Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: Paulo Bizarro on February 13, 2017, 08:41:24 am
-
http://www.nikon.com/news/2017/0213_dl.htm
-
Pretty pathetic...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The mismanagement of Nikon is becoming increasingly concerning!
-
I'm just happy they did it now, rather than release a problem model or cancelling quickly due to problems after a release. Doesn't remove all the egg from their face, but it makes better business sense this way. Ask Samsung!
-
Too bad. I would have bought one.
-
Related: Nikon: Notice of Recognition of Extraordinary Loss - http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=116383.0
http://dgpfotografia.com
-
Indeed it does not look good, when one considers the other news release about the "extraordinary loss".
Focusing in profit, that means producing the more expensive stuff in cameras and lenses, so the DL went out with the bath water. The thing is, I was thinking that that line of compacts could actually fare well, as they seemed to be different from the other "me too" serious compacts...
-
Disappointing, the 18-50 would have been unique in the market and I was ready to buy one. Bizarre also in the context of their release of the Key Mission series into an already crowded segment. It would be interesting to hear the real story.
-
It's not looking good. Their only strong line is the DSLRs and sales are dropping. I don't think the microscopes, binoculars and industrial stuff generates that much $$. They better start innovating if it's not too late.
They are in the restructuring phase which usually takes some time...then they need to start innovating, R&D etc...
Once you hit the big skid, it is very hard to turn around. Wondering if Sony might be looking at things very closely?
-
I don't understand, digital compact cameras have been around a long time, how can such a big company have issues for a whole year? And why keep the KeyMission instead, that is one failed product if you ask me. I don't even think many people outside reviewers have it. The Nikon 1 seemed promising at some point, but it hasn't been touched since 2015 and seems now a dead platform.
The DL was the only cool thing they announced. Yes, the D5 and D500 are great cameras, but they were expected and are not really something new. The DL 18-50 would've been truly great and so many people were enthusiastic about it. But now Nikon, the same company that keeps reiterating on the D3000 and D5000 line without a real goal, says that there wasn't enough demand.
Is Nikon even taking feedback? As far as I know it's impossible to let them know what we think, there is a huge divide between shops and regional distributors, and even bigger one between distributors and Nikon top offices.
The company direction is set by people that have no idea what is going on out there, they don't even seem to realize how fast the market is changing. Fuji alone is doing a lot of damage, and Canon is now making sensors that are very close to Sony lineup!
What the hell is going on.
-
Sharks circling a wounded animal.
No doubt Sony, at least, and probably others, have their eye on Nikon's optics/lens divisions. Acquiring them would greatly strengthen Sony's weakest area.
Canon's certainly done a good job catching up sensor-wise. Until they release a 5Ds-type sensor with extended DR and good high-ISO capability, though, they're still behind - without it, they can't release an answer to the D810 or A7r2 and remain very much on the back foot among a significant segment of the high-end camera market. Wouldn't surprise me if that came this year or next.
-
https://youtu.be/1uyJVCHDlzU
Tony Northrup's point of view
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
-
Sharks circling a wounded animal.
No doubt Sony, at least, and probably others, have their eye on Nikon's optics/lens divisions. Acquiring them would greatly strengthen Sony's weakest area.
Weakest area? I don't agree. Sony have been putting out top quality lenses for their A7 series for some time now. They evidently profited early on from the Minolta know-how, and later from their association with Zeiss. Their ZA and GM lenses are certainly very good. One of their latest is an STF lens.
-
Weakest area? I don't agree. Sony have been putting out top quality lenses for their A7 series for some time now. They evidently profited early on from the Minolta know-how, and later from their association with Zeiss. Their ZA and GM lenses are certainly very good. One of their latest is an STF lens.
Weakest is a relative term. Compared to what they've done with sensors and other electronic components, and compared to what Canon has to offer, Sony's optics are decidedly weak and sparse. What they've done with the GM series is good, as are many of their other recent E-mount lenses, but there are still many holes in their lens lineup, and their lack of ability to keep up with demand production-wise is telling. The addition of Nikon's optics production capacity would help a lot, and most of Nikon's best lens designs could also be easily adapted to suit the E-mount (keep the optical components, but change the mechanical and electronic components to suit a mirrorless rather than an SLR design).
