Not many Canon Cameras

[Jannie]

We have this fantastic parade every year, it starts with 2-300 naked painted cyclists, draws about 35,000 people and lasts only one hour. The whole parade is really wonderful, it's all about artistic expression and everyone has a great time. I have a regular spot along with a girlfriend and it's our annual get together.

But this year something was different, for one thing there usually are a lot of people with point and shoot cameras, this year I'd guess there were an increase of dslr's by about 50 for every 200 feet of audience, figuring both sides.

And Canon seemed to have a very poor showing, of the Canon Cameras it seemed as if there were a lot of what looked like 5dII and classic with an occasional pro with 1D series cameras. But Nikon was heavily everywhere, and the parade route was so cluttered at times with photographers compared to last year that I even started to get irritated.

Of all the photographers though there was one man who stood out of the crowd, because he didn't stand out in the crowd. I watched him last year and the way he works the parade is wonderful, you can actually believe he's getting great shots, he's the calmest person there and moves in a way that he's never in anyone's way but is calmly shooting, shooting, shooting. It was a good study for me to remember; yes I've done many a documentary working crowds but you can never learn enough.

Unfortunately he was shooting Nikon as well, but one of the few pros that wasn't using Canon. He was using a 70-200 and a 24-70 and it was a pleasure to watch him work.

I get frustrated seeing this showing for Nikon cameras though, I'm a die hard Canon fan now and cannot understand how Canon with all of it's money cannot come up with the design/promotion and advertising to get people in on the ground floor with Canon cameras, there is a truth that people become loyal so those few from that crowd who do decide to make this their profession are not likely to switch to another brand, at least my experience leads me to think that way.

I'm pretty objective and do not believe that Nikon is putting out a product so much better as to warrant this strong of shift to one manufacturer, it was just weird. I guess I shouldn't care, I've got my Canon gear, great lenses and will upgrade the body maybe one more time before I really do retire with just a point and shoot lol.

[tsaraleksi]

It's pretty simple really. Nikon was the first to come out with a super cheap dSLR (the D40) and they sold it to people really well. Once people see Nikons around, they are more likely to choose one when they decide to buy an SLR.

At the same time, there's a lingering notion in some people's mind that Nikon is some kind of "gold standard" for professional usage, dating to the 80s.

That said, sales figures show that both companies are pretty neck-in-neck, so I think it's probably not really a big deal as far as Canon's performance is concerned.

[nickphoto]

I honestly can't understand why this would bother you.

[johnboy00]

I honestly can't understand why this would bother you.

Same here. I shoot Canon because it feels better in my hands, I like the system, and I like the results I get. I couldn't care less what the Joneses are shooting.

[nicksan]

As long as Canon doesn't go bankrupt and continues to put out quality photography equipment I really don't care what people use.

This whole Canon vs. Nikon mentality is pretty silly I think. I don't have any allegiance to Canon. I happen to use Canon. I don't even remember why I chose Canon over Nikon. I happen to think Nikon has some pretty kick as* gear too.

All I know is that I have the tools to get the job done.

[alt4852]

i think the 1dmk3's focusing issues lost canon quite a few professionals, and the strong performance of the d3 and the d700 may have simply tipped the scales for them. it's not really a big deal though, as both companies are putting out great products and people are getting great photos with them.

[rumplepigskin]

ok... let me get this straight... all these naked people around and you're looking at brands of cameras? now that my friends is a photographer

[windpig]

all the 40D owners were naked riding the bikes. I was 2 blocks east at the vet with my old kitty Bill, else I would have been there.

[birdfromboat]

there is a local shop, that calls itself the photo supply for the pros, you know who I am talking about, and they advertise Nikon heavily....do you think that might be why there are more Nikons in this particular city? Sure, they sell canons too, but they don't advertise them as heavily. They sell hasselblad too, but you will probably NEVER see them run an ad for them, kind of tells the story doesn't it?

[DarenM]

Publicity for Nikon has always put them in the forefront over Canon, dating back to the first SLR's. That is ok, quality wins out with the Canon fans.

[spkerer]

I honestly can't understand why this would bother you.

