Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: BernardLanguillier on April 05, 2018, 09:25:59 am

Title: The PR war
Post by: BernardLanguillier on April 05, 2018, 09:25:59 am
I met a charming Belgian familly last weekend.

Their 2 teenage girls were using consumer Nikon DSLRS and the parents consumer Canon DSLRs.

I asked them why it was the case.

Their answer was “Nikon is bankrupt, that’s why we bought new Canon DSLRs”.

Intrigued, I asked them how they knew about Nikon’s bankruptcy.

Their answer “the sales person told us”.

I am starting to understand the kind of ethics Canon’s surprisingly good business results are resulting from... ;)

Cheers,
Bernard

Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: NancyP on April 05, 2018, 10:55:23 am
Dumb move for family. Pick one brand, who cares which. Share lenses. The way the family did it - no lens sharing, all manual focus users get frustrated by opposite directions when they pick up family members' other brand camera.

Even if both companies were on the skids, there are enough lenses and other accessories out there to last several lifetimes. I could slap my dad's AIS lenses on a new Nikon body, should I wish to. (They also go nicely on the Canon I use, via adapter).
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on April 05, 2018, 11:44:41 am
Well, transferring the poor ethics of a sales person to a whole company is a bit farfetched, isn't it? ;)

In the end, your story agrees with what I keep seeing: majority of folks I know, plus tourists invading Lisbon, carry entry level DSLRs. There simply is no better value for money in photography.
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: rdonson on April 05, 2018, 12:32:31 pm
The likely scenario is that the sales person makes more of a commission on selling Canons. Also probable is that his boss was looking to reduce Canon inventory.
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: fredjeang2 on April 05, 2018, 12:51:51 pm
The likely scenario is that the sales person makes more of a commission on selling Canons. Also probable is that his boss was looking to reduce Canon inventory.
Very likely.
Nikon is facing difficulties and there are concerns expressed ww. From there
To talk about bankruptcy is a complete exageration.
And even if the guy had that information and were right
1) he would not be a vendor
2) he would not share it to tourists
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: BernardLanguillier on April 05, 2018, 11:04:23 pm
The incident happened in Belgium where they live.

And yes, there is of course no proof that this is a Canon policy. ;)

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: Two23 on April 05, 2018, 11:46:22 pm
The likely scenario is that the sales person makes more of a commission on selling Canons.


That was my thinking.  Likely that store wasn't even a Nikon dealer.


Kent in SD
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: BernardLanguillier on April 06, 2018, 12:14:39 am
That was my thinking.  Likely that store wasn't even a Nikon dealer.

They were it seems. My friends had entered the store with the intention to buy a new Nikon camera.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: tom b on April 06, 2018, 12:53:44 am
More of a camera shop survival war. How many well established camera franchises have you seen disappear over recent years. Making the most money from camera sales is most likely to be the driving factor in most camera shops today.

Cheers,
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: Rob C on April 06, 2018, 04:41:41 am
Dying shops.

Well, checking stuff out in a shop and then buying online is a sure way to reduce our own choices ever further.

Not only that, but the manufacturers' policy of selling to the larger dealers at lower prices also steps up the decline. I've mentioned here before that my own local pro-dealership in Scotland went the way of the dodo when the big dealers in England were able to sell 'blads to the public at prices below what he was being charged by Hasselblad. Seems crazy to me; if you want to sell more cheaply, then surely it's up to your ability to run the business well, save on economy of scale, not by sourcing the items from the makers at preferential prices that can only kill the smaller man. That is suicidal for the manufacturer and, in the end, bad for the customer who ends up with fewer choices. Especially at the high end, anyone able to shell out several thousands for an item is not going to be dissuaded from buying by a few score pounds or dollars; the makers will still sell that item if it's available locally. Being able to walk out of a shop with the product instead of having to wait for delivery is a much finer "customer experience", as these things are now termed in compliance with the verbal bullshit that pervades contemporary corporate speech.

