File :-(, x, )
Why do mainstream professionals use Nikon and Canon? Anonymous
Why do most mainstream professionals use Nikon and Canon?

By mainstream, I mean not the random odd job where the photographer would rent or use a digital MF camera. And by professional, I mean someone who makes a good portion of his income by being a photographer.

Nikon, Canon, Olympus and Pentax all started at pretty much the same time.

Where did the other companies go wrong to let Nikon and Canon take 80% of the market to themselves?

This is more about a history lesson than what they are doing right or wrong right now.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D300Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern970Focal Length (35mm Equiv)84 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2007:09:05 22:40:03White Point Chromaticity0.3Exposure Time1/320 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length56.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width500Image Height753RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlHigh Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Anonymous
Good marketing.

/thread
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>160749

Make Every Shot A PowerShot!

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2005:09:22 15:06:23Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width755Image Height508
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
so ronry ;_;
>> Anonymous
>>160749
Also, failing at making a decent AF system in time killed or severely damaged a lot of companies.
>> Macheath !8b4g0BkNZg
By size, the companies rank in this order: Canon > Nikon > Olympus > Pentax. This usually correlates with revenue, which means you can spend more money on marketing as>>160749said, produce more equipment in a year, meaning your stuff is more ubiquitous than a smaller company. Canon and Nikon had good lens systems early on that people bought into. Investment in a lens mount encourages brand loyalty, so people will pick the brand with the most/best selection of lenses. Olympus and Pentax aren't big enough companies to keep up.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
Nikon was really, really good back in the day. To the point that it pretty much overshadowed everyone else. And their maintenance of their lens mount's backwards compatibility since the 50s meant that once someone was locked in with F-Mount lenses, they'd tend to keep buying F-Mount cameras. So all pros used Nikons, with Canon, Minolta, Olympus, and Pentax sort of wrasslin' for scraps.

Then Canon came out with the EOS mount and autofocus and that was compelling enough for pros to switch to Canon in droves. Not in enough droves to push Nikon down with the rest of the herd, but enough to bring them up to equality.

Then, Canon came out with a full-frame digital SLR long before Nikon could, which put them on top for a while, but that's slowly starting to trend back Nikonwards.

The real question is: How the hell did Minolta fuck up so badly that they didn't take the market by storm even though they beat Canon to the autofocus punch? My theory is that they weren't willing to screw their manual focus users and just concentrate on one system like Canon did...
>> Anonymous
What happened during/before/after the advent of autofocus? Nikon and Canon duking it out?

Someone regale us with tales of the golden era, like old war stories.
>> Anonymous
>>160763


Minolta invented it.

olol
>> Anonymous
>>160766
I heard some Russians invented the phase detect AF somewhere in the early 60s, but...well, USSR is USSR and it all went down the shitter.
>> Anonymous
Nikon was king, then Canon made Nikon its bitch. Now they are fighting it out again. The world holds is breath and awaits the outcome of this mighty struggle and to see who will be raped.
>> Anonymous
>>160747
HER EYES ARE SO HIGH UP IN HER FACE
>> Anonymous
>>160762
Minolta invented marketed autofocus. Explain why they trail behind Canon and Nikon (only), in terms of sales. Minolta was the only name in AF photography in the eighties, even while other companies came out with systems, Minolta still had the best technology for a while, and some of the best lenses. So what happened?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>160784
Please reread the last paragraph of my post.
>> Anonymous
>>160791

reddign is teh hard
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>160762
Minolta fucked up by not releasing a digital camera fast enough. Had they released the 5D when canon/nikon got similar models out, they wouldnt have been fucked over. There was a massive delay in the 5D and 7D and as a result everyone just hopped over to canikon.

Sony have already released more digital bodies than KM ever did.
>> Anonymous
Canon produces a lot of cheap shit, and is generally quite inexpensive.