+2

I don't give a rip what brand people are shooting. I bought Canon because I like it, not because of what is the most popular at the time. Its one thing discussing different camera gear, but when someone starts into how one must shoot Canon, or Nikon, or whatever, because they're the only good cameras, I flip the bozo bit on that person and stop really paying attention to what they're saying.

But if it helps, think of yourself as belonging to the more exclusive Canon club, rather than the "everyone Nikon club." :)

[Jannie]

Funny the responses, no I don't care when it comes to the Joneses attitude, but I was shooting commercials for over 30 years and still find advertising fascinating as well as human motivation. I was a Nikon shooter myself in the film days but chose Canon at first simply because of the way the 5D felt in my hands and the wonderful viewfinder, the rest I learned after that.

I'm probably the last person in the world if you knew me, to be affected in what I personally buy by what the Joneses have, most of us got over that kind of thinking decades ago, but you don't know me and I really was puzzled by what I saw, but more so by the way the photographers were working the situation, with only one of them really seeming to be really connected with what was happening and that of course is just a guess, everyone has their own manner of approach.

There was one guy, camera with one lens and I couldn't understand his approach, almost frenetic he seemed to be shooting anything he could get close to. He'd grab a couple of shots near where we were sitting and then actually run 75' to grab a shot only to have at that moment to have the performers turn away from him but he would shoot anyway yet not keep at it when they came into what looked like a better view, then he'd actually run as if he was afraid he was going to miss something to another spot. He had on a solid waist belt, with fully heavy duty shoulder harness and at a distance I thought it might be a Think Tank setup but when he got close, I saw the equipment pouches were filled with water bottles, no camera gear at all. I'd never thought of that, some times it gets pretty warm at the parade so he was well equipped to keep going.

We all make choices and have our own approach but what seems to come a lot to the forefront is that we are seriously into our gear, the number of people shooting who wore backpacks impressed me by the amount they felt they needed to carry. Photographers are interesting and I'm quite thrilled that there seem to be so many people into it.

Re the local store, yes I've noticed the Nikon push, who knows the reason but in merchandising that often relates to the relationship they have with the manufacturers distributor or profit incentives and how much the manufacturer provides in free advertising which helps sell the products for them.

In the process of shooting and acquiring gear, I have become very much a Canon fan and I like that feeling and experience, think what you will. And I have no problem with anyone who has brand loyalty, I personally hope with everything I become involved with to surpass the place where I'm thinking about what I have and how to use it and instead make it more a part of me in that I don't have to think so much about the gear and mostly just about what it is I want to get in a photograph. Once I get firmly familiar with certain tools, then it makes sense to stick with the methods used when using them. I think Canon designs gear that makes that process quite comfortable.

[JWright]

i think the 1dmk3's focusing issues lost canon quite a few professionals, and the strong performance of the d3 and the d700 may have simply tipped the scales for them. it's not really a big deal though, as both companies are putting out great products and people are getting great photos with them.

The initial performance of the 1DIII may have something to do with it, but those issues wouldn't effect sales at the consumer level. I think it has more to do with Ashton Kutcher shilling for Nikon...

I shoot Canon because I'm heavily invested in the brand and can't afford to be switching around like some. I initially chose Canon back in 1999 ecause I could get more camera for my money and they were the only manufacturer with stabilized lenses at the time. If I were starting out from scratch today, I would certainly consider the Nikon D3 and D700 as potential acquisitions. Nikon has managed to put the two most attractive features (to me) in one camera; high FPS and full frame. Canon still insists on putting those in two separate cameras, the 1D and 1Ds.

[cgatto]

When people ask me what brand of Camera they should buy, I tell them them to either get a Nikon or a Canon. You can't go wrong picking either.

[Dmab]

...There was one guy, camera with one lens and I couldn't understand his approach, almost frenetic he seemed to be shooting anything he could get close to. He'd grab a couple of shots near where we were sitting and then actually run 75' to grab a shot only to have at that moment to have the performers turn away from him but he would shoot anyway yet not keep at it when they came into what looked like a better view, then he'd actually run as if he was afraid he was going to miss something to another spot. ...

:)
Did you happen to notice who he was trying to run around and shoot?

Being a guy, and assuming what most guys with cameras do at an event full of nakedness, I can only assume he was racing around trying to get shots of the naked ladies?