Rob
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: NancyP on April 06, 2018, 11:16:09 am
If the item is available in the local store, I buy it and pay sales tax. Yes, it would be nice to avoid paying sales tax, but "in theory" my state requires  out-of-state purchases that were not taxed upon the sale to be reported on the state income tax. I interpret this to include individual new items worth more than $500.00 to $1,000.00, as I have no wish to report all of the subscriptions, orders of odd sizes of lens hood or cap, and miscellaneous odds and ends available at B and H but not locally. If I am going to have to pay the state eventually, why not buy the big ticket item locally and help the local shops survive? We have two camera stores in town, with a decent array of used equipment that I do buy.
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: Rob C on April 06, 2018, 02:41:12 pm
If the item is available in the local store, I buy it and pay sales tax. Yes, it would be nice to avoid paying sales tax, but "in theory" my state requires  out-of-state purchases that were not taxed upon the sale to be reported on the state income tax. I interpret this to include individual new items worth more than $500.00 to $1,000.00, as I have no wish to report all of the subscriptions, orders of odd sizes of lens hood or cap, and miscellaneous odds and ends available at B and H but not locally. If I am going to have to pay the state eventually, why not buy the big ticket item locally and help the local shops survive? We have two camera stores in town, with a decent array of used equipment that I do buy.

I hadn't realised that you had to account for different tax levels, buying stuff state-to-state; looks as if having separate states rather than just a "country" isn't so convenient for the average citizen. I knew there were many differences of laws (state), but had imagined taxation, other than in some exotic instances where banking and secrecy were different, allowing the equivalent of "offshore" accounts, would be more simple and convenient on a national basis. Local sales taxes were one difference of which I was aware...

Makes the European model look no less efficient, and the British one positively benign!

:-)
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: DP on April 06, 2018, 03:49:24 pm
Dumb move for family. Pick one brand, who cares which. Share lenses.

it does not sound a case - sounds like each is using a consumer level dSLR with super zoom each and happy ... nobody there cares about anything more complicated.
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: NancyP on April 06, 2018, 04:49:26 pm
Rob, this wasn't so complex in the days before online shopping, you just paid sales tax of the state in which you bought the item (at a brick and mortar store). Most states considered it a wash, a few states tried to impose additional taxes on cars bought in other (lower tax) states. Amazon used to charge tax only on in-state purchases, so if you were in a state without a distribution center, you didn't pay tax. That's why people bought cars on Amazon. State sales tax recovery is getting less complex now that Amazon charges sales tax in all states (because distribution centers are located in all states).  Given the sheer size of Amazon, I would have to guess that the individual states recapture tax on half or more of total online purchases made by residents of the state.
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: DP on April 06, 2018, 05:04:49 pm
That's why people bought cars on Amazon.

Amazon selling cars as in automobiles in USA ? it does not !
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: Bo_Dez on April 09, 2018, 12:20:12 pm
What idiot believes what a sales person tells them?

It's the last person I would listen to.
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: BernardLanguillier on April 09, 2018, 10:19:03 pm
What idiot believes what a sales person tells them?

It's the last person I would listen to.

I believe that a large majority of people believe what sales people tell them.

In particular in a context where there is a relationship of trust resulting from past interactions or from dealing with a store with a positive brand image.

When looking at the usage by consumers of their camera, I have a hard time identifying any objective reason why they would chose a Canon. I would argue that they have a better video AF, but looking how consumers shoot video this is hardly relevant. The better sensors found on Nikons and better APS-C zoom line up will de facto be a lot more useful.

This means that the business success of Canon in the consumer segment is mostly the result of a selling effort. I have come across this case I find a bit shocking of obvious lie about the business condition of their main competitor. I don't know what else they incentive their sales people to say to push Canon boxes. But it does obviously work.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: francois on April 10, 2018, 03:00:00 am
I believe that a large majority of people believe what sales people tell them.

You're right. I've seen salesmen in a reputable local telling that model x of brand a is the ultimate camera that money can buy and ten minutes later telling another customer that model y of brand b is the ultimate camera.
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: BernardLanguillier on April 14, 2018, 04:24:34 am
Second instance last night, this time from France.

The sales person from a major retailer in Normandie told to a person I met that Nikon was in a very difficult business situation, implying that it was better not to invest in them.

I see a pattern emerge...

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: Rand47 on April 15, 2018, 08:28:54 am
I hadn't realised that you had to account for different tax levels, buying stuff state-to-state; looks as if having separate states rather than just a "country" isn't so convenient for the average citizen. I knew there were many differences of laws (state), but had imagined taxation, other than in some exotic instances where banking and secrecy were different, allowing the equivalent of "offshore" accounts, would be more simple and convenient on a national basis. Local sales taxes were one difference of which I was aware...

Makes the European model look no less efficient, and the British one positively benign!