For most consumers they only care about cost and also what their friends have, not quality.
>> Anonymous
>>160859
>Sony have already released more digital bodies than KM ever did.

Too bad Sony will never be a major player in the DSLR market.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>160864
Ice burn, do let everyone else (not canikon) know that they are being outsold buy a "non major" competitor.

I'm sure that will cheer the olympusfags up!
>> Anonymous
>>160865
>Ice burn, do let everyone else (not canikon) know that they are being outsold buy a "non major" competitor.

In overall cameras, sure, but not in the DSLR market.
>> parshimers !y2fz.HIyUQ
i think pentax used to be pretty big but once you look at their film bodies after the LX they all were sorta unremarkable in comparison to nikon and canon counterparts
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>160869
Yeah you might wana find some sources.
>> Anonymous
>>160873

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_?#Shunned_by_Professionals
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>160875
[citation needed]
>> Anonymous
>>160873

Why don't YOU find the sources since you like to spout bullshit all the time.

Overall sales: Canon > Sony > the rest

DSLR sales: Canon > Nikon > Olympus/Pentax/Sony
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>160880
what? Im a troll, i can spout biased made up crap all the time, its your choice to belive it or do your own research and prove me right/wrong.

Do i have to explain everything?
gear threads = trolling
photo threads = not trolling
>> Anonymous
That's a great excuse.

I wish real life was like 4chan so I could be smart all the time.
>> Anonymous
>>160883prove me right/wrong.

you're always wrong so uh

divide by zero
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>160890
Im right sometimes, mostly when no one is about to see it :P

This was a troll thread to begin with, who cares. You can only troll when people are replying, if you stop replying so will i.

Also, anyone noticed how weird the op shot is?
>> Anonymous
Troll thread would have been NIKON VS CANON, EPIC BATTLE?

This is no troll, you're just a faggot who likes to run his mouth.
>> Anonymous
>>160893

moron.
>> Porsche 959
NEEDS MOAR KODAC
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>160898

FUCK YEAH
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
lulz

In 1991, Kodak released the first commercially available digital SLR, the Kodak DCS-100. It consisted of a modified Nikon F3 SLR body, modified drive unit, and an external storage unit connected via cable. The 1.3 megapixel camera cost approximately US$30,000. This was followed by the Kodak DCS-200 with integrated storage.[16]

>> The 1.3 megapixel camera cost approximately US$30,000
>> Anonymous
>>160747

She has no shutter discipline.

0/10
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>160905
oh god i loled.
>> Anonymous
Kodak... ;______;
>> Kodak !4jlbchjsb6
     File :-(, x)
>>160907Kodak... ;______;

Don't worry guys, I'm still here!

I've got some SCHNEIDER-KREUZNACH Variogon shit for you guys.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:02:21 16:19:15Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1329Image Height1156
>> Anonymous
You don't fuck with 9 MOTHERFUCKING FRAMES PER SECOND
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>160901
Fun fact: that's an honest-to-God EOS 1N latched onto there. I.e., it's not a version of the EOS 1N specifically designed for this, it's just an EOS 1N hacked by Kodak.

It even has a vestigial latch to open up the film compartment.
>> Anonymous
>>160916
It's not even really hacked. They just took the film back off and put a digital one on.
>> Anonymous
>>160916

i think everyone and their mother knew that

get new random facts, ac

you're on here too much
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>160925
there were no digital backs.
>> Anonymous
how about more girls OP?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>160927
Yeah, well... your mother. SHUT UP.
>> Anonymous
>>160928
You're retarded.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>160865

YEEEAAAH!