-
Weakest is a relative term. Compared to what they've done with sensors and other electronic components, and compared to what Canon has to offer, Sony's optics are decidedly weak and sparse. What they've done with the GM series is good, as are many of their other recent E-mount lenses, but there are still many holes in their lens lineup, and their lack of ability to keep up with demand production-wise is telling. The addition of Nikon's optics production capacity would help a lot, and most of Nikon's best lens designs could also be easily adapted to suit the E-mount (keep the optical components, but change the mechanical and electronic components to suit a mirrorless rather than an SLR design).
Maybe the manufacturing plants and expertise will be beneficial for Sony... but I see it more like headache about what to do with the systems... Sony will have three systems: A, E/FE, and F... keeping the three will not make sense... probably A will be the one to left behind since it has lower amount of users... not a popular move...
Anyway... let's see how things evolve... I think Nikon has the ability to get out of this... but time will tell
http://dgpfotografia.com
-
Maybe the manufacturing plants and expertise will be beneficial for Sony... but I see it more like headache about what to do with the systems... Sony will have three systems: A, E/FE, and F... keeping the three will not make sense... probably A will be the one to left behind since it has lower amount of users... not a popular move...
Anyway... let's see how things evolve... I think Nikon has the ability to get out of this... but time will tell
http://dgpfotografia.com
Why would they need to keep the system? Turning an F-mount into an A-mount involves little more than moving a few pins and attaching a different base to the lens. Turning it into an E-mount lens optimised for mirrorless focusing requires a little more work to replace the mechanical parts and motors, but no change in the optical design. They could adopt the lenses without adopting the mount
-
Companies come and go, who cares? Even if they do go down (which Nikon is far from), their products keep being supported for years.
For now, as a photographer, I still feel that Nikon's cameras and lenses are the best there is for my needs. And that with their best camera 2.5 years old already. I don't care about the rest.
One thing is sure, I won't come to LL to check investment advice. ;)
Anybody interested in an objective analysis may want to refer to this article: http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-nikon-q3-financials.html
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I agree with Bernard on this one. The Investment advice from LL I mean. I seem to remember that consensus was pretty much achieved on LL a few years back that Adobe had made a huge blunder with their subscription model and that they would suffer for it. Turns out they are making buckets of money.
Nikon make great gear and I hope they sort this out. Be very sad to see this brand disappear.
-
I agree with Bernard on this one. The Investment advice from LL I mean. I seem to remember that consensus was pretty much achieved on LL a few years back that Adobe had made a huge blunder with their subscription model and that they would suffer for it. Turns out they are making buckets of money.
Nikon make great gear and I hope they sort this out. Be very sad to see this brand disappear.
Nikon just lost a billion dollars in market capitalisation as their share price plummeted.
-
Nikon just lost a billion dollars in market capitalisation as their share price plummeted.
Probably because some investors read "extraordinary loss" and thought it meant a loss of extraordinary proportion... ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Companies come and go, who cares? Even if they do go down (which Nikon is far from), their products keep being supported for years.
For now, as a photographer, I still feel that Nikon's cameras and lenses are the best there is for my needs. And that with their best camera 2.5 years old already. I don't care about the rest.
One thing is sure, I won't come to LL to check investment advice. ;)
Anybody interested in an objective analysis may want to refer to this article: http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-nikon-q3-financials.html
Cheers,
Bernard
Thanks for the link, interesting read. This caught my attention:
"I’m still trying to analyze the exact numbers, but the thing Nikon didn’t report but is essential to understanding where they are is this: Nikon lost ILC market share in 2016. Thus, their claim that it’s the declining market that defines their problem is not exactly true. Nikon is declining faster than the market in ILC, their primary brand driver. Coupled with no decline by Canon during the same time period, and we have a return to the 90’s: Canon has about half the ILC market, and Nikon about half of the remaining half."
Canon may be boring, and etc and all, but they are doing well in a shrinking market.
-
Weakest is a relative term. Compared to what they've done with sensors and other electronic components, and compared to what Canon has to offer, Sony's optics are decidedly weak and sparse. What they've done with the GM series is good, as are many of their other recent E-mount lenses, but there are still many holes in their lens lineup, and their lack of ability to keep up with demand production-wise is telling. The addition of Nikon's optics production capacity would help a lot, and most of Nikon's best lens designs could also be easily adapted to suit the E-mount (keep the optical components, but change the mechanical and electronic components to suit a mirrorless rather than an SLR design).
