Prejudice against non-photo camera brands

I notice most people are buying Canon, Nikon
cameras, with Minolta, Pentax and Olympus
bringing up the rear, pretty much what it
was with film cameras. Not many people mention
owing Fuji, or HP, etc. Is this because
there is a reluctance to deviate from traditional
camera brands or is it due to people simply owning
lenses for film cameras that they now use on
digitals?
-Rich

"RichA" wrote in message
...
I notice most people are buying Canon, Nikon
cameras, with Minolta, Pentax and Olympus
bringing up the rear, pretty much what it
was with film cameras. Not many people mention
owing Fuji, or HP, etc. Is this because
there is a reluctance to deviate from traditional
camera brands or is it due to people simply owning
lenses for film cameras that they now use on
digitals?

As an SLR group, I guess regulars here avoid HP because they don't make
SLRs. Fuji's S2 is well respected, yet ageing- hopefully the S3 will be
remedy this.

As for the compacts- plenty of people own Fuji- the S3500 and S5500 are
popular, and the F810 should be more so. HP tend to borrow other people's
tech for cameras, so they shouldn't be too bad... if you really want to deal
the HP, that is.

--
Martin Francis
"Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and
no, and yes...."

RichA wrote:

I notice most people are buying Canon, Nikon
cameras, with Minolta, Pentax and Olympus
bringing up the rear, pretty much what it
was with film cameras. Not many people mention
owing Fuji, or HP, etc. Is this because
there is a reluctance to deviate from traditional
camera brands or is it due to people simply owning
lenses for film cameras that they now use on
digitals?

Three main camps.

Those who have lenses and want to maintain that investment. I'm typical with 5
high value lenses and one el-cheapo. I need the body that preserves that
investment.

Second camp are those who, pretty much regardless of what camera they own, have
a kit lens with their body. They feel more free to choose whatever pleases them
and are not particularly brand loyal.

Third camp. New to photography or upgrading from P&S/zlr. Again free to choose
as they're not bound by other investment.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

RichA writes:
I notice most people are buying Canon, Nikon cameras, with Minolta,
Pentax and Olympus bringing up the rear, pretty much what it was
with film cameras. Not many people mention owing Fuji, or HP, etc.
Is this because there is a reluctance to deviate from traditional
camera brands or is it due to people simply owning lenses for film
cameras that they now use on digitals? -Rich

Probably a little of both. A camera is all about optics, and a
digital camera is all about optics and sensors. Am I going to buy a
Kodak or Fuji digital camera ever? Probably not. Unless they start
reselling made by Nikon or Canon with the same functionality and a
cheaper price.

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

RichA wrote:

I notice most people are buying Canon, Nikon
cameras, with Minolta, Pentax and Olympus
bringing up the rear, pretty much what it
was with film cameras. Not many people mention
owing Fuji, or HP, etc. Is this because
there is a reluctance to deviate from traditional
camera brands or is it due to people simply owning
lenses for film cameras that they now use on
digitals?

For the same reason I'd hesitate to buy a Canon computer. Buy from a
company that specializes in the type of product you're buying is never
bad advice.

Lisa

HP cameras SUCK !

Dave



"Martin Francis" wrote in message
...
| "RichA" wrote in message
| ...
| I notice most people are buying Canon, Nikon
| cameras, with Minolta, Pentax and Olympus
| bringing up the rear, pretty much what it
| was with film cameras. Not many people mention
| owing Fuji, or HP, etc. Is this because
| there is a reluctance to deviate from traditional
| camera brands or is it due to people simply owning
| lenses for film cameras that they now use on
| digitals?
|
| As an SLR group, I guess regulars here avoid HP because they don't make
| SLRs. Fuji's S2 is well respected, yet ageing- hopefully the S3 will be
| remedy this.
|
| As for the compacts- plenty of people own Fuji- the S3500 and S5500 are
| popular, and the F810 should be more so. HP tend to borrow other people's
| tech for cameras, so they shouldn't be too bad... if you really want to deal
| the HP, that is.
|
| --
| Martin Francis
| "Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and
| no, and yes...."
|
|

I should state a SWEAR BY HP printers (with or w/o HP JetDirect print-servers). As a IT
professional all my laser and inkjet printers are HP (except a Xerox Document Center 432ST
copier and printer).

However I bought 6 HP Vectras They were junk. I would never get HP computers again.

Dave



"David H. Lipman" wrote in message
news:2nKwd.117$_62.33@trnddc01...
| HP cameras SUCK !
|
| Dave

The s2 is an in-between camera. It is an extremely good performing
camera. And excellent sensor, and the camera is quite speedy and
feature rich.

But it is not rugged not TRULY expensive, nor is it cheap. It is
therefor is used quite a bit by the portrait folks.

It is also popular by the truly geeky prosumer crowd (raises hand), that
does other dumb things from a pocket book standpoint, like buys audio
equipment with tubes, or speaker wire that would also be well suited for
substation work.

I am not getting the s3 this year, instead it is *the* 70-200 AF ED VR
lense. costs about the same as the camera, but will actually take
better pictures

I also own an e550 for PS stuff, (and movies).

The s3 will probably rock. But again will be not rugged enough for the
journalist crowd, and not cheap enough for the prosumer masses.

HP, wrong group.



RichA wrote:
I notice most people are buying Canon, Nikon
cameras, with Minolta, Pentax and Olympus
bringing up the rear, pretty much what it
was with film cameras. Not many people mention
owing Fuji, or HP, etc. Is this because
there is a reluctance to deviate from traditional
camera brands or is it due to people simply owning
lenses for film cameras that they now use on
digitals?
-Rich

Todd H. wrote:
Probably a little of both. A camera is all about optics, and a
digital camera is all about optics and sensors. Am I going to buy a
Kodak or Fuji digital camera ever? Probably not. Unless they start
reselling made by Nikon or Canon with the same functionality and a
cheaper price.

Well you know little about the s2. Nikon Body, Nikon Optics. Fuji
Sensor (arguably better), Fuji Software (arguably better). But more
expensive.

I think it might have more to do with knowledge. I think more people assume
that a company that has been making cameras even films ones will do a better
job of making new camera even digital ones than a company that has little or
no experience.

I don't find this true myself. I used to always buy Olympus until I bought
the crappy 3030 I then switched to a Sony CD Mavica which took far better
pictures than the Oly. I now have a 20D which about 50% of the time I am
sorry I bought. With the on going problems it has had thanks to Canons poor
quality assurance it has been less than a joy to use. When it does work it
takes great pictures when it doesn't I just hate it.

So I don't think brand really matters. Another factor is a lot of people
tend to buy what they know. But, they do that with things other than
cameras. People that learned to use a computer using a Mac in school are
probably most still Mac users. I learned on a Mac in school and wanted one
for home, but got an Atari instead and from their it was a PC. Had I bought
an Apple I would probably be a Mac user today.

John