*is an Olympusfag (because he's a poor college kid and can't afford anything better)*
>> Anonymous
>>160763
Back in the early to mid 90s, Nikon was the standard across the board for professional photographers who used 35mm. Canon introduced the EOS 1NRS as well as a series of fast primes with ultrasonic motors, which for the first time made autofocus really practical for sports photographers. This carved a niche into a territory that was both previously occupied by Nikon and was highly visible to the general public. Given Canon's brilliant marketing strategy of making all their pro lenses white, it was easy to spot pros with huge canon lenses on the sidelines of sporting events. This fostered brand recognition and enabled Canon to gain a foothold in the amateur market- the people who really don't know anything about cameras, but know they saw pros with big white lenses on TV. Despite releasing a number of bodies with more technologically advanced features than Nikon had at the time, Canon never really gained any ground in the professional field prior to digital. However, they were able to take over huge swaths of the amateur market because they made cheap SLRs that looked great on the spec sheet- and they now had brand recognition.

Once digital came along, the story has been pretty well told. In all likelyhood, now that the megapixel race has cooled down, Nikon will regain a large section of the pro market share that was lost a few years ago. Canon has always more or less been the technology leader, while Nikon has more or less produced better polished, more ergonomically friendly and rugged cameras.
>> Anonymous
History of Cameras, simplified:

Medium and large format are pretty much it. 35mm film is looked at like we look at little point and shoot sensors today, as something for toy cameras and people who are just making shitty family snapshots. Medium format was the smallest thing any pro would touch.

Some professionals disliked the large size, decided to fuck it and live with the grain, for the ergonomics (especially size and weight) of 35mm cameras. The early Leicas and Contaxes, with their good lenses and everything, helped this along. It eventually caught on, although lots of people still insisted on using medium format, understandably. After all, doesn't everyone today want a 5D or D3 or whatever for low noise? Same deal.

But enough people started using using 35mm film for serious work that Leica and Contax took off, selling 35mm film rangefinders.

(Con't next post.)
>> Anonymous
>>161036
too long!
>> Anonymous
>>161036

Carry on. I am reading.
>> Anonymous
(Continuation)

Leica and Contax were like Canon and Nikon today in their rivalry, pretty much. The differences were basically that Leica was considered to have more ergonomic and more durable bodies, while Contax was considered to have more technologically advanced bodies. For instance, Leica didn't have the rangefinder and viewfinder combined until 1954, with the M3; Contaxes had them together all along.

In 1959, Nikon basically raped Leica and Contax with the Nikon F, the first comphrehensive 35mm SLR system. There were SLRs before it, but none was in a full-blown system. Professionals flocked to it in droves, abandoning rangefinders for Nikon SLRs.
>> Anonymous
Nikon dominated the professional SLR market for the next few decades. Enough people used other systems (Olympus OM, Pentax K and before that, their Spotmatic M42-mount SLRs, although I don't think they were popular with professionals, Canon FD mount, etc.) for whatever reasons, but Nikons were king, used by pretty much every photojournalist for the durability, and other pros for the wide range of options in the system. Want a waist level finder? They had it. Some exotic, fast tele? They had it.

What slowed Nikon down was when Canon dropped its FD manual focus system and developed the EOS mount. It was all-autofocus, and good at autofocusing. It was comphrehensive, just like the Nikon F system, which had gotten autofocus, but the EOS system had better technology for it. Professionals liked being able to stick at 400/2.8 on their camera and not having to work hard to focus it to catch the football player on the field. So lots of them went to it, but lots of them stuck with Nikon, for various reasons. (Investments, ergonomics, durability, preference, not really needing fast autofocus, whatever.)

The big innovation with the EOS system, though, was that it was 100% electronic. No mechanical parts connected the camera and the lens. The autofocus motor, aperture controls, everything, were in the lens, and just an electronic interface hooked it to the camera controls. Not really significant in pros adopting it, but it impacted camera design from then on. They basically invented the modern SLR, as opposed to the old mechanically based ones you see.
>> Anonymous
Then came digital. While the early DSLRs (>>160902) were Nikons, by the time the things became viable as more than things for photojournalists whose editors were sonofabitches about getting photographs ASAP, Canon started to take the lead. Their sensors were the best when it came to image quality, and people switched for that quite a lot, giving them huge dominance in digital.

