Pulitzer Prize, Anyone?

I just purchased a book that contains the Pulitzer Prize winning photographs dating back to either the 30s or 40s, I don't remember right now.

I don't want to rant, but can someone who is familiar with camera history tell me why 99 percent of the prize winning photos, after the box cameras fell into disuse, were taken with Nikons? Did Canon exist back in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s? Did they not have a professional camera to compete with the Nikon F cameras?

There's maybe two or three out of the 100 photos that are taken with Canons, and those are all in either the late 90s or 2000s.

What is up with that?

me

PS: I highly recommend the book. It is very inspiring. It is called "Capture the Moment. The Pulitzer Prize Photographs Updated Edition.

For much of the 70s. 80s and 90s Nikon was considered the photojournalist's choice (if shooting SLR). Canon really took the lead with digital, so that's been fairly recent. At least, that's my understanding.

Greg

Thanks, Greg. I'm actually a bit surprised at the total lack of response to this one.

Maybe there's just not a lot of historians around here.

Until the introduction of the F-1, Canon didn't even have what was considered a professional level camera. During the 70s, the F-1 system began to establish itself as a sports shooting camera. Photojournalists stuck with the Nikon system...mainly because that system was already established and there weren't any stunning new cameras that revolutionized the business. That changed with the introduction of the EOS system...suddenly auto-focus was changing the way we shot. Canon really attacked the sports market with the EOS...if you think back...virtually every ad was sports related. The initial lens lineup was geared for sports. Digital became the greatest equalizer...journalist​s and media types suddenly had a reason to change camera bodies. Now with a comprehensive lens and body package, Canon has gained the upper hand. Who knows what the next great innovation will be and who will break it to the world. Right now, I am betting on Canon...but you never know what Nikon R&D might have lurking.

When I bought my first Canon Eos 100 in '94 Nikon was very much the snooty 'professional' make, in fact they pretty much only did AF as a sop to amateurs. Real pro shooters were manual all the way and the best cameras had the ability to keep on working mechanically even if the battery died. AF was considered a toy by the Nikon people, and it was Minolta Dynax that elevated AF beyond a novelty feature to something that Canon ran with and made their own.

The Eos system has been a phenomenal success, and in many ways Canon have seemed to predict the future - the digital revolution has left most if not all of the other manufacturers playing catch up.

One example is the EX flash system - this was developed BEFORE digital was expected to do so well, with the knowledge that flash metering could not be done off a sensor in the way that EZ flashes metered off the film.

It might be of interest to some people to know that the Eos system is NOT Canon's first AF lens system. In 1981 Canon released the rather bulky FD 35-75mm f/4 AF lens, which had in-built AF and works with all FD mount cameras. It autofocused by Solid State Triangulation. In 1985 Canon released the first SLR autofocus camera, the T80. It used an FD mount but had just 3 AF lenses, the AC 50mm f/1.8 , AC 35-70mm f/3.5-4.5 and AC 75-200mm f/4.5. The AF was by detecting contrast ( in focus = higher contrast) rather than phase detection used by Eos cameras. The T80 was not successful and was discontinued in 1986.

Canon took a huge gamble by abandoning the FD mount and developing the EF electronic focus mount from the ground up, allowing the development of individual focus motors for each lens, while other manufacturers were trying to maintain backward compatibility with previous lenses as they developed their own AF systems.

It took Canon a fair while to crack the pro market, as it took a while for pro shooters to take to AF, and once digital arrived the eos system has not looked back.

Hope you don't mind the historical stuff, I quite enjoy seeing how things have changed over the last 30 years or so - just look as some old National Geographics, they had gorgeous camera advertisements in them that really bring back a nostalgic feel.

Woolbur and Steve, that's exactly the type information I was seeking.

Thank you.

mark