Did Canon buy the pro market?

No one would argue that Canon dominates the professional photo
market. In nearly every field. Neither would anyone argue that their
cameras aren't at the top of the photo heap when it comes to quality.
But did Canon earn the market via better products, or did they (as
many have suggested) simply buy it? According to "rumours" Canon has
supplanted Nikon in newsrooms because they basically gave newspapers
their equipment for free. Same could be with sports magazines and the
like. Their support structure is also apparently just as amenable to
professional photographers, providing rapid and often free service to
heavy and notable users of Canon gear. This method of market control
was done by another company in the 1970s. Laidlaw undercut (heavily)
other players in the garbage collection market and rapidly took over
huge numbers of routes formerly not their own. Laidlaw at the time
was basically Mafia controllled. Once they'd established a
stronghold, of course prices went up and so the whole move was
considered unethical. But was what Canon did fair business practice,
if in fact that is what they've done?

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 11:34:59 -0700, RichA wrote:

But was what Canon did fair business practice,
if in fact that is what they've done?

If you don't already know the answer to that question you need to
take some remedial summer school courses. Not college level.

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 11:34:59 -0700, RichA
wrote:

No one would argue that Canon dominates the professional photo
market. In nearly every field. Neither would anyone argue that their
cameras aren't at the top of the photo heap when it comes to quality.
But did Canon earn the market via better products, or did they (as
many have suggested) simply buy it?

[Idiotic comparisons to the waste management market, organized crime
and unfair business practices snipped]

But was what Canon did fair business practice,
if in fact that is what they've done?

Rich, stick to your normal menu of rants - sensor dust, plastic, kit
lenses, wide-angle lenses, out-gassing, etc.


TR

"RichA" wrote in message
ups.com...
Laidlaw at the time
was basically Mafia controllled. Once they'd established a
stronghold, of course prices went up and so the whole move was
considered unethical. But was what Canon did fair business practice,
if in fact that is what they've done?


Christ man, do you ever post anything relevant to dslr-systems other than
your obsessive need to have whatever you think is the biggest or best brand?
There is a world of people out here long since matured passed the need to
constantly compare shlongs. Spend much time taking photos?

RichA wrote:

Did Canon buy the pro market?


Is the Pope Catholic?

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 14:00:57 -0700, Tony Polson wrote:

RichA wrote:

Did Canon buy the pro market?


Is the Pope Catholic?


No, actually, he's a child molester [supporter]. Then again, perhaps that
is redundant.


And, RichA, I'm sorry you were molested, repeatedly, for many years. If I
could've been
there to stop it, I would've.
--
Slack

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 18:27:34 -0700, ?Slack wrote:
: On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 14:00:57 -0700, Tony Polson wrote:
:
: RichA wrote:
:
: Did Canon buy the pro market?
:
:
: Is the Pope Catholic?
:
:
: No, actually, he's a child molester [supporter]. Then again, perhaps that
: is redundant.
:
:
: And, RichA, I'm sorry you were molested, repeatedly, for many years. If I
: could've been there to stop it, I would've.

Who are you and who let you in? Rich may have his faults, but I don't recall
that whine being one of them. Why don't you mosey on down the road, and we'll
tell The Authorities we never saw you here.

"RichA" wrote in message
ups.com...
No one would argue that Canon dominates the professional photo
market. In nearly every field. Neither would anyone argue that their
cameras aren't at the top of the photo heap when it comes to quality.
But did Canon earn the market via better products, or did they (as
many have suggested) simply buy it? According to "rumours" Canon has
supplanted Nikon in newsrooms because they basically gave newspapers
their equipment for free. Same could be with sports magazines and the
like. Their support structure is also apparently just as amenable to
professional photographers, providing rapid and often free service to
heavy and notable users of Canon gear. This method of market control
was done by another company in the 1970s. Laidlaw undercut (heavily)
other players in the garbage collection market and rapidly took over
huge numbers of routes formerly not their own. Laidlaw at the time
was basically Mafia controllled. Once they'd established a
stronghold, of course prices went up and so the whole move was
considered unethical. But was what Canon did fair business practice,
if in fact that is what they've done?


Well yes but now there is not a lot of choice at the top end is there?