On the consumer side, the original Digital Rebel was the first DSLR under $1000. So when amateurs got started, they got Canon. When they moved up to better cameras or even became professionals, they stuck with Canon.

With the D300 and D3, Nikon has taken the image quality lead and people are starting to switch back.
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
nice. decently accurate, and i don't see any glaring omissions.

>

On the consumer side, the original Digital Rebel was the first DSLR under $1000. So when amateurs got started, they got Canon. When they moved up to better cameras or even became professionals, they stuck with Canon.

poetry. it bugs me when canon dslr kiddies don't understand their own heritage.
>> Anonymous
>>161096

LOL. You are such a pathetic whore.
>> Anonymous
>>161096

go take some pictures instead of worrying what the big mean canon boys said to you.
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
>>161103
>>161105

WHY YOU SO MEAN TO ME BAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

you know, i really do stay awake at night thinking about what you guys say to me. it's ruining my life, these barely literate posts by anonymous teenagers.
>> Anonymous
>>161111

and yet here you are crying again. OWNAGE.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
Frankly, you can trust Nikon gear. The same goes for high end Canon gear. It's reliable. It's sturdy. It will take the abuse that goes with professional rigors. You can pick up a Nikon every day, and use it, just like you use a tool. Hell, you can drive nails with old Nikons. That's the quality we're talking about here.

When you make your livelihood, you don't choose the brand that offers an equivalent, even similar system, you choose the brand that is a trustworthy and time-tested tool. Thus, Nikon. There are always distinctions to be made between Nikon and Canon, but I've often heard this statement, and I believe it: Canons are the best cameras made by engineers, but Nikons are the best cameras made by photographers. It's a generalization, but that feels very true to me.
>> Anonymous
>>161126

huge nikonfag^

do not listen
>> Anonymous
>>161096
Guy who wrote that here.

Canon should be commended for making DSLRs cheap, even if they did it for profit motive (which they did, of course). If they hadn't aggresively priced the Rebel, the people on here who own x0Ds would own entry-level DSLRs, and the people who own entry-level DSLRs would own small-sensor cameras, because the prices would be about the same.

The Powershot G5, the last G series before the Rebel came out, was $799. When the Rebel came out a few months later, it was $899, or $999 with the craptastic original EF-S 18-55. The 50/1.8, AFAIK, was still a thrifty fifty then. I can't imagine the 28/2.8 cost much then, either. And these are all 2003 dollars.

So I don't quite see what you're getting at here. The EOS 300D was a feather in Canon's cap, comercially and otherwise, and I don't see why it should count for or against people who shoot with Canon cameras.
>> Anonymous
Chances are, Nikon or Canon, you can take great pictures with either. Most of the idiots going on about gear are no where near talented enough for the gear to be any kind of limitation and the ones that are talented can take good pictures on a Holga that would make anyone here weep and tear up their portfolio in shame, rather than masturbate over tools.
>> Anonymous
>>161132

fence and heavyweather are the biggest Nikon whores on /p/.
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
>>161132

nah, it wasn't intended as a slight against canon. i love canon, i think they make some of the greatest cameras and lenses around.

it was a slight against kids who rail against every other brand except canon because it was the first brand they could afford.
>> Anonymous
because there are way less d40 kids running around, am i rite
>> Anonymous
>>161139

"BUT ITS CHEAPER!!!!!!!!"
>> Anonymous
>>161144

it did retail cheaper at release and up until recently

but that didn't stop canon from selling more
>> Anonymous
>>161126
Heavyweather, you have to be a fucking idiot to even attempt to drive a nail with a camera, regardless of its build. Or would you? Please show me a video of you doing that with your new Nikon camera, I'd love to. :)
>> Anonymous
>love to see that. :)
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>161155
I drove a nail with a Nikon F3 with the MD-12 grip. It was one of the first things I wanted to do with it. Did it into a 2x4.

