Why can't we just take pictures?

In article . net,
Steven M. Scharf 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.

"Chris Brown" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
Steven M. Scharf 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.

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number 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

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.

"Steven M. Scharf" 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.

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.

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 :-)

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.

Did you see the thread '****ing stupid photographers'?

They're not only stupid, they're rude, too...

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.

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

Steve Cutchen wrote:
In article , 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?

We don't take pictures.

We take PHOTOGRAPHS.

This makes us important and knowledgeable.

duh.