If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
MarkČ wrote:
"Rox-off" wrote in message I'm not saying Canon is superior, rather I'm simply offering another explanation for why this forum seems to have so many Canon users compared with other brands. I don't think it has anything to do with anyone being "chased away" etc... It's just that there are a huge number of Canon cameras being used. It would logically follow that there will be a higher ratio of Canon posts. How many Nikon point-and-shoots are offered these days? I think it's simply a natural consequence of cameras in use. Simple, ya?? I would find it very interesting to know how many of the Canon-army were using Canon right from the beginning of their photography experience. I suspect that Canon has more younger devotees than does Nikon, for instance. Most photographers I know, except for the sports shooters, are die-hard Nikon users aged 30+. Canon seems to appeal to the newbies more than photographers who have been around for a while. And before I get lambasted again, this is just my opinion. I hope you don't think I was lambasting you... I think there's something to that, but mainly in the point-and-shoot market. If there's anything that gave Canon a wider appeal to younger, perhaps gadgetry-prone folk, I think it would have been in the days of things like eye-controlled focus, etc. Although it was helpful in some respects, I found that I didn't use that feature much. The other factor is that Canon was the first to release truly affordable DSLRs at several points in the progression. It started with the D30 (which was still expensive, but more attainable than anything else at the time). Then once they released the D60 and 10D, they were squeezing Nikon in terms of price. Nikon responded with their D70, but since that time Canon has managed to squeeze back with the dominant 20D. Canon seems to just be more ready to fire back more quickly with product (which, of course, is one of your beefs with Canon). Canon just released *nine* cameras on Monday. That indicates their huge cpacity to respond to the market. If you look at the new features on those cameras, they have continued to answer to specific trends quickly (like big screens on tiny point-and-shoots, for example). I think Nikon makes fantastic gear, but they don't seem nearly as prepared to roll out timely items which the lower end point-and-shoot market demands. Again--this points more to what I see as a superiority in marketing, and not necessarily a technical advantage in that market. But I do think it's a fair assessment that Canon has benefitted greatly from very legitimate advances like IS, high fps, MP res, and full frame. There is no questions that these features have won Canon a following in the professional realm. As long as Nikon continues the impression that they are following Canon's lead in these four key aspects, Canon will continue to gain. As I've said a million times... I want Nikon to kick butt on Canon. Without that, we all end up hurt as competition lags. Canon is the Linux of cameras... Devotees will want the latest and greatest Canon (even though it probably isn't), just to have it. Linux users absolutely must have the latest Beta code. Not because they have use for it but because it sounds good to in the groups to quote some obscure snippet. I can only wonder how many of the posters in support or criticism of brands of cameras, actually own them or for that matter, actually know how to use them if they do own them. Canon cameras are OK. I absolutely loved my 10D, I shouldn't have sold it but I fell for the bull****, like so many before and after me. The 20D experience and the subsequent purchase of a camera I didn't really want - 1D Mk II (or need) should stand as a warning to others who lose sight of what they are doing. I am a photographer first and I a business man second. I know full well that in a world of ever changing technology, having the newest technology allows you to get to market early and (hopefully) get the jump on your rivals. Oddly enough, A wedding I shot last week on film, was with a 25 year old camera and produced a more profitable on-selling result than much of the work I did with Canon DSLRs. My new Nikon DSLR is (so far) absolutely flawless in both performance and image quality - Canon take a lesson on quality control here. Time will tell if it stays that way. The thing I have noticed about Photography and camera brand wars is that they are really no different than what went on with different types and brands of film a decade ago. The difference now is that the previous constant of being a Photographer, has changed to being a technologist or 'nerd' first and a Photographer second. When I posted comments that a FZ20 consumer grade camera took better low light shots than my Canon DSLRs, I got howled down for not making "technical" comparisons. What could be more correct than to see the difference in a photograph? And that's my point entirely. Photography is about photographs, not brands of cameras. I have thus far refrained form posting any Nikon verses Canon images. I might one day but for now, I'm back on my medication and seeing clearly enough to avoid the ******s entirely. These kill files are a wonderful thing! -- Douglas, You never really make it on the 'net until you get your own personal Troll. Mine's called Chrlz. Don't feed him, he bites! |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