[RDKirk]

It's pretty simple really. Nikon was the first to come out with a super cheap dSLR (the D40) and they sold it to people really well. Once people see Nikons around, they are more likely to choose one when they decide to buy an SLR.

Actually, Canon was first with the Rebel 300D, "super cheap" being relative to what preceded it. The 300D was the first DSLR marketed below $1000 USD. Canon's D30 and D60 were the first DSLRs below $5,000 USD. Basically, it was Canon that created the DSLR consumer market.

But if we go back, back, back into time in the 1950s, we see Nikon and Canon producing rangefinders that are basically inexpensive imitations of German Leicas and Contaxes. It was American importer Joe Ehrenreich who began pushing Nikon heavily to American photojournalists.

Joe Ehrenreich's major contribution was the concept of "professional support"--he gave away Nikons to news organizations, set up quick-turnaround service centers with free loaner cameras, and set up support centers at professional sports events. When Nikon developed its first solid SLR, the Nikon F, Ehrenreich's centers had super-long (for that day) telephotos ready to lend, which encouraged news agencies to buy Nikon.

Of course, it certainly helped that Nikon stepped up to the plate and produced a solid professional-level product. You could (and Ehrenreich did, as a publicity stunt) drive nails with a Nikon F body.

Canon continued to produce some nice cameras, especially in terms of electrical capabilities (which has always been Canon's strong point). But Canon didn't really get into the professional game until 1973 with their F1 (about the time Nikon finally presented their F-2).

Although Canon's F1 was a slightly better camera than the Nikon F-2 (especially with an integrated meter) and eve slightly cheaper, it took about a decade for Canon to edge significantly into Nikon's professional space. For one thing, new professional cameras weren't introduced very frequently--a model lasted about a decade. For another, professional cameras lasted a long, long time anyway. I went with Canon myself in 1974 mostly because I'm contrary like that.

Canon produced the New F1 as its second professional camera (there had been a slight refresh of the orginal F1 in 1974, the F1n), and it's last manual-focus professional camera the T90 in 1986--notice that since 1973, Canon had only produced three professional bodies.

But while the T90 was still in R&D, Minolta released its autofocusing, autowinding Maxxum 7000, which was classic "disruptive technology," totally changing the game. Canon had no choice but to release the T90 anyway, but it was obsolete from the moment it left the shipping dock.

Canon released an autofocus kludge that took a couple of lenses with bulky autofocus motors, but it took three years before they fielded a true competitor in the autofocus system, the EOS 650.

And the EOS 650 was a zinger. Canon had abandoned the FD mount (which ticced me off at them for nearly ten years), and had used their electronic advantage to the hilt with a system that outclassed every other in sheer elegance of design and function.

Nikon stubbornly clung to their original F-mount even though it still suffers with levers and pins and against the all-electric EOS mount. Depending on Sony for all their sensors put them well behind Canon for a long time in the DSLR game.

Since then, Canon and Nikon have basically leapfrogged each other. Twice--in the late 80s and again just four years ago, it appeared to many observers that Nikon was about to fold its camera business entirely. Certainly, even though its camera division was basically a money hemorrhage, Nikon kept its camera business in the late 80s only out of sheer refusal to give up the line that made the name "Nikon" famous.

Three years ago, it was Nikon fans who were crying in beers. So they've leapfrogged ahead again...the game continues.

[SuzyView]

I don't think it's a true comparison. I think most people are used to a brand and then stay with it. I started with Canon, I recommend Canon's since that's the brand I know, but it never bothers me that my pro friends shoot with any other brand. I think some of the other brands are pretty decent nowadays. My best gal-pal shooter uses Pentax. As someone mentioned above, people generally don't know better, but the pros choose what they are comfortable with since we can all afford one brand or the other.

[DarthVader]

If I were you I'll beat up all the Nikon shooters :lol:

[Nickm292]

I honestly can't understand why this would bother you.


I have to agree here though after I say what I shoot with I will be put up to the slaughter.. I bought my A700 and A900 because I liked they way they felt and being my first dSLR was a Sony A100 I was already familiar with how they worked... but I am not biased to just Sony, just what I feel like shooting with.