:-)

Rob,

You might find this interesting.  Even though the US is headed down the scupper of cradle-to-grave socialism... just a little behind the rest of the western world, it used to be that the land of the free and home of the brave really was composed of “states” that had real differences.  The constitution even speaks to “rights” that are left to the states and not to be interfered with ... a joke today, of course.

But the interesting stuff is:  There are states that have no sales tax at all, like Oregon.  Then there are some states that do not have a “state income tax” (on top of the federal income tax) like Nevada and Texas.  These states attract retirees for obvious reasons.  And it used to be that in some states you could not buy alchohol on Sundays (charming, if nothing else).  And “within” some states there were counties that were “dry.”  In some states you cannot make a right turn at a red traffic signal, in other states you could, so you had to remember where you were.  “Back in the day” there were lots of local television and radio stations and you could guess where you were by the local accent of the news reporters.  Today, everyone sounds mostly just “American” due to the homogenization of the culture by large media conglomerates.

Honestly, I’m not sure how I feel about the US becoming “mostly the same wherever you go,” but I do miss the sense of individuality and personality that used to be there.

Rand
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: eronald on April 15, 2018, 08:50:32 am
You're right. I've seen salesmen in a reputable local telling that model x of brand a is the ultimate camera that money can buy and ten minutes later telling another customer that model y of brand b is the ultimate camera.

As far as I'm concerned, the Nikon D4 was the ultimate camera: I had so many issues with it that I decided never again to purchase an SLR as a new product. Any camera I buy now is used and preferably well-used and cheap.

Edmund
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: Rob C on April 15, 2018, 02:49:47 pm
As far as I'm concerned, the Nikon D4 was the ultimate camera: I had so many issues with it that I decided never again to purchase an SLR as a new product. Any camera I buy now is used and preferably well-used and cheap.

Edmund


I think of used equipment in terms of a second-hand car, which here, probably suggests it was a hire car, if only because the local folks don't seem affected by the same status associations with wheels that some other groupings do, and so keep their cars a long time, until they (the cars) are almost too old to pass the MOT. As I used to trade-in cars (at one period of my life) just for the pleasure of something better than the old one, which I bought new and ran for maybe up to three years or so, I was usually free of them before they went expensive. Post-retirement, that changed right around, and I keep them until they do get expensive, which since I run very low mileages now, means the body rots whilst the engine still runs like new.

I suspect that cameras are just as likely to be on the market as examples of somebody else's troubles which you, dear reader, may be about to buy. However, the same post-retirement options have allowed me to sample "pre-owned" Nikkors, all manual, and so far, luck has held. I can't imagine buying an af or stabilised lens used or, as the sales people prefer to put it, pre-owned.
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: Chris Kern on April 15, 2018, 04:22:28 pm
I can't imagine buying an af or stabilised lens used or, as the sales people prefer to put it, pre-owned.

I've had an excellent experience with manufacturer-refurbished lenses.  I figure a refurbished lens has undergone a more thorough inspection than a new one that simply passed a routine factory quality-assurance check, and probably has been adjusted by an expert to be optimally within spec.  On the other hand, on a couple of occasions I've had to return a new lens to a retail seller after receiving a bad sample.
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: NancyP on April 15, 2018, 07:47:48 pm
I resemble that statement! "keep their cars a long time, until they (the cars) are almost too old to pass the MOT". "Not easily fixable to pass the license test" is usually why I ditch a car - that, and for my oldest car (Saab 99, older vintage), the difficulty in sourcing parts. 19.5 and 17 years for my two previous cars, until they reached the junkyard / parts bin / crushed cube in the sky - the latest is just 4 years old, a baby.

I have had good experience with buying OEM refurbished lenses, and used lenses from the local camera stores - they have a short trial period, so one can go shoot some brick walls, flare tests, whatever, examine the results, and have the lens back to them in a day if it isn't suitable. Buy on Saturday, test on Sunday, if necessary return Monday. I have to say, I have had no need to return a used lens after its trial, from the bargain "shorty 40" to the Zeiss Distagon 21.
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: hogloff on April 16, 2018, 09:50:10 am

I think of used equipment in terms of a second-hand car, which here, probably suggests it was a hire car, if only because the local folks don't seem affected by the same status associations with wheels that some other groupings do, and so keep their cars a long time, until they (the cars) are almost too old to pass the MOT. As I used to trade-in cars (at one period of my life) just for the pleasure of something better than the old one, which I bought new and ran for maybe up to three years or so, I was usually free of them before they went expensive. Post-retirement, that changed right around, and I keep them until they do get expensive, which since I run very low mileages now, means the body rots whilst the engine still runs like new.

