WHY Canon? Why?

[eikin]

What pros use doesnt concern us, 99.9% of us here cant even be considered a cameraman, let alone a photographer. me included.

exactly.

which is exactly why i'm so puzzled about why there'll always be people wanting to encourage all these mental masturbation over technological advances which 99.99% of the time are not fully utilised by 99.99% of the non-professional users.

if one don't even have a good repertoire of works to speak of, what good is that couple of seconds, that couple of mm going to make?

 

[blowblue]

An interesting observation, judging from some of the replies...
The popular media uses Nikon in movies and shows because it's more recongised by the public?
The professionals (i.e. profit from photography) uses Canon because...it's marketed more aggressively?

no lah. products have to pay james bond for using their cars or phones or laptops
http://money.cnn.com/2006/11/15/magazines/business2/bond_phones.biz2/index.htm

its a way of advertising so that locals can make strong association for a product.

For example give me one company that does
Pizza?
Toothpaste?
Courier Delivery?
Soft Drink?
Sweet cool car?

 

[ryuggen]

you should always read things in context, what use are high-end reviews to the layman shooters? if you're there in the league of the pros shooting olympic games, go ahead and pick every fault out of every camera, if it matters so much for you. for the masses which i'm part off, i only want to use what is affordable and available.

That I feel is a wrong way to look at technology. A plasma a decade ago was considered only for the wealthy and the rich. Today's plasma is often commonly found in HDB flats. That same goes with computer.

If we dont have high end technology to spearhead the advances, what alone can normal hobbist like you and me benefit? Technology will be stagnant. Look at D200 and the stripped down version, D80. The point is, though we may not need high end technology, but we need them to mass produce in the future. And if everyone thinks only in art sense, we dont even have film or digital in the first place. Maybe a crayon...

 

[blowblue]

exactly.

which is exactly why i'm so puzzled about why there'll always be people wanting to encourage all these mental masturbation over technological advances which 99.99% of the time are not fully utilised by 99.99% of the non-professional users.

if one don't even have a good repertoire of works to speak of, what good is that couple of seconds, that couple of mm going to make?

Everyone has their own mental masturbation. I'm sure you have one..:bsmilie: Every rich billionaire always have their own toys or projects. John Travolta has his own airport in his home and has a fighter jet there...Chelsea is owned by rich russian tycoon who also has a yatch that travels around the world without him being there most of the year.

Give any guy lots of money and he will want WEIRD mental masturbation

 

[lightning]

bcos Canon got photocopier, printer and scanner to complement the camera!

Nikon makes Glasses for people to wear also. They make Vest ???:bsmilie:

 

[eikin]

That I feel is a wrong way to look at technology. A plasma a decade ago was considered only for the wealthy and the rich. Today's plasma is often commonly found in HDB flats. That same goes with computer.

If we dont have high end technology to spearhead the advances, what alone can normal hobbist like you and me benefit? Technology will be stagnant. Look at D200 and the stripped down version, D80. The point is, though we may not need high end technology, but we need them to mass produce in the future. And if everyone thinks only in art sense, we dont even have film or digital in the first place. Maybe a crayon...

i don't know your intention of engaging in such a debate. it's a non-issue for me because i'm not anti-technology. i'm anti- ''technology=everything'' mentality, which happens in so many equipment comparison threads. if there's anything i hope to stomp out of CS it'll be mindless comparisons between brands, mindless singing of praises, mindless putting down of other brands. to encourage such postings is just so boh-liao for lack of a better expression.

just to add, anyone who's so passionate about technological advances and hiccups coming from the layman point of view maybe should just dump the money on all the systems and conduct a fair and holistic comparison, and write a couple of pages of review based on that, post it on CS for everyone to see. at least that will be really beneficial for the forum, as we all like to say, NPNT!

 

[ryuggen]

i don't know your intention of engaging in such a debate. it's a non-issue for me because i'm not anti-technology. i'm anti- ''technology=everything'' mentality, which happens in so many equipment comparison threads. if there's anything i hope to stomp out of CS it'll be mindless comparisons between brands, mindless singing of praises, mindless putting down of other brands. to encourage such postings is just so boh-liao for lack of a better expression.

That I must agree with you.
Technology still play an important aspect in the evolution of photography. If nikon doesnt improve, it will still walk the old pentax path.

 

[grantyale]

One Letter - L

One Technology - USM

One Technique - IS

One System - CANON

'Anything Else Is A Compromise' ;p

"One System" should be EOS instead. Nikon is practically doing what Canon did in the late 80s, unifying the system to a fully compatible electronic mount, instead of three classes of camera bodies and legacy-design lenses.