I thought we were comparing to Nikon, and how Sony would benefit from acquiring them on, amongst other stuff, optical know how. Of course Sony has some holes in their E mount compared to Canon, but in 3 years, they have come a really long way. Basically, they are missing TS and super telephoto lenses. Given the way Canikon have that market to their own, I actually think that it would be useless for Sony to try to compete in that arena; they tried to do that with the A mount, no success.
Finally, designing lenses for DSLR vs. MILC, take s lot more than just keeping the optics while changing the mount/mechanical bits. Witness the change from say Zeiss Distagon 21 to Zeiss Loxia 21.
-
I thought we were comparing to Nikon, and how Sony would benefit from acquiring them on, amongst other stuff, optical know how. Of course Sony has some holes in their E mount compared to Canon, but in 3 years, they have come a really long way. Basically, they are missing TS and super telephoto lenses. Given the way Canikon have that market to their own, I actually think that it would be useless for Sony to try to compete in that arena; they tried to do that with the A mount, no success.
That's because A-mount SLRs offered no benefit over the Canon/Nikon lineup for most supertele users while having many disadvantages. E-mount is completely different. It all comes down to the expanding utility of having true through-the-sensor focusing. At the moment, it's eye focusing. While great, this is limited to humans and some primates. But that's just the start - the possibilities for AI-driven focus and AI-triggered shooting are almost limitless.
Finally, designing lenses for DSLR vs. MILC, take s lot more than just keeping the optics while changing the mount/mechanical bits. Witness the change from say Zeiss Distagon 21 to Zeiss Loxia 21.
The Loxia is a completely different design optically, much smaller than the Distagon and with a smaller sensor-to-pupil distance. It's a completely different lens which just happens to have similar performance. It takes advantage of the E-mount's smaller flange distance to reduce the lens size. You could also just take the standard Distagon or Milvus and replace the mechanical couplings with a focus-by-wire system more suited to a mirrorless camera's focusing. It would be the same lens optically, and the same size as the original.
-
A lot of the success of the Sony E mount is the result Canon users tired of the Canon sensor under-performance who bought Sony bodies to mount their existing Canon lenses on.
100% of the 3 Sony a7 users I personally know belong to this category.
I am not saying that the a7x isn't a good camera, but now that Canon is picking up with better sensors, it will remain to be seen whether those guys stay with Sony (that will probably mean they like the EVF experience) or move back to Canon when image quality gets back to a higher level (which will probably mean they prefer OVFs or to use their lenses natively).
Another thing, is that our view at LL is strongly biased by the high average age of posters here who like smaller/lightweight bodies such as the Sony. I am not convinced this is representative of an overall trend in the market.
I am sure there are many, but I don't know any Nikon photographer having moved to Sony.
The main problem of Nikon, as highlighted by Thom, probably isn't the higher end FX bodies most of us are using. It is the lower end of the market where they have been losing. As part of that, they have also wasted a lot of cash in misguided initiatives such as the 1 series (although it had great technological merits), KeyMission,...
This being said, for high end users like us:
- Their recent lenses releases have been really outstanding, especially the new 70-200 f2.8 E FL, 105mm f1.4, 19mm f4 T/S,... everything their lens design team touches turns into gold it seems,
- They have all the technological blocks in their hands to do wonders also (including on sensor AF,...) when their higher mgt decides to do so,
- They have best in class image processing with Expeed, which is demonstrated by their systematic superior usage of Sony sensors compared to Sony themselves,
- They have by far the best AF system in the D5 and D500,
- ...
So there are worst situations to be in.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Another thing, is that our view at LL is strongly biased by the high average age of posters here who like smaller/lightweight bodies such as the Sony. I am not convinced this is representative of an overall trend in the market.
Maybe but I think most people here, certainly the pros, understand that they need first and foremost the right [enough] tool for the job. The A7RII on a technical camera opens up a world of possibilities and is a faster, leaner tool than a digital back. On the other hand, digital backs have their own advantages both on a tech camera and on their on system cameras.
DSLRs will have a market for as long as they will be better at some jobs. For quite a few years mirrorless meant "small but with compromises". This is changing as technology gets better and manufacturers are putting more effort into making complete systems that work (like Fuji, but props to Sony for releasing some stellar lenses and promising services for pros). Olympus and Panasonic have been rather weak. They have the smallest (in most cases) MILCs but the experience with those cameras is not consistently good (or even consistently ok).