Now, you won't catch me doing that with a D3, but that's because there's $5000 riding on that outcome.

Sorry if I come off like a Nikon fag, but ask anyone in the industry and they'll probably have some pretty strong opinions about their kit. My own are not uncommon.
>> weatherreport !UPBQK5lNSw
Frankly, you can trust Canon gear. The same goes for high end Nikon gear. It's reliable. It's sturdy. It will take the abuse that goes with professional rigors. You can pick up a Canon every day, and use it, just like you use a tool. Hell, you can drive nails with old Canons. That's the quality we're talking about here.

When you make your livelihood, you don't choose the brand that offers an equivalent, even similar system, you choose the brand that is a trustworthy and time-tested tool. Thus, Canon. There are always distinctions to be made between Canon and Nikon, but I've often heard this statement, and I believe it: Nikon are the best cameras made by engineers, but Canons are the best cameras made by photographers. It's a generalization, but that feels very true to me.
>> Anonymous
>>161160
Oh come on, you should be able to trust your 5000 dollar hammer, shouldnt you? I mean, a 15+ year old steel ingot with Nikon stamped on it can do it, why shouldnt one of their new ingots be able to? That's what youre saying, please prove it, I want pictures too!
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
if you guys actually paid any attention to what i write, brandwhores and dslr kiddies are both at the top of my laundry list for photography hatred. but i think all this attention is cute. i'm flattered.
>> Anonymous
WTF is up with the girl in that picture?
>> Anonymous
>>161135
seconded.


btw I'm in learning phase with ultracompact (coolpix s700) before switch to DSLR, so don't mind me.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
girl is going
<----
>> Anonymous
>>161336

Oh shit I lol'd
>> I||ICIT !!mknjFN/v/49
partially off topic but also partially relevant is the fact that the majority of canons business(at a guess) isnt anything to do with dslr's or lenses.

this is a major difference between canon and nikon, canon has a HUGE amount of resources behind them from areas like copiers, printers, broadcast equip inc TV cameras and lenses, medical and semiconductor/industry.

just look at this site, its the canon us product directory. notice how Dslrs, and even digi cameras arent mentioned or have their own category...
http://www.usa.canon.com/opd/controller?act=OPDHomePageAct

compare this to nikon on the other hand who pretty much SOLELY rely on cameras and optics related products and its pretty clear that canon is the bigger company with more cash behind them and of course a reputation of being farely cut-throat with older technologies(see other post r.e FD>EOS mount).
this would have been a major factor in regards to the original d.rebel because canon can afford to take a loss(doubtful) or at least take a smaller profit because it ensures that people(like me!) are now into the canon EOS system for the long haul buying lenses and random money making accessories etc.
compare this to nikon, who are on a smaller business scale, they wouldnt be quite as prepared as canon wouldve been to take a hit on something still fairly new at the time.

either that or nikon simply didnt have enough spare change to start setting up a huge new division at the time. or they didnt have the technology/right while canon did...

also, being a canonfag, isnt it amazing how as soon as nikon have 1 pretty sweet camera, its the be all and end all of digital slr's. yes i admit its pretty nice(spec wise, ive never even seen one IRL) but c'mon, canon has been ahead r.e digital sensors/cameras for years and now theyre only just catching up ;)
guess you gotta have something to cheer about sometimes...
>> Anonymous
Everyone got their later history pretty much sorted, except for the omission of the D1. The Nikon D1 singlehandedly killed film photojournalism, and it took a while for Canon to fight back and get to the dominance it has today again. But then this is the part I don't understand - the F5 was totally dominated by the EOS-1, causing pros to go MF Nikon to AF Canon, but the D1 raped the both of them (necessitating AF Nikon lenses) and then pros switched AGAIN to Canon with the modern 1D series?