I suspect that cameras are just as likely to be on the market as examples of somebody else's troubles which you, dear reader, may be about to buy. However, the same post-retirement options have allowed me to sample "pre-owned" Nikkors, all manual, and so far, luck has held. I can't imagine buying an af or stabilised lens used or, as the sales people prefer to put it, pre-owned.

I've purchased the majority of my gear used and have had zero issues with it. Saved on average 40% from buying new. I have lenses that are 50 years old that function like new.

What assurance do you have your shiny new lens won't cough up a hair ball right after it's warranty has expired?
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: NancyP on April 16, 2018, 10:48:13 am
No assurance at all. However, most issues should appear within warranty. I have bought new cameras, and about half of my non-vintage lenses are new, half old. Reasons for buying new lenses include - don't see the desired used lens on sale locally or refurbished from Canon!
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: KLaban on April 16, 2018, 12:41:48 pm
Over many years I've bought more used photographic equipment than new and over many years I've had no reason to regret my purchasing decisions.
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: Rob C on April 16, 2018, 12:51:20 pm
I've purchased the majority of my gear used and have had zero issues with it. Saved on average 40% from buying new. I have lenses that are 50 years old that function like new.

What assurance do you have your shiny new lens won't cough up a hair ball right after it's warranty has expired?


I don't have any such assurance; in fact it has been a pet peeve of mine that Nikon appears to have abandoned its former standards of QC and handed such responsibilities on to its customers who, unfortunately, have a harder task to perform than just throwing the faulty item back at the foreman.

No longer having a nearby source for photographic equipment anymore, having no desire to change brands, the best recourse I have is to use Grays of Westminster, a Nikon specialist that, so far, has never let me down. That means dealing by 'phone and e-mail, and I have no idea if their used stock is checked out by a Nikon subsidiary or not, or whether their own company has a skilled tech. to hand.

As I mentioned, I have bought several old lenses from them, all manual Nikkors, but I would not want to imagine that a straight, manual lens has as many possible failure points as one that has to perform af functions and perhaps stabilisation, too. Apart from that, the two af lenses I do own, 1.8/50mm G and a 2.8/180mm do not feel as smooth or as substantial as similar lenses I owned in the past.

But on a broader issue, as a pro, why on Earth would I have considered old stuff when new was going to be charged against tax, anyway? On top of that, the risk of being away somewhere, armed with somebody else's old junk, with no pro facilities available should shit happen, was a concept that never crossed my mind as being worth considering.

As I sometimes suggest, things often improve without getting one whit better, and that's where I think much of this new technology is leading us.
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: Kirk_C on April 16, 2018, 02:39:26 pm

That was my thinking.  Likely that store wasn't even a Nikon dealer.

If this was a Nikon Dealer wouldn't there were bright Yellow logos and Nikons on display ?

Here in the U.S. it's pretty hard to miss Nikon in-store marketing.
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: chez on April 16, 2018, 04:25:21 pm

I don't have any such assurance; in fact it has been a pet peeve of mine that Nikon appears to have abandoned its former standards of QC and handed such responsibilities on to its customers who, unfortunately, have a harder task to perform than just throwing the faulty item back at the foreman.

No longer having a nearby source for photographic equipment anymore, having no desire to change brands, the best recourse I have is to use Grays of Westminster, a Nikon specialist that, so far, has never let me down. That means dealing by 'phone and e-mail, and I have no idea if their used stock is checked out by a Nikon subsidiary or not, or whether their own company has a skilled tech. to hand.

As I mentioned, I have bought several old lenses from them, all manual Nikkors, but I would not want to imagine that a straight, manual lens has as many possible failure points as one that has to perform af functions and perhaps stabilisation, too. Apart from that, the two af lenses I do own, 1.8/50mm G and a 2.8/180mm do not feel as smooth or as substantial as similar lenses I owned in the past.

But on a broader issue, as a pro, why on Earth would I have considered old stuff when new was going to be charged against tax, anyway? On top of that, the risk of being away somewhere, armed with somebody else's old junk, with no pro facilities available should shit happen, was a concept that never crossed my mind as being worth considering.

As I sometimes suggest, things often improve without getting one whit better, and that's where I think much of this new technology is leading us.