I was told a while back that in Photography the Camera used is not as near important as the Photographer's eye and being able to see what needs to be shot..

[cgatto]

Actually, Canon was first with the Rebel 300D, "super cheap" being relative to what preceded it. The 300D was the first DSLR marketed below $1000 USD. Canon's D30 and D60 were the first DSLRs below $5,000 USD. Basically, it was Canon that created the DSLR consumer market.

But if we go back, back, back into time in the 1950s, we see Nikon and Canon producing rangefinders that are basically inexpensive imitations of German Leicas and Contaxes. It was American importer Joe Ehrenreich who began pushing Nikon heavily to American photojournalists.

Joe Ehrenreich's major contribution was the concept of "professional support"--he gave away Nikons to news organizations, set up quick-turnaround service centers with free loaner cameras, and set up support centers at professional sports events. When Nikon developed its first solid SLR, the Nikon F, Ehrenreich's centers had super-long (for that day) telephotos ready to lend, which encouraged news agencies to buy Nikon.

Of course, it certainly helped that Nikon stepped up to the plate and produced a solid professional-level product. You could (and Ehrenreich did, as a publicity stunt) drive nails with a Nikon F body.

Canon continued to produce some nice cameras, especially in terms of electrical capabilities (which has always been Canon's strong point). But Canon didn't really get into the professional game until 1973 with their F1 (about the time Nikon finally presented their F-2).

Although Canon's F1 was a slightly better camera than the Nikon F-2 (especially with an integrated meter) and eve slightly cheaper, it took about a decade for Canon to edge significantly into Nikon's professional space. For one thing, new professional cameras weren't introduced very frequently--a model lasted about a decade. For another, professional cameras lasted a long, long time anyway. I went with Canon myself in 1974 mostly because I'm contrary like that.

Canon produced the New F1 as its second professional camera (there had been a slight refresh of the orginal F1 in 1974, the F1n), and it's last manual-focus professional camera the T90 in 1986--notice that since 1973, Canon had only produced three professional bodies.

But while the T90 was still in R&D, Minolta released its autofocusing, autowinding Maxxum 7000, which was classic "disruptive technology," totally changing the game. Canon had no choice but to release the T90 anyway, but it was obsolete from the moment it left the shipping dock.

Canon released an autofocus kludge that took a couple of lenses with bulky autofocus motors, but it took three years before they fielded a true competitor in the autofocus system, the EOS 650.

And the EOS 650 was a zinger. Canon had abandoned the FD mount (which ticced me off at them for nearly ten years), and had used their electronic advantage to the hilt with a system that outclassed every other in sheer elegance of design and function.

Nikon stubbornly clung to their original F-mount even though it still suffers with levers and pins and against the all-electric EOS mount. Depending on Sony for all their sensors put them well behind Canon for a long time in the DSLR game.

Since then, Canon and Nikon have basically leapfrogged each other. Twice--in the late 80s and again just four years ago, it appeared to many observers that Nikon was about to fold its camera business entirely. Certainly, even though its camera division was basically a money hemorrhage, Nikon kept its camera business in the late 80s only out of sheer refusal to give up the line that made the name "Nikon" famous.

Three years ago, it was Nikon fans who were crying in beers. So they've leapfrogged ahead again...the game continues.

Thanks for the read. I really didn't know much about Nikon and Canon's competitive history.

[birdfromboat]

I think the Nikon heavy crowd in the portland area might be due to the lack of competition in the upper end camera market, and the fact that the one main store that advertises heavily here advertises Nikons much more than the canon line.
I recently took a photo class where we were all asked to hold up our gear on the first night. I proudly held up my 5d with 24-105 affixed. " all people with Nikons, put your cameras down"- they did. "All people with canons, throw them against the wall" we all laughed, but the fact is, this was a representative of a major school and he was influencing the ideas and opinions of everyone in that class and anyone that asked the opinion of their friend that was in that class.
Glass is what its all about, and service. I cannot afford hasselblad or Leica, but I don't have to settle for Nikon. Give me the best Glass with the best service and I don't care if it says Kodak on the side.
And I especially don't care what it says on the other guys gear. I don't even care what my instructor thinks- I like canon.