Also, some clarifications of the earliest part. Photojournalism started with the Ermanox camera in the late 1800s, shooting the fastest lens in history at the time - the 85/1.8 Ernostar (This got bought out by Zeiss and was made famous as the Sonnar). With a relatively portable fast lens, it was actually possible to take pictures of newsworthy events as they happened instead of waiting for the dust to clear and setting up a shot on a tripod. Pity it shot 4x5.

By the turn of the century, people are getting sick of carrying large negs, and experiments are being made with using 35mm movie film stock. A fellow called Oskar Barnack invents a really nice pocketable 35mm camera, and after looking around for a taker finally lands with Ernst Leitz, Wetzlar. Prototype production is delayed by WWI and the Depression, but they finally produce the Leica in the 20's. It becomes a massive seller by the 30's.
>> Anonymous
At the same time, the guys at Zeiss Ikon (a now nonexistent division of Carl Zeiss) decide they ought to join the 35mm bandwagon, and make the Contax I. On paper it whips the shit out of anything Leica makes for the next few decades, but it's rather ugly and requires a funky ass hand position to use (the Contax Claw). Zeiss lenses are considered sharper and more technologically advanced, while Leitz lenses have character and Leica glow and shit. So by now pros are either using Leicas (HCB), Contaxes (Capa) or 4x5 Speed Graphics/other press cameras.

Over in Japan, a company called Nippon Kogaku is quietly grinding lenses for military instruments, and the odd camera (for example, the first Canon). After being a navy contractor through WWII, they realize they're doomed to bankruptcy after Japan's defeat. So they have a meeting to decide how to revive their finances, and decide to make a camera - the Nikon M. By 1950, Nikon rangefinders are a pretty good, but niche product in Japan.

As luck would have it, a Japanese pro suggests to his American buddy Douglas David Duncan (he's still alive, check out his blog) to check out some awesome Nikon lenses for his Contax. He decides they're good and takes them to Korea to cover the Korean War, where the pictures they make are published everywhere. People become curious and Nikon RFs soon fly off the shelves in America.

Meanwhile, Canon has been producing solid RFs and lenses since before the war, and a couple pros use those. So by the late 50's there are four "pro" 35mm camera companies - Leica with their IIIg, Zeiss Ikon with the Contax IIa/IIIa, Nikon with the SP, and Canon with the 7. All these are due for an upgrade.
>> Anonymous
Leica unveils the M3, the godliest rangefinder ever. Zeiss Ikon flops around, attempts an SLR a while later, and slowly collapses. Canon tries and fails with the Canonflex. And Nikon hits the jackpot with the F. Which in all honesty was not much of a better camera than the lesser known Topcon RE Super of the time, but it was marketed with all the remaining hype from Nikon RFs, and had a much better system around it.

Nikon hegemony remains for a while until electronics (AE, electronically timed shutters) start coming into SLRs, which is when Canon muscles back into the market with the AE-1 and A-1, I think. And then it's a two way battle until 1985 and EOS etc etc whatever
>> Anonymous
Other companies: Pentax only got into the camera business during the SLR age, and was at the top of the SLR game for a while until the F whipped its ass. They never recovered.
Oly was always a second rate competitor until they made the OM-1, which only ever became a cult hit. I still <3 mine though. Then they fucked up the transition to AF even worse than Nikon and became insignificant until 4/3rds. I suppose not much has changed.
Rolleiflexes were popular until people realized they had been making the same product for decades. Still are.
Minolta made some early innnovations in the electronic SLR age, and then kinda got shoved aside because they never had a credible pro body. So even though they invented AF, they had nothing good to stick it in until the Maxxum 7 and 9, and by then film was "dead"
>> Anonymous
ITT: ctrl-v
>> Anonymous
>>Why do most mainstream professionals use Nikon and Canon?
Well, sports photographers, the NFL in particular, uses Canon because they signed a multi year multi million dollar contract to do so.
>> Anonymous
>>161366
See if you can find that anywhere else on the internet. It took frigging ages to type you faggot.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
A thread with Nikonfags and no one even mentions my fuckin name?