"pixby" wrote in message ... MarkČ wrote: "Rox-off" wrote in message I'm not saying Canon is superior, rather I'm simply offering another explanation for why this forum seems to have so many Canon users compared with other brands. I don't think it has anything to do with anyone being "chased away" etc... It's just that there are a huge number of Canon cameras being used. It would logically follow that there will be a higher ratio of Canon posts. How many Nikon point-and-shoots are offered these days? I think it's simply a natural consequence of cameras in use. Simple, ya?? I would find it very interesting to know how many of the Canon-army were using Canon right from the beginning of their photography experience. I suspect that Canon has more younger devotees than does Nikon, for instance. Most photographers I know, except for the sports shooters, are die-hard Nikon users aged 30+. Canon seems to appeal to the newbies more than photographers who have been around for a while. And before I get lambasted again, this is just my opinion. I hope you don't think I was lambasting you... I think there's something to that, but mainly in the point-and-shoot market. If there's anything that gave Canon a wider appeal to younger, perhaps gadgetry-prone folk, I think it would have been in the days of things like eye-controlled focus, etc. Although it was helpful in some respects, I found that I didn't use that feature much. The other factor is that Canon was the first to release truly affordable DSLRs at several points in the progression. It started with the D30 (which was still expensive, but more attainable than anything else at the time). Then once they released the D60 and 10D, they were squeezing Nikon in terms of price. Nikon responded with their D70, but since that time Canon has managed to squeeze back with the dominant 20D. Canon seems to just be more ready to fire back more quickly with product (which, of course, is one of your beefs with Canon). Canon just released *nine* cameras on Monday. That indicates their huge cpacity to respond to the market. If you look at the new features on those cameras, they have continued to answer to specific trends quickly (like big screens on tiny point-and-shoots, for example). I think Nikon makes fantastic gear, but they don't seem nearly as prepared to roll out timely items which the lower end point-and-shoot market demands. Again--this points more to what I see as a superiority in marketing, and not necessarily a technical advantage in that market. But I do think it's a fair assessment that Canon has benefitted greatly from very legitimate advances like IS, high fps, MP res, and full frame. There is no questions that these features have won Canon a following in the professional realm. As long as Nikon continues the impression that they are following Canon's lead in these four key aspects, Canon will continue to gain. As I've said a million times... I want Nikon to kick butt on Canon. Without that, we all end up hurt as competition lags. Canon is the Linux of cameras... Devotees will want the latest and greatest Canon (even though it probably isn't), just to have it. SOME users sacumb to this. -But there are also plenty of excellent photogs...who happen to use Canon. Any time a manufacturer get on top of the heap, those not in their camp tend to declare them some sort of cult. I think it's just silly to make sweeping generalizations like that. That's Linux users absolutely must have the latest Beta code. Not because they have use for it but because it sounds good to in the groups to quote some obscure snippet. Some Canon shooters do that. I don't, and I know of pleny of other Photogs who don't. I skipped the D60, and only jumped on the 10D because my D30 was destroyed. I also skipped the 20D, though I'm now considering the 5D--but only because I've been wishing for full-frame ever since my first move to digital in 2000. There are plenty of other shooters like me, who are in this for the photographs. -That we use Canon needn't be some sort of instant statement as to motive. I can only wonder how many of the posters in support or criticism of brands of cameras, actually own them or for that matter, actually know how to use them if they do own them. I wonder that too, but I'm a little less quick to assume the negative... Canon cameras are OK. I absolutely loved my 10D, I shouldn't have sold it but I fell for the bull****, like so many before and after me. The 20D experience and the subsequent purchase of a camera I didn't really want - 1D Mk II (or need) should stand as a warning to others who lose sight of what they are doing. What did you do with the Mark II? Why did you buy it? -Sounds to me like you epitomized that which you decry! Oops. I am a photographer first and I a business man second. I know full well that in a world of ever changing technology, having the newest technology allows you to get to market early and (hopefully) get the jump on your rivals. Oddly enough, A wedding I shot last week on film, was with a 25 year old camera and produced a more profitable on-selling result than much of the work I did with Canon DSLRs. My new Nikon DSLR is (so far) absolutely flawless in both performance and image quality - Canon take a lesson on quality control here. Time will tell if it stays that way. Canon clearly blew it with QC on the 20D. I don't blame people for retaining anger over it. A large percentage of my most prized shots came from film. That percentage is dwindling as my digital work grows, though... The thing I have noticed about Photography and camera brand wars is that they are really no different than what went on with different types and brands of film a decade ago. The difference now is that the previous constant of being a Photographer, has changed to being a technologist or 'nerd' first and a Photographer second. Perhaps, but the difference was that with film, there was no large commitment required to move to one or the other. With camera manufacturers, it's a very big decision in that one can't simply spend $8 and "try a new film." When I posted comments that a FZ20 consumer grade camera took better low light shots than my Canon DSLRs, I got howled down for not making "technical" comparisons. What could be more correct than to see the difference in a photograph? And that's my point entirely. Photography is about photographs, not brands of cameras. I agree with this absolutely. What you may have run into is the legitimate question of whether your claim was somehow generally true or less so in the realm of low-light needs. This can only be determined by personal needs, I guess, but there are certainly some technical aspects that help determine this. I think this NG is sometimes too concerned with technical specs, but it is understandable. This is why I like the ability to post actual shots for viewing from within discussions. It brings us all back to the reason for any of this: the photo. I have thus far refrained form posting any Nikon verses Canon images. I might one day but for now, I'm back on my medication and seeing clearly enough to avoid the ******s entirely. These kill files are a wonderful thing! I really have no interest in bashing ANY brand (well, OK...I do have an especially hardened heart when it comes to Sigma). You will never find a "bashing" comment from me about Nikon...ever. I've pointed to things I see as faults in both major competitors, but the fact that I do use Canon tends to give some people (who have no sense of balance) ammunition to simply assume I (and other legitimate users) am a Canon zombie. Silly, but expected these days... Oh well... |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
MarkČ wrote:
"pixby" wrote in message ... MarkČ wrote: "Rox-off" wrote in message I'm not saying Canon is superior, rather I'm simply offering another explanation for why this forum seems to have so many Canon users compared with other brands. I don't think it has anything to do with anyone being "chased away" etc... It's just that there are a huge number of Canon cameras being used. It would logically follow that there will be a higher ratio of Canon posts. How many Nikon point-and-shoots are offered these days? I think it's simply a natural consequence of cameras in use. Simple, ya?? I would find it very interesting to know how many of the Canon-army were using Canon right from the beginning of their photography experience. I suspect that Canon has more younger devotees than does Nikon, for instance. Most photographers I know, except for the sports shooters, are die-hard Nikon users aged 30+. Canon seems to appeal to the newbies more than photographers who have been around for a while. And before I get lambasted again, this is just my opinion. I hope you don't think I was lambasting you... I think there's something to that, but mainly in the point-and-shoot market. If there's anything that gave Canon a wider appeal to younger, perhaps gadgetry-prone folk, I think it would have been in the days of things like eye-controlled focus, etc. Although it was helpful in some respects, I found that I didn't use that feature much. The other factor is that Canon was the first to release truly affordable DSLRs at several points in the progression. It started with the D30 (which was still expensive, but more attainable than anything else at the time). Then once they released the D60 and 10D, they were squeezing Nikon in terms of price. Nikon responded with their D70, but since that time Canon has managed to squeeze back with the dominant 20D. Canon seems to just be more ready to fire back more quickly with product (which, of course, is one of your beefs with Canon). Canon just released *nine* cameras on Monday. That indicates their huge cpacity to respond to the market. If you look at the new features on those cameras, they have continued to answer to specific trends quickly (like big screens on tiny point-and-shoots, for example). I think Nikon makes fantastic gear, but they don't seem nearly as prepared to roll out timely items which the lower end point-and-shoot market demands. Again--this points more to