RichA wrote:
No one would argue that Canon dominates the professional photo
market. In nearly every field. Neither would anyone argue that their
cameras aren't at the top of the photo heap when it comes to quality.
But did Canon earn the market via better products, or did they (as
many have suggested) simply buy it? According to "rumours" Canon has
supplanted Nikon in newsrooms because they basically gave newspapers
their equipment for free. Same could be with sports magazines and the
like. Their support structure is also apparently just as amenable to
professional photographers, providing rapid and often free service to
heavy and notable users of Canon gear. This method of market control
was done by another company in the 1970s. Laidlaw undercut (heavily)
other players in the garbage collection market and rapidly took over
huge numbers of routes formerly not their own. Laidlaw at the time
was basically Mafia controllled. Once they'd established a
stronghold, of course prices went up and so the whole move was
considered unethical. But was what Canon did fair business practice,
if in fact that is what they've done?

Canon has indeed screwed up with at least a good number of the 1D3...which
they'll have to fix, and none too soon... BUT... Your assertions regarding
"Canon quality" are absurd. They are at the top because their competition
has lagged behind in many many aspects, and continue to do so.

Canon came up with the following...only to be *eventually* followed by
Nikon:

In-lens focus motors (there were others, but Canon took it to the top and
made it standard)

USM focus motors (Sigma and Nikon followed)

CMOS sensors that are as noise-free as anything in the industry...and they
started it with the D30 in 1999.

Image stabilization (which EVERYONE is trying to emulate now)

Full-frame sensors (Kodak and other tried...and failed)...in 3 bodies and
counting...meanwhile Nikon offers zero.

Super-Tele with IS (Nikon still offers none)

10fps DSLR (Nikon?)

Canon is doing well because they've continued to innovate.

Right now I'm ticked at them for their major gaff with my 1D3...but lets not
get carried away, Rich. They are in a solid lead position because they've
earned it.


--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
...
RichA wrote:
No one would argue that Canon dominates the professional photo
market. In nearly every field. Neither would anyone argue that their
cameras aren't at the top of the photo heap when it comes to quality.
But did Canon earn the market via better products, or did they (as
many have suggested) simply buy it? According to "rumours" Canon has
supplanted Nikon in newsrooms because they basically gave newspapers
their equipment for free. Same could be with sports magazines and the
like. Their support structure is also apparently just as amenable to
professional photographers, providing rapid and often free service to
heavy and notable users of Canon gear. This method of market control
was done by another company in the 1970s. Laidlaw undercut (heavily)
other players in the garbage collection market and rapidly took over
huge numbers of routes formerly not their own. Laidlaw at the time
was basically Mafia controllled. Once they'd established a
stronghold, of course prices went up and so the whole move was
considered unethical. But was what Canon did fair business practice,
if in fact that is what they've done?

Canon has indeed screwed up with at least a good number of the 1D3...which
they'll have to fix, and none too soon... BUT... Your assertions
regarding "Canon quality" are absurd. They are at the top because their
competition has lagged behind in many many aspects, and continue to do so.

Canon came up with the following...only to be *eventually* followed by
Nikon:

In-lens focus motors (there were others, but Canon took it to the top and
made it standard)

USM focus motors (Sigma and Nikon followed)

CMOS sensors that are as noise-free as anything in the industry...and they
started it with the D30 in 1999.

Image stabilization (which EVERYONE is trying to emulate now)

Full-frame sensors (Kodak and other tried...and failed)...in 3 bodies and
counting...meanwhile Nikon offers zero.

Super-Tele with IS (Nikon still offers none)

10fps DSLR (Nikon?)

Canon is doing well because they've continued to innovate.

Right now I'm ticked at them for their major gaff with my 1D3...but lets
not get carried away, Rich. They are in a solid lead position because
they've earned it.


--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

Canon got the drop on Nikon by offering Sports shooters the hire of lenses
they would otherwise have to pay tens of thousands of dollars for.

I don't believe at the picture quality for publication level, there is any
real advantage to be had from any particular brand. What sways Photographers
on a tight budget, is the ability to obtain otherwise unobtainable
accessories that in themselves, will give them an edge over their rivals who
have to buy the accessories.

It's coming back to bite the Photographers now. Everyone on the field is
using Canon cameras for the same reason so whatever advantage they
originally had, they no longer have it.

Canon cameras are not a particularly great camera. Their lenses are also
unspectacular but when you put a 1200mm Pro lens in the hands of an
enthuastic Photogrpaher who can't afford to buy it, obviously you are going
to get a major showing of that brand's products.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com