Cunts.

All of you.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>161436

We remembered you in our hearts.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>161401
I found it informative and interesting and appreciate the effort.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>161401

good read, i thoroughly enjoyed it :)
>> Anonymous
>>161449
>>161455
Thanks guys (: Maybe I should give this namefagging thing a shot so people will take my walls of text more seriously.

Also I fucked up one of the details. The name of the guy who discovered Nikon is David Douglas Duncan, and though he's alive he doesn't have a blog. The guy who I was thinking of was David Alan Harvey, who is also called David and uses his middle name everywhere. Argh.
>> Anonymous
>>161354But then this is the part I don't understand - the F5 was totally dominated by the EOS-1, causing pros to go MF Nikon to AF Canon, but the D1 raped the both of them (necessitating AF Nikon lenses) and then pros switched AGAIN to Canon with the modern 1D series?

It wasn't the F5, it was the F4. The EOS 1 was pretty old and had been out of production for a number of years when the F5 came out. Also, the biggest market for the Nikon D1, photojournalists, never switched over to Canon in large numbers during the film years. There were some out there, but even with the EOS 1n, 1nRS, and 1V, most stayed with Nikon F4s and F5s.

Brand switching happens a lot as well. It's really not all that expensive or difficult to do, especially if you use high end equipment. Lenses hold their value really well, and if you use equipment heavily it will require periodic replacement anyway so it's not a big deal to jump systems when that happens.
>> Anonymous
>>161528
Ah so it's the sports shooters that tossed their F4s to get EOS-1s because of the shit AF, and the news guys didn't mind until...the EOS-1D beat the aging D1h? Or did current Canon domination of journalism begin only with the Mk II models?
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>161469
tripfag it up. One of us, one of us
>> the switch is a lie des, not bitter
Pentax had crazy advantages and advances in technology during the rise of the SLR. Bodies and optics.
The reason they never "made it" is because their professional lines were/are the medium format cameras. They only ever had one system camera for 35mm.
I'd like to see a flagship K1D(?) from them but I doubt it'll happen. If anything new is on the line, it'll be a digital 67.

Canons won because you could buy one at sears roebuck.
Nikons won because REAL nikonfags are hardline gear whores who shovel propoganda into their mouths with rusted spoons. Shit viewfinder info? Slower xsync speed than this 15 year old nikkormat? NOMNOMNOM Needs a CPU to meter? NOMNOMNOM AF motors are for faggots! NOMNOMNOM
To be fair, nikon has and has had the greatest TTL flash system.
Excepting the DTTL drama, of course. They do have a problem with migrations, christ.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>161532
Hell, why not. Points if you can figure out where the name is from without Googling.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>161543
Uh, what? Pentax canned the 645D already, and judging by how competitive the MF back market is getting and how hard it is to get sensors big enough, a digital 67 is hilariously (and disappointingly) unlikely.

Noticed your email field, and yeah that's true. But newsrooms buy what's good/what's available, and that's either Canon or Nikon these days, and in the past it was Nikon or Leica.

And like I said in my wall of text, Pentax was topping the SLR market for a while, both in sales and technology. Then they just kinda...slipped behind as the F charged past.
>> Anonymous
>>161546
Serenars are lenses. Don't remember who made them, though.
>> Anonymous
>>161543
Must be a fag.
>> Anonymous
I'm still LOL'ing over the big U-turn Nikon did over "full frame". I can remember they were about to release papers showing all the great advantages of their system and they stubbornly claimed all along that their crop system was the best...then they showed themselves to be full of shit by releasing a full frame camera and that research they claimed to have quietly disappeared...
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>161591
DX still HAS advantages over the D3. Our paper is getting a D300 with the vert grip because it shoots almost as fast as a D3, and just as fast as our aging D2H, it makes all of our 300s into 450s, and gives nice big 12MP files. Also, we can get 2 DX sensor cameras for every 1 FX sensor camera we could otherwise buy. Those are all advantages. Nikon wasn't wrong (Nikon apologist, woohoo!), they just expanded their product line to accommodate customers who wanted a pro-grade full-frame camera. It's just capitalism, dude.
>> Anonymous
>>161593
And there are also image quality advantages to DX, too. While a larger sensor will, all other things being equal, have less noise and more dynamic range, a crop body using only the center portion of the lens could yield other advantages.