Maybe leading you, but the quality of images being taken at high ISO in very dark conditions is truly amazing compared to what was possible just a few years ago. Eye AF tracking is revolutionizing, taking care of the dredgory of focusing on moving subjects leaving you more time to get that special moment shot.

Ones that don’t get anything out of new tech are ones that don’t embrace the technology and just get stuck in the good old days way of things.
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: BernardLanguillier on April 16, 2018, 04:42:45 pm
Another piece of information that seem to indicate that among people who know their craft the reality today is that Nikon’s old DSLRs are currently the clear leaders.

https://nikonrumors.com/2018/04/16/most-of-the-photos-in-the-world-press-photo-2018-contest-were-taken-with-nikon-51-5-and-dslr-cameras-83-5.

Since the technology used in consumer cameras is derived from those, how do we explain the much better Canon results? Can they be explained without having to look into dodgy sales techniques bordering on FUD?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: armand on April 16, 2018, 08:06:44 pm
Another piece of information that seem to indicate that among people who know their craft the reality today is that Nikon’s old DSLRs are currently the clear leaders.

https://nikonrumors.com/2018/04/16/most-of-the-photos-in-the-world-press-photo-2018-contest-were-taken-with-nikon-51-5-and-dslr-cameras-83-5.

Since the technology used in consumer cameras is derived from those, how do we explain the much better Canon results? Can they be explained without having to look into dodgy sales techniques bordering on FUD?

I find it quite surprising/ impressive that 3 of those shots were taken with Fuji X100S cameras.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: chez on April 16, 2018, 08:38:20 pm
Another piece of information that seem to indicate that among people who know their craft the reality today is that Nikon’s old DSLRs are currently the clear leaders.

https://nikonrumors.com/2018/04/16/most-of-the-photos-in-the-world-press-photo-2018-contest-were-taken-with-nikon-51-5-and-dslr-cameras-83-5.

Since the technology used in consumer cameras is derived from those, how do we explain the much better Canon results? Can they be explained without having to look into dodgy sales techniques bordering on FUD?

Cheers,
Bernard

And yet their sales are sinking...hmmm

Just goes to show you need more than a pretty picture to win.
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 16, 2018, 08:48:48 pm
...how do we explain the much better Canon results? Can they be explained without having to look into dodgy sales techniques bordering on FUD?

Yes, all those naive pros, falling victim of the Canon FUD ;)

(https://canonusa.i.lithium.com/t5/image/serverpage/image-id/3831i36041D84A126CF46/image-size/original?v=mpbl-1&px=-1)

(https://camyx.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/canon-monopoly-over-nikon.jpg)

(https://camyx.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/canon-gear-olympics-550x369.jpg)
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: BernardLanguillier on April 16, 2018, 09:01:10 pm
No those are pros working for agencies with historical contracts with Canon and not enough cash flow to buy best in class gear. ;)

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: BernardLanguillier on April 16, 2018, 09:04:01 pm
And yet their sales are sinking...hmmm

Just goes to show you need more than a pretty picture to win.

Exactly my point indeed.

Marketing and sales tactics are indeed important and the commercial difficulties of Nikon compared ti Canon should be a study case in Japan’s MBA courses.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: Rob C on April 17, 2018, 04:46:40 am
Maybe leading you, but the quality of images being taken at high ISO in very dark conditions is truly amazing compared to what was possible just a few years ago. Eye AF tracking is revolutionizing, taking care of the dredgory of focusing on moving subjects leaving you more time to get that special moment shot.

Ones that don’t get anything out of new tech are ones that don’t embrace the technology and just get stuck in the good old days way of things.

So, you are suggesting that I must change my interests and techniques simply to comply with new technology? Let me assure you that I led a very useful career without af or digital, doing things then, that I wanted to do, that many if not most photographers today, armed with their über expensive digital nursemaids toys will never ever get the opportunity to do. I need no lectures from you about catching that "special moment" shot. Perhaps you could stick a copy of your message onto HC-B's grave, too.

Talk about putting the cart in front of the poor old horse!

Af has brought one positive into my life: it helps my old eyes. Against that, the fact that dslr screens are incredibly poor compared with those of film cameras of similar status up the totem pole. The fact that my digital Nikons do not incorporate a split-image screen is incredibly annoying, because with it, I would not, today, need af at all. I know this for a fact because I still own a never-used-again film camera: an F3. I sometimes pull it out of retirement, stick a lens into it and just gaze with sadness through its pentaprism... like youth, a quality gone for ever