what I see as a superiority in marketing, and not necessarily a technical advantage in that market. But I do think it's a fair assessment that Canon has benefitted greatly from very legitimate advances like IS, high fps, MP res, and full frame. There is no questions that these features have won Canon a following in the professional realm. As long as Nikon continues the impression that they are following Canon's lead in these four key aspects, Canon will continue to gain. As I've said a million times... I want Nikon to kick butt on Canon. Without that, we all end up hurt as competition lags. Canon is the Linux of cameras... Devotees will want the latest and greatest Canon (even though it probably isn't), just to have it. SOME users sacumb to this. -But there are also plenty of excellent photogs...who happen to use Canon. Any time a manufacturer get on top of the heap, those not in their camp tend to declare them some sort of cult. I think it's just silly to make sweeping generalizations like that. That's Linux users absolutely must have the latest Beta code. Not because they have use for it but because it sounds good to in the groups to quote some obscure snippet. Some Canon shooters do that. I don't, and I know of pleny of other Photogs who don't. I skipped the D60, and only jumped on the 10D because my D30 was destroyed. I also skipped the 20D, though I'm now considering the 5D--but only because I've been wishing for full-frame ever since my first move to digital in 2000. There are plenty of other shooters like me, who are in this for the photographs. -That we use Canon needn't be some sort of instant statement as to motive. I can only wonder how many of the posters in support or criticism of brands of cameras, actually own them or for that matter, actually know how to use them if they do own them. I wonder that too, but I'm a little less quick to assume the negative... Canon cameras are OK. I absolutely loved my 10D, I shouldn't have sold it but I fell for the bull****, like so many before and after me. The 20D experience and the subsequent purchase of a camera I didn't really want - 1D Mk II (or need) should stand as a warning to others who lose sight of what they are doing. What did you do with the Mark II? Why did you buy it? -Sounds to me like you epitomized that which you decry! Oops. I am a photographer first and I a business man second. I know full well that in a world of ever changing technology, having the newest technology allows you to get to market early and (hopefully) get the jump on your rivals. Oddly enough, A wedding I shot last week on film, was with a 25 year old camera and produced a more profitable on-selling result than much of the work I did with Canon DSLRs. My new Nikon DSLR is (so far) absolutely flawless in both performance and image quality - Canon take a lesson on quality control here. Time will tell if it stays that way. Canon clearly blew it with QC on the 20D. I don't blame people for retaining anger over it. A large percentage of my most prized shots came from film. That percentage is dwindling as my digital work grows, though... The thing I have noticed about Photography and camera brand wars is that they are really no different than what went on with different types and brands of film a decade ago. The difference now is that the previous constant of being a Photographer, has changed to being a technologist or 'nerd' first and a Photographer second. Perhaps, but the difference was that with film, there was no large commitment required to move to one or the other. With camera manufacturers, it's a very big decision in that one can't simply spend $8 and "try a new film." When I posted comments that a FZ20 consumer grade camera took better low light shots than my Canon DSLRs, I got howled down for not making "technical" comparisons. What could be more correct than to see the difference in a photograph? And that's my point entirely. Photography is about photographs, not brands of cameras. I agree with this absolutely. What you may have run into is the legitimate question of whether your claim was somehow generally true or less so in the realm of low-light needs. This can only be determined by personal needs, I guess, but there are certainly some technical aspects that help determine this. I think this NG is sometimes too concerned with technical specs, but it is understandable. This is why I like the ability to post actual shots for viewing from within discussions. It brings us all back to the reason for any of this: the photo. I have thus far refrained form posting any Nikon verses Canon images. I might one day but for now, I'm back on my medication and seeing clearly enough to avoid the ******s entirely. These kill files are a wonderful thing! I really have no interest in bashing ANY brand (well, OK...I do have an especially hardened heart when it comes to Sigma). You will never find a "bashing" comment from me about Nikon...ever. I've pointed to things I see as faults in both major competitors, but the fact that I do use Canon tends to give some people (who have no sense of balance) ammunition to simply assume I (and other legitimate users) am a Canon zombie. Silly, but expected