Is Canon losing the War ?

frugivore wrote in post #16740906
If this was World War 2, Nikon would be Germany and Canon would be the Soviet Union. Nikon may have a few technology advantages (e.g. sensor) but Canon has many more men (i.e. their marketing budget) to throw into battle. Not sure which country Sony would be...

Is the US cell phones?

apersson850 wrote in post #16740915
Sweden. Selling their technology to whoever wants it.

Ah yes - we are "neutral"

I don't see the industry like it's a war zone. The real problem is the war between you and the other photographers. I think there's a lot of folk who spend far too much time on camera forums discussing gear and worrying about what badge they are buying next.

I don't mean that in an offensive way but see to be honest? Out there, no one cares what gear you're using as long as you produce the results.

Paulstw wrote in post #16740934
I don't see the industry like it's a war zone. The real problem is the war between you and the other photographers. I think there's a lot of folk who spend far too much time on camera forums discussing gear and worrying about what badge they are buying next.

I don't mean that in an offensive way but see to be honest? Out there, no one cares what gear you're using as long as you produce the results.

Agreed. I've said many times and will repeat here - Nobody looks at a Rembrandt and asks "I wonder what type brush he used?"

I have no doubt that Nikon have some cameras in their lineup that are better than my current camera. Heck, I'm pretty sure that even Canon has one or two that are better too. Does that have me leaping for my credit card to jump ship or upgrade. No, of course not, because my current camera does all that I need it to do, and I am more than happy with the results I am getting from it.

Over the course of the nearly three decades that I've been using SLRs, a lot has changed. Sometimes the change has been slow, and sometimes it has been very, very quick. The most amazing thing I think that was ever developed was eye control focus. That was mindblowing!

Time marches on. Things change and evolve. The positions of the players change, but over the long term it doesn't mean squat.

cristphoto wrote in post #16740946
Agreed. I've said many times and will repeat here - Nobody looks at a Rembrandt and asks "I wonder what type brush he used?"

It is irrelevant what an audience thinks about an artist's tools. You're quite right that audiences don't look at Rembrandt and ask what tools he used. Of course they don't. But do you really think Rembrandt himself didn't care? Do you really think he didn't give a rip about what kind of brushes, pigments, and substrates he used? Artists and craftsmen care about their tools.

Regarding the OP: Canon is doing just fine. Battles will be lost and battles will be won.

Well thanks all for your response,,guess i should not say "war" but compution between mfg..

Keeping what we have 40D x2,,XSi x2..G9 x2,,SX50HS,, and i just caught a deal on a Canon G15 with card from B&H new for $299.. as part of our carry around down sizeing ??
-----------
Ron

war... germany... russia... oh boy...

Some of the others have been so far behind Canon for so long they can only make improvements. Maybe Canon has had enough edge to hold pat for awhile.

neacail wrote in post #16740958
Over the course of the nearly three decades that I've been using SLRs, a lot has changed. Sometimes the change has been slow, and sometimes it has been very, very quick. The most amazing thing I think that was ever developed was eye control focus. That was mindblowing!

Time marches on. Things change and evolve. The positions of the players change, but over the long term it doesn't mean squat.

I really, really liked the eye focus control on my Elan. I wonder when we will see something similar in a digital SLR?

cdifoto wrote in post #16740767
There is no war.

I'm sure Canon and Nikon themselves, look at it as a war. Sony was an "ally" to Nikon.

Photography has always been about MAKING THE IMAGE...the art, the composition, the capture of emotion, the leading the viewer 'to another place'.


It has only been within the past decade and a half that photography has become so very bastardized by the incessant Gear Acquisition Syndrome, with 'Is Lens A better for me to buy than Lens B?' and 'who has higher less noisy ISO?' -- spec buying, not photography. A new body obsoleted in two years, for the latest sensor and AF point count.

I grew up with ISO 400 as the fastest color film (and before that came out, ISO 160 was the fastest!) All this preoccupation with ISO 25600, and wth 'grainless' images (really, 'noiseless' not 'grainless') in comparison to dealing with ISO 400 grain in Tri-X film Yes, having ISO 3200 is great or ISO 6400, but is someone trying to shoot handheld in a coal mine to warrant ISO 25600?! Or is it simply GAS?

Is is truly necessary to have 51 AF points?...when you consider that so many of the famous photographs of history had no more than a single central focusing aid in the center of the SLR viewfinder?!

Having 36 MPixels simply burns up your storage space twice as fast as most folks really need. I can get by just fine with 1/3 the required storage, as my pro shooting days were over long ago. Unless you are routinely making wall sized shots (and quit fooling yourself...have you ever printed anything over 20x30?), what is the point?! Or is it simply GAS?

MalVeauX wrote in post #16740722
Heya,

Canon is behind in some areas in regards to cameras.

But this isn't the kind of hobby where during one or two generation cycles, you jump ship, due to not having the perceived latest & greatest. Turning this into a gear hobby, instead of focusing on the end result--the photograph--is what will have you pulling your hair out over costs and G.A.S.

Very best,

Well said.

Wilt wrote in post #16742139
Photography has always been about MAKING THE IMAGE...the art, the composition, the capture of emotion, the leading the viewer 'to another place'.


It has only been within the past decade and a half that photography has become so very bastardized by the incessant Gear Acquisition Syndrome, with 'It Lens A better to buy than Lens B' and 'who has higher less noisy ISO', spec buying, not photography. A new body obsoleted in two years, for the latest sensor and AF point count.

I grew up with ISO 400 as the fastest color film (and before that came out, ISO 160 was the fastest!) All this preoccupation with ISO 25600, and wth 'grainless' images (really, 'noiseless' not 'grainless') in comparison to dealing with ISO 400 grain in Tri-X film Yes, having ISO 3200 is great or ISO 6400, but is someone trying to shoot handheld in a coal mine?! Or is it simply GAS?

Is is truly necessary to have 51 AF points?...when you consider that so many of the famous photographs of history had no more than a single central focusing aid in the center of the SLR viewfinder?!

Having 36 MPixels simply burns up your storage space twice as fast as most folks really need. I can get by just fine with 1/3 the required storage, as my pro shooting days were over long ago. Unless you are routinely making wall sized shots (and quit fooling yourself...have you ever printed anything over 20x30?), what is the point?! Or is it simply GAS?

I am curious to what extent it actually has changed. I don't doubt you, but I didn't get into photography until 2005. Wasn't there always at least some underlying concern (perhaps one that would have amplified notably had the Internet been around) about sharpness, less grain, higher ISO, and such? After all, marketing definitely didn't just start in the past decade.

But again, I generally agree with your point, and of course, the increasing pace of technology and the phenomenon of pixel peeping would be factors fueling the GAS syndrome, so to speak. After all, I believe the Nikon FM2 was, for example, in production with few modifications for almost two decades; it would be unfathomable to think of a 5D Mark Whatever spitting out of the production line with just a few firmware updates for more than a decade.

This also brings up the seemingly overexcited demand for the new...innovation has become such a whorish concept in many ways, and one has to wonder if just the 'pace of life' in all elements has sped up, pushing this collective command for rushed updates, which in turn shifts greater focus on the product itself.

Note: written before your expanded edit.