Don't know if that was going to be Nikon's line, though.
>> Anonymous
>>161593

It does not make your 300s into 450s. A 300mm lens is always a 300mm lens. Nikon was full of shit, did a U-turn and then hid their own work to avoid the embarrassment.

You are such a shameless fanboy. They could call black white and you'd leap on board.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>161767
>It does not make your 300s into 450s. A 300mm lens is always a 300mm lens.
It's just a shorthand way of saying that it makes their 300mm lenses give the same field of view that a 450mm lens would have on a full 35mm frame. He knows it doesn't actually change his focal length.

Be less pedantic.
>> Anonymous
>>161771

So it offers no advantage. He could just crop the D3 and be done with it.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>161776
Except they're both 12 megapixel sensors. One's just smaller. So cropping a D3 will lose you resolution vs. the D300.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>161776

Well he did say it was half the price. That's a pretty compelling reason for any business even if you don't agree with the rest. Most of the photos in his newspaper won't need the full quality of the D3 anyway, I'd imagine, so the D300 is still a useful camera for them.
>> Anonymous
>>161785

Why not go the whole hog and just use a P&S for maximum density? The D3 will give a cleaner and better image even with cropping. The D3 will be able to be resized much better.
>> Anonymous
>>161794
But even a D300 is overkill as far as the resolution and cropping needs of a newspaper, the D3 just shoots a bit faster and with the natural crop of the lens. It's advantages are probably outweighed by having to reinvest in non-DX lenses to get more than 6MP out of the lenses they're already shooting with.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>161794
No, see, that's a different argument. You said
>So [DX format] offers no advantage. He could just crop the D3 and be done with it.
To which I pointed out that shooting a D3 in DX format means you're now working with a 5 megapixel camera vs. the 12 megapixel you'd get from shooting with a D300. Not a big deal when printing in a newspaper, granted, unless they need to crop even more out of the DX-format image, but it's still a disadvantage. And that disadvantage is added on to the fact that it costs twice as much.

Your hyperbole about just going with a P&S camera isn't relevant because it's just not the same situation:
* The quality difference between P&S and DX is much, much larger than the quality jump from DX to FX in normal lighting situations
* DX cameras can have interchangeable lenses just like FX cameras. You can get a P&S with a 450mm-equiv lens, but you can't get one with a 450mm-equiv f/2.8 lens.
>> Anonymous
Anybody else find her cheeks delicious?

Hate her color contacts though.
>> Anonymous
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon

vs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon
>> Anonymous
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS
>> Anonymous
I love my 300, though I recognize that a D3 would be overkill 90% of the time for regular news stuff.

Though for sports, that's an entirely different thing.
>> Anonymous
nykon D3 is the best camera ever

until cannon makes the new eos 5, rofl
>> Anonymous
op girl is ugly.
>> Anonymous
>>161920
>until cannon makes the new eos 5, rofl
And then, bricks shall be shat.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>161936
If the Crazy Internet Rumor is true, it'll be announced in less than a week now.

(I'm excited)
>> I||ICIT !!mknjFN/v/49
>>162103
fuckin same here.

5d mk1 here i come :D

lol, you think i can actually afford a mkII LOOOL! ;)
>> Anonymous
>And then, bricks shall be shat.
(Was me)
>>162111
>>162103

I'm excited too, but I think I'm going to miss out on the opportunity to get a cheapass 5D for myself :[