For consumers - it doesn't really matter. The tangible difference between the two camps is very small. I currently use Canon and still find certain things handy on the Nikon side (and Fuji, and Sony, for that matter).

For pros - it comes to performance, service and availability. The 1 series and the L lenses have been providing class-leading performance and the immediate availability of most products makes things convenient. The major camp-shifting took place a few years after the introduction of the EOS system with quality telephoto lenses. Nikon was a step behind at that moment and even though they are very close performance-wise right now - people don't bother shifting back for nothing.

 

[Cikgu101]

All have a part to play in making a photograph...technology, photographer, tools and of course your surrounding parameters :thumbsup:

To me...any camera will do.
bte...I'm Nikon true and true ...thanks to the fact that the 350D's too small for my hands...that's why I chose the D50 :bsmilie:
To some Canon-elitist...its a dumb choice to use for NOISY Camera but each and everyone of us have our own preferences. :thumbsup:

 

[yanyewkay]

Probably the high ISO too...and i have heard something about canon's superior lenses in terms of fast focusing.

I'm going to join the Canon camp once my D70s breaks down.

Canon has a bigger market for DSLR. If you look at Flickr statistics, Canon-users is roughly about 3 times more users than Nikons in terms of no. of users who uploaded pics yesterday and no. of photos uploaded.

But it is weird that the no. of nikon-users vs canon-users is about 1:1 in the CS forum. (if you look at Equipment Discussion (Nikon vs Canon, in terms of no. of users viewing).

Singapore market is dominated by N & C.. in my recent trip to cambodia.. I saw mostly pentax.
P&S was dominated by HP as well, amongst the tourists.

 

[lsisaxon]

Got Something to share with you Guys....

I have been recently watching FTV ( Fashion TV) and its a great channel.. I mean you get to see models in photo shoots .. bikini... transparent clothes and etc...

You also see when the models are in outdoor or studio shoot, how the photographers' shoot them @ different angles etc.. its great I mean you can learn lots or least something depending on your level of understanding..

Now the biggest question in mind is @ Fashion shows, the runways, even the oscars I FREAKING see almost 90% or more photographers using Canon stuff..

Even sometimes in Studio shoots its Canon.. Most of the time its high end stuff Mamyia or Hassel.. this I can understand .. but when its not this big names its CANON again..@!!!

WhY? Why? Nikon lacks what? not sharp not fast? What?

Its just a question that ponders me..

I am True Blue Die Hard Fan of Nikon since I was 12.

Anybody have any idea why more canon photographers?

Nikon lacked marketing strategy. Canon willing to lower prices, loan out lenses, willing to listen to their customer what they want, better profit for salesmen..

Nikon too proud, boasted of one of the best optical technology in Japan (still is!) but too expensive and too little profit margin for salesmen.. Don't know if the loan out lenses to professionals in other countries but in Singapore, Shriro didn't do much to help Nikon sales.. Maybe because Nikon didn't give them enough benefit to do so? Support is bad but luckily they're very reliable. Reliability and great optics are what's left that keeps them still ticking today.

Nikon used to have the biggest range of lenses, now Canon has surpassed them. It may be because Nikon is now more mature and knows that they don't need that many lenses to keep their customers. How many lenses do Carl Zeiss and Leica have? I think Nikon has come of age. Canon's optics is probably now in the position where Nikon was about 10-15 years ago.. Need to boast of many lenses to show their prowess.

 

[lsisaxon]

One Letter - L

One Technology - USM

One Technique - IS

One System - CANON

'Anything Else Is A Compromise' ;p

Canon itself is a compromise. Jack of all trade, master of none.. hah! When I wanted to buy a DV cam, I compared Sony, Panasonic and Canon and Canon fared the worst! What killed them? The optics... Sony was using Carl Zeiss, Panasonic was using Leica. Both give very sharp images. Canon could only manage a soft image which lacked contrast. To think that they started not many years behind Nikon in terms of optics, I think they diversified too much and didn't pay enough attention to the heart of most of their products.. the optics itself..

For scanners, I'd choose Epson. Cameras, Nikon. Video, Panasonic or Sony. Copier, HP/Minolta or Xerox (yes, they are much sharper than Canon). The only product I'd choose a Canon is.......printer.. why? because no critical optics. ;p Although I've used many Canon printers, I'm still not satisfied with the stability of the ink. I think Epson and HP performs best in this area but HP's resolution isn't high enough and Epson always gets clogged.

 

[grantyale]

Hiring Shriro may be cost-effective since Nikon's consumer line is limited to cameras while Canon has many more stuffs that need local service and can afford a Canon Singapore. But then using Shriro puts Nikon's service to a level similar to that of Sigma in a way.