these days... Oh well... I still have the 1D, Mark - and the 20Ds - and an SD9 Sigma along with a very cheap (now I've begun re acquiring) collection of Pentax 645 and Mamiya 645 cameras and lenses. Maybe I am erring on the side of caution but until I am totally convinced the Nikon is the camera I am most satisfied with, I won't be parting with any of them. In any event my treasured and trustworthy SD9 will die in my possession. This camera doesn't mind if I shoot in 98% humidity. It doesn't mind if I leave it on the beach to exceed it's working environment heat wise, it still fires up and takes pictures when the Canon's squawk about Err 99. -- Douglas, You never really make it on the 'net until you get your own personal Troll. Mine's called Chrlz. Don't feed him, he bites! |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
"pixby" wrote in message ... MarkČ wrote: "pixby" wrote in message ... MarkČ wrote: "Rox-off" wrote in message I'm not saying Canon is superior, rather I'm simply offering another explanation for why this forum seems to have so many Canon users compared with other brands. I don't think it has anything to do with anyone being "chased away" etc... It's just that there are a huge number of Canon cameras being used. It would logically follow that there will be a higher ratio of Canon posts. How many Nikon point-and-shoots are offered these days? I think it's simply a natural consequence of cameras in use. Simple, ya?? I would find it very interesting to know how many of the Canon-army were using Canon right from the beginning of their photography experience. I suspect that Canon has more younger devotees than does Nikon, for instance. Most photographers I know, except for the sports shooters, are die-hard Nikon users aged 30+. Canon seems to appeal to the newbies more than photographers who have been around for a while. And before I get lambasted again, this is just my opinion. I hope you don't think I was lambasting you... I think there's something to that, but mainly in the point-and-shoot market. If there's anything that gave Canon a wider appeal to younger, perhaps gadgetry-prone folk, I think it would have been in the days of things like eye-controlled focus, etc. Although it was helpful in some respects, I found that I didn't use that feature much. The other factor is that Canon was the first to release truly affordable DSLRs at several points in the progression. It started with the D30 (which was still expensive, but more attainable than anything else at the time). Then once they released the D60 and 10D, they were squeezing Nikon in terms of price. Nikon responded with their D70, but since that time Canon has managed to squeeze back with the dominant 20D. Canon seems to just be more ready to fire back more quickly with product (which, of course, is one of your beefs with Canon). Canon just released *nine* cameras on Monday. That indicates their huge cpacity to respond to the market. If you look at the new features on those cameras, they have continued to answer to specific trends quickly (like big screens on tiny point-and-shoots, for example). I think Nikon makes fantastic gear, but they don't seem nearly as prepared to roll out timely items which the lower end point-and-shoot market demands. Again--this points more to what I see as a superiority in marketing, and not necessarily a technical advantage in that market. But I do think it's a fair assessment that Canon has benefitted greatly from very legitimate advances like IS, high fps, MP res, and full frame. There is no questions that these features have won Canon a following in the professional realm. As long as Nikon continues the impression that they are following Canon's lead in these four key aspects, Canon will continue to gain. As I've said a million times... I want Nikon to kick butt on Canon. Without that, we all end up hurt as competition lags. Canon is the Linux of cameras... Devotees will want the latest and greatest Canon (even though it probably isn't), just to have it. SOME users sacumb to this. -But there are also plenty of excellent photogs...who happen to use Canon. Any time a manufacturer get on top of the heap, those not in their camp tend to declare them some sort of cult. I think it's just silly to make sweeping generalizations like that. That's Linux users absolutely must have the latest Beta code. Not because they have use for it but because it sounds good to in the groups to quote some obscure snippet. Some Canon shooters do that. I don't, and I know of pleny of other Photogs who don't. I skipped the D60, and only jumped on the 10D because my D30 was destroyed. I also skipped the 20D, though I'm now considering the 5D--but only because I've been wishing for full-frame ever since my first move to digital in 2000. There are plenty of other shooters like me, who are in this for the photographs. -That we use Canon needn't be some sort of instant statement as to motive. I can only wonder how many of the posters in support or criticism of brands of cameras, actually own them or for that matter, actually know how to use them if they do own them. I wonder that too, but I'm a little less quick to assume the