I don't know what's up with Nikon, they have focused some of their energies on products that have very little to no market. They pretty much forgot about DX for serious work, even when releasing the D500 there haven't been any new high quality DX primes since the 40mm 2.8/G in 2011! Not that there are many anyway, like four total? Two of which are macro lenses and one is a fisheye. Holy hell...
But hey, at least we can choose between 2541 different versions of the 18-55 kit lens...
-
I don't know what's up with Nikon, they have focused some of their energies on products that have very little to no market. They pretty much forgot about DX for serious work, even when releasing the D500 there haven't been any new high quality DX primes since the 40mm 2.8/G in 2011! Not that there are many anyway, like four total? Two of which are macro lenses and one is a fisheye. Holy hell...
Yes, they thought they'd be able to move their user base to FX...
The main problem of Nikon is really strategy or product planning.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yes, they thought they'd be able to move their user base to FX...
The main problem of Nikon is really strategy or product planning.
Cheers,
Bernard
Which is a huge problem in any business.
-
Some sensible points above, from Bernard. Always an opinion I value. No doubt Nikon are still very good at their core business, witness recent lenses plus the D5 and D500 (on a side note, the recent 24-70 f2.8 seems to be a blunder?).
But, in terms of strategy, they seemed to always have been a bit off; I remember when Canon introduced the first FF DSLR, Nikon's reply was on the lines of "we don't make one, because it is not needed"; right... so it took them a while to release their first FF DSLR...
The DL, IMO, was too little too late; was the market ready to accommodate another 1 inch compact camera? Big electronic companies like Panasonic and Sony can churn put this stuff like peanuts; Canon, being conservative, jumped on the wagon getting the sensors from Sony and putting them inside tried and tested compact G-series chassis. Nikon probably tried to follow the same route, borrowing from the design sheet of the Nikon 1 series of cameras. With all the delays and difficulties, however, launching such compact today, would be a high risk; the market is essentially full.
Sure, some enthusiasts would scoop up the DL 18-50, for its novelty, but that is not enough to turn a profit, or sustain a new line of compact cameras.
-
This is changing as technology gets better and manufacturers are putting more effort into making complete systems that work (like Fuji, but props to Sony for releasing some stellar lenses and promising services for pros). Olympus and Panasonic have been rather weak. They have the smallest (in most cases) MILCs but the experience with those cameras is not consistently good (or even consistently ok).
m43 was/is a more complete system than Fuji ...
-
The 24-70 f2.8 VR is a sweet lens delivering beautiful images. I shot it quite a bit and it is both sharp with a great look.
It's AF is wicked fast also on pro bodies.
Byt its main differentiating strength is of course that it is the only pro-grade standard zoom with VR. I spent a week on a sailing boat last year and I am not sure how I would gave managed with a Canon body.
Combining VR with the required durability (weather sealing, shock resistance) of pro lenses is a huge design challenge that nobody else has been able to tackle so far.
Now, it will be interesting to see what unfolds in the coming weeks...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The 24-70 f2.8 VR is a sweet lens delivering beautiful images. I shot it quite a bit and it is both sharp with a great look.
It's AF is wicked fast also on pro bodies.
Byt its main differentiating strength is of course that it is the only pro-grade standard zoom with VR. I spent a week on a sailing boat last year and I am not sure how I would gave managed with a Canon body.
Combining VR with the required durability (weather sealing, shock resistance) of pro lenses is a huge design challenge that nobody else has been able to tackle so far.
Now, it will be interesting to see what unfolds in the coming weeks...
Cheers,
Bernard
Maybe for Nikon.
Other cameras use IBIS to give you IS with any 24-70, at no optical cost.
-
But, in terms of strategy, they seemed to always have been a bit off; I remember when Canon introduced the first FF DSLR, Nikon's reply was on the lines of "we don't make one, because it is not needed"; right... so it took them a while to release their first FF DSLR...
That was a big opportunity lost for Nikon... When they released a FF body... Lot of professionals have already moved to Canon FF DSLR... That first movement from Canon last decade... And doing it well (I'm looking at you Pentax), gave Canon a big advantage...
-
A lot of the success of the Sony E mount is the result Canon users tired of the Canon sensor under-performance who bought Sony bodies to mount their existing Canon lenses on.