Lens line-up has to do with market share and target audience. The often used EF lenses are only a handful anyway. Carl Zeiss and Leica do not have much a say in today's market. Each optical design has its own limitations and a compromise for tolerance is what strikes a balance between affordability and performance.

 

[grantyale]

For scanners, I'd choose Epson. Cameras, Nikon. Video, Panasonic or Sony. Copier, HP/Minolta or Xerox (yes, they are much sharper than Canon). The only product I'd choose a Canon is.......printer.. why? because no critical optics. ;p

Never thought Canon makes good compact camcorders. -- The only problem is that optics may not matter much anyway. 135 is a compromise on IQ from 120 for portability. Good thing about Canon printer is the relatively low ink cost and no need to worry about jamming (HP), clogging (EPSON) or sh!t (LEXMARK).

 

[allantoh]

Just concentrate on taking good pictures and that it, why bother to compare? A sentence quote from a thread here, which i find is quite true...'We are photographer, not technologist.'

 

[grantyale]

The problem is common with hobbyists and not unique to photography.

 

[Cikgu101]

Nikon lacked marketing strategy. Canon willing to lower prices, loan out lenses, willing to listen to their customer what they want, better profit for salesmen..

Nikon too proud, boasted of one of the best optical technology in Japan (still is!) but too expensive and too little profit margin for salesmen.. Don't know if the loan out lenses to professionals in other countries but in Singapore, Shriro didn't do much to help Nikon sales.. Maybe because Nikon didn't give them enough benefit to do so? Support is bad but luckily they're very reliable. Reliability and great optics are what's left that keeps them still ticking today.

Nikon used to have the biggest range of lenses, now Canon has surpassed them. It may be because Nikon is now more mature and knows that they don't need that many lenses to keep their customers. How many lenses do Carl Zeiss and Leica have? I think Nikon has come of age. Canon's optics is probably now in the position where Nikon was about 10-15 years ago.. Need to boast of many lenses to show their prowess.

This is based on waht I've experienced upon taking up photography since 2005. I'm not exactly sure about Nikon Proudness(Though I'm proud of using it not to the extend of bossing ppl around) but I attended a Canon seminar before and have tea with a Master Canon sales person...they seemed to have a bone to pick with of all things Nikon.

Right after that Canon seminar, A Canon using Photo mentor(now no longer) started a campaign of 'Throw away your current cameras and buy Canon' to everyone he's close with including me.

The consumers of Canon is OK...I've still have a few Canon Photographer friends who never talks about their gear...more on the photos(how to take them and not discussing the technical side of it that much)...but I'm really irked at the Canon sales people in M'sia that really step on other brands to promote theirs :thumbsd:

To me it is not what the camera can do for you but what you can do with the camera :thumbsup:

 

[raincool2005]

seriously to be frank, i think it is marketing power... the power of branding.

if u see the colors retention of some canon basic entry level models.. it is not so good compare to underdog brands like pentax and sony..

i think the good ones are the higher end models like 1D, 5D and even 30D... and with the L lenses.

 

[raincool2005]

This is based on waht I've experienced upon taking up photography since 2005. I'm not exactly sure about Nikon Proudness(Though I'm proud of using it not to the extend of bossing ppl around) but I attended a Canon seminar before and have tea with a Master Canon sales person...they seemed to have a bone to pick with of all things Nikon.

Right after that Canon seminar, A Canon using Photo mentor(now no longer) started a campaign of 'Throw away your current cameras and buy Canon' to everyone he's close with including me.

The consumers of Canon is OK...I've still have a few Canon Photographer friends who never talks about their gear...more on the photos(how to take them and not discussing the technical side of it that much)...but I'm really irked at the Canon sales people in M'sia that really step on other brands to promote theirs :thumbsd:

To me it is not what the camera can do for you but what you can do with the camera :thumbsup:

agree with your last part... " it is the man behind the camera... , not the camera " camera is just a tool to give u the extra speed, extra angle, extra focal length.. but untimately it is skills that makes a photo successful.

have u ever heard some great winners in photo contests are actually PnS shooters ?

 

[posez]

I think full-frame makes a world of difference.

I'm an avid Nikon user, have been using their cameras for years, on to my second Nikon dSLR already. However, I think they may have made a mistake with sticking to the smaller sensors and building the DX lenses. I think most reviewers would agree that Nikon edges Canon out when it comes to low to mid range dSLRs, which is fine for hobbyists like me. However, I don't think many people woul disagree that the 1DmII, or mIII as the case may be, is the best pro body out on the market at the moment. Shooting at full-frame is extremely different.