negative... Canon cameras are OK. I absolutely loved my 10D, I shouldn't have sold it but I fell for the bull****, like so many before and after me. The 20D experience and the subsequent purchase of a camera I didn't really want - 1D Mk II (or need) should stand as a warning to others who lose sight of what they are doing. What did you do with the Mark II? Why did you buy it? -Sounds to me like you epitomized that which you decry! Oops. I am a photographer first and I a business man second. I know full well that in a world of ever changing technology, having the newest technology allows you to get to market early and (hopefully) get the jump on your rivals. Oddly enough, A wedding I shot last week on film, was with a 25 year old camera and produced a more profitable on-selling result than much of the work I did with Canon DSLRs. My new Nikon DSLR is (so far) absolutely flawless in both performance and image quality - Canon take a lesson on quality control here. Time will tell if it stays that way. Canon clearly blew it with QC on the 20D. I don't blame people for retaining anger over it. A large percentage of my most prized shots came from film. That percentage is dwindling as my digital work grows, though... The thing I have noticed about Photography and camera brand wars is that they are really no different than what went on with different types and brands of film a decade ago. The difference now is that the previous constant of being a Photographer, has changed to being a technologist or 'nerd' first and a Photographer second. Perhaps, but the difference was that with film, there was no large commitment required to move to one or the other. With camera manufacturers, it's a very big decision in that one can't simply spend $8 and "try a new film." When I posted comments that a FZ20 consumer grade camera took better low light shots than my Canon DSLRs, I got howled down for not making "technical" comparisons. What could be more correct than to see the difference in a photograph? And that's my point entirely. Photography is about photographs, not brands of cameras. I agree with this absolutely. What you may have run into is the legitimate question of whether your claim was somehow generally true or less so in the realm of low-light needs. This can only be determined by personal needs, I guess, but there are certainly some technical aspects that help determine this. I think this NG is sometimes too concerned with technical specs, but it is understandable. This is why I like the ability to post actual shots for viewing from within discussions. It brings us all back to the reason for any of this: the photo. I have thus far refrained form posting any Nikon verses Canon images. I might one day but for now, I'm back on my medication and seeing clearly enough to avoid the ******s entirely. These kill files are a wonderful thing! I really have no interest in bashing ANY brand (well, OK...I do have an especially hardened heart when it comes to Sigma). You will never find a "bashing" comment from me about Nikon...ever. I've pointed to things I see as faults in both major competitors, but the fact that I do use Canon tends to give some people (who have no sense of balance) ammunition to simply assume I (and other legitimate users) am a Canon zombie. Silly, but expected these days... Oh well... I still have the 1D, Mark - and the 20Ds - and an SD9 Sigma along with a very cheap (now I've begun re acquiring) collection of Pentax 645 and Mamiya 645 cameras and lenses. Maybe I am erring on the side of caution but until I am totally convinced the Nikon is the camera I am most satisfied with, I won't be parting with any of them. In any event my treasured and trustworthy SD9 will die in my possession. This camera doesn't mind if I shoot in 98% humidity. It doesn't mind if I leave it on the beach to exceed it's working environment heat wise, it still fires up and takes pictures when the Canon's squawk about Err 99. Do you have pictures from the Sigma posted? I promise not to scream about yellow skin... I'm interested simply to see if someone can produce people shots and certain textures that don't take on an odd look which I associate with Sigma shots I've seen in the past. If you don't want wailing about it here, maybe you could e-mail a link (?). In all sincerity, -Mark |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
In article , says...
Brian Baird wrote: Surprisingly, it didn't suck the soul from my body. Mind if I quote you on that? Not in reference to Wal-Mart, specifically. I think it's a good quotation to use in a variety of situations ;-) Go right ahead. I get royalties, right? -- http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
very interesting...DONT PASS THIS UP! | shane | Digital Photography | 6 | January 13th 05 09:45 PM |
Now this is interesting... | Lisa Horton | Digital Photography | 1 | October 31st 04 07:06 AM |
Interesting fact LCD panels... | Mark M | Digital Photography | 18 | August 28th 04 02:48 AM |
Interesting | Awushi Stolton | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | August 21st 04 02:48 PM |
interesting technique | Rusty Wright | Photographing People | 5 | November 24th 03 12:28 AM |