep all
>>>> my
>>>> lenses. (assuming that I really needed to go digital)
>>>
>>>The Fuji F3 is not such a great camera, certainly not something a
>>>professional would consider.
>>
>>
>> The Fujifilm Finepix S3 (not F3) sells almost entirely to professional
>> wedding and portrait photographers, who greatly value its dynamic
>> range. The ability to retain highlight detail without completely
>> filling in the shadows is almost unique among DSLRs, and buyers seem
>> happy to accept any shortcomings it might have.
>>
>> Of course we all know that, if it was a Canon product, and performed
>> exactly the same as it does with the Fuji badge, you would be singing
>> its praises from the rooftops.
>
> Isn't it amazing how Steven "knows" the Fuji isn't such a great camera and
> that so many Nikon users have switched to Canon for DSLRs, and all of the
> other claims he makes as if they are factual? Sometimes there's not much
> difference between he and a troll.

Canon had 62.8% of the DSLR market in 2004.
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 12:32:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:mVCye.7492
>> Isn't it amazing how Steven "knows" the Fuji isn't such a great camera
>> and that so many Nikon users have switched to Canon for DSLRs, and all of
>> the other claims he makes as if they are factual? Sometimes there's not
>> much difference between he and a troll.
>
> Canon had 62.8% of the DSLR market in 2004.

Source is The NPD Group (Market research , whose report is referenced here:
http://www.usa.canon.com/templatedata/pressrelease/2005...

If anyone is curious about NPD Group, here's their web-site:
http://www.npd.com/
July 6, 2005 12:40:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Bandicoot" <"insert_handle_here"@techemail.com> wrote in message

>
> I don't much like the 'Canon look' for lenses either, and it is depressing
> that now just about every newspaper picture and a growing percentage of
> magazine ones has exactly the same look as every other one


You're right, but there are only a couple of viable choices for
professionals that require a wide variety of lenses and accessories so they
can accept varied assignments. Much as we know about your high regard for
Pentax, it remains true that Canon and Nikon have broader lines. If I were
someone that might be in the Arctic Circle one week and the Sahara desert
the next, and needed the availability of a broad range of stuff, I'd
probably go with one of those two vendors, especially since there is wide
agreement that the average photo viewer really cannot tell the difference in
what camera/lens system took a given shot.

Take a guy like Galen Rowell, who used primarily Nikon gear. His shots were
wonderful, and probably would not have been discernably "different" had he
used Canon, Contax or Pentax.

I would be surprised if in 20 years there was more than a single
manufacturer making film-based pro gear. The times, they are a changin'.
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 12:46:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Mark² <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:

> When Nikon has full frame, large scale IS offerings, 16MP, and CMOS
> smoothness, then perhaps you can claim that it's only about discounts.

Do any of the above actually matter to photographers, as opposed to
equipment collectors?

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 12:46:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Jeremy Nixon" <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote in message
news:11clsc96snd6947@corp.supernews.com...
> Mark² <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>> When Nikon has full frame, large scale IS offerings, 16MP, and CMOS
>> smoothness, then perhaps you can claim that it's only about discounts.
>
> Do any of the above actually matter to photographers, as opposed to
> equipment collectors?

Only two possibilities to explain your post:

1) You're kidding
2) You're just not aquainted with professional gear.
!