100% of the 3 Sony a7 users I personally know belong to this category.
I am not saying that the a7x isn't a good camera, but now that Canon is picking up with better sensors, it will remain to be seen whether those guys stay with Sony (that will probably mean they like the EVF experience) or move back to Canon when image quality gets back to a higher level (which will probably mean they prefer OVFs or to use their lenses natively).
Another thing, is that our view at LL is strongly biased by the high average age of posters here who like smaller/lightweight bodies such as the Sony. I am not convinced this is representative of an overall trend in the market.
I could be consider one of those... Now I'm at the decisive moment, buy my first FE lens or continue investing in EF glass... Probably I will go with FE... But as you say, probably I'm not representative...
- I like EVF over OVF
- I barely use AF (even when I was with Canon), my main work is on a tripod and landscapes...
You are right, looks like Canon is getting back with better sensors... And their dual pixel technology it is to be envied... But if I buy and FE lens, probably I will not look back...
-
Maybe for Nikon.
Other cameras use IBIS to give you IS with any 24-70, at no optical cost.
For Nikon and Canon.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The 24-70 f2.8 VR is a sweet lens delivering beautiful images. I shot it quite a bit and it is both sharp with a great look.
It's AF is wicked fast also on pro bodies.
Byt its main differentiating strength is of course that it is the only pro-grade standard zoom with VR. I spent a week on a sailing boat last year and I am not sure how I would gave managed with a Canon body.
Combining VR with the required durability (weather sealing, shock resistance) of pro lenses is a huge design challenge that nobody else has been able to tackle so far.
Now, it will be interesting to see what unfolds in the coming weeks...
Cheers,
Bernard
The tests I have seen from magazines I "trust" (like Chasseur D' Images and Photo Responses) rate the lens rather poorly for the price. If I remember correctly, they give it a 3 star rating for sharpness on the optical bench. Especially poor in the corners, at A2 print sizes.
Compared to other 24-70 f2.8 lenses, say from Canon and even the new Sony FE, it certainly performs poorly.
I know sharpness is not the end of it all, but still...
-
Nikon didn't have the ability to do full frame at that point. Up until the D3, Nikon had been following Canon's lead in technology for almost 25 years.
That was a big opportunity lost for Nikon... When they released a FF body... Lot of professionals have already moved to Canon FF DSLR... That first movement from Canon last decade... And doing it well (I'm looking at you Pentax), gave Canon a big advantage...
-
For Nikon and Canon.
Cheers,
Bernard
Nope, but for Sony not only IS for every lens including some great Zeiss lenses, but also AF with just about any lens using the TAP adapter including some great legacy lens.
-
Innovation at Nikon...
http://nikonrumors.com/2017/02/22/nikon-d5-and-d500-100th-anniversary-sets-on-display-at-the-cp-show.aspx/
Now, what it means is that the D850 will not simply be a D810 with more pixels because we would have it already. What it means is that Nikon apparently understood they were running after the wrong target (Canon). Somehow, I see this as good news. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Well hopefully they will figure it out soon as Nikon is no longer manufacturing the D810 from same source. Leaves a pretty big hole in the lineup.
Paul Caldwell
-
Innovation at Nikon...
http://nikonrumors.com/2017/02/22/nikon-d5-and-d500-100th-anniversary-sets-on-display-at-the-cp-show.aspx/
Now, what it means is that the D850 will not simply be a D810 with more pixels because we would have it already. What it means is that Nikon apparently understood they were running after the wrong target (Canon). Somehow, I see this as good news. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
Glass half full analysis of the situation. From what I see, Nikon has nothing new to show...and that's good?
-
Glass half full analysis of the situation. From what I see, Nikon has nothing new to show...and that's good?
I'd rather have Nikon work on something interesting instead of releasing their version of a 5DmkIV.
Whether they are is anybody's guess, but at least there is still hope while Canon users pretty much know that they will stay still for another 3 years in that segment... ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I'd rather have Nikon work on something interesting instead of releasing their version of a 5DmkIV.
Whether they are is anybody's guess, but at least there is still hope while Canon users pretty much know that they will stay still for another 3 years in that segment... ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
Yeh...something interesting like another DSLR...ho...hum.
At least Canon is dipping their toe into the mirrorless market which I truly believe 10 years from now will be dominant.
Personally, I've been using Sony for the last 2 years and am very happy with their directions.
-
Yeh...something interesting like another DSLR...ho...hum.
No, that's exactly the point I am trying to make here. If Nikon were working on a new iteration of DSLRs we would have seen it/them already.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I'd rather have Nikon work on something interesting instead of releasing their version of a 5DmkIV.
Whether they are is anybody's guess, but at least there is still hope while Canon users pretty much know that they will stay still for another 3 years in that segment... ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
Ah, that means that Canon's cameras are so good, they do not need to be replaced every 1 or 2 years:)
-
Ah, that means that Canon's cameras are so good, they do not need to be replaced every 1 or 2 years:)
Let's see how long the 5Ds lasts... ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
As a matter of interest, why do people care a damn about the cameras that other people use? What difference does it make to their own images? Surely, by now, what with the Internet allowing one to see images from everyone everywhere, you'd be forgiven for imagining people would know that brand has precious little to do with the quality of photography, something which has everything to do with the photographer.
Rob C
-
No, that's exactly the point I am trying to make here. If Nikon were working on a new iteration of DSLRs we would have seen it/them already.
Cheers,
Bernard
Maybe they were busy working on the DL. :o
-
Let's see how long the 5Ds lasts... ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
2 years and counting:) I would expect such a specialized camera series to last for at least 5 years. Especially given all the recent MKII and MKIII lenses upgrades across the L series to mate with that sensor.
-
As a matter of interest, why do people care a damn about the cameras that other people use? What difference does it make to their own images? Surely, by now, what with the Internet allowing one to see images from everyone everywhere, you'd be forgiven for imagining people would know that brand has precious little to do with the quality of photography, something which has everything to do with the photographer.
Rob C
Suspect it is not that they care what cameras other people are using but that they have a financial interest in their chosen brand by investing heavily in lenses or shares or both and panicking that they may have a heavily depreciating investment if their brand loses market share.
-
As a matter of interest, why do people care a damn about the cameras that other people use? What difference does it make to their own images? Surely, by now, what with the Internet allowing one to see images from everyone everywhere, you'd be forgiven for imagining people would know that brand has precious little to do with the quality of photography, something which has everything to do with the photographer.
Rob C
Why do people give a damn that people give a damn about the cameras that other people use?
-
Why do people give a damn that people give a damn about the cameras that other people use?
Because it mystifies 'em; they would like to understand.
Rob C
-
Because it mystifies 'em; they would like to understand.
Rob C
Some things are best left not to be understood. Like why is the moon made of cheese?
-
Some things are best left not to be understood. Like why is the moon made of cheese?
Not fair: you're invoking rocket science.
Rob
-
RobC - one reason a person might be interested in the continuing existence of a camera brand is the availability of manufacturer support and repair for existing cameras owned.
-
RobC - one reason a person might be interested in the continuing existence of a camera brand is the availability of manufacturer support and repair for existing cameras owned.
Indeed, and as a Nikon user, count me in there in a serious way, especially now!
However, Nanacy, that is a separate thing, and has not a lot to do with the question I posed:
"As a matter of interest, why do people care a damn about the cameras that other people use? What difference does it make to their own images? Surely, by now, what with the Internet allowing one to see images from everyone everywhere, you'd be forgiven for imagining people would know that brand has precious little to do with the quality of photography, something which has everything to do with the photographer.
Rob C"
My point is about interest in the camera brands other people use, and why that should concern anyone else.
I was trying to point out that cameras don't make photographs, that that's the job for photographers, regardless of whether they worship at the shrines of Nikon, Canon, Leica or anyone else.
Rob
-
My point is about interest in the camera brands other people use, and why that should concern anyone else.
I was trying to point out that cameras don't make photographs, that that's the job for photographers, regardless of whether they worship at the shrines of Nikon, Canon, Leica or anyone else.
Rob
Just as cars are safer now than they were in the 1950s, so camera equipment is better. People were still the ones driving cars and taking photographs then just as we are today. The fact that people are the single greatest factor in the making of a great image, you cannot completely remove the quality of equipment from the equation. I am interested in the gear others use for the very selfish reason that I want there to continue to be competition that leads to innovation. That may or may not be why others are interested. Certainly some people are simply brand fans. For me, I feel like we are diminished when we lose a competitive, innovative equipment manufacturer. I want continued support for the equipment I own and want there to continue to be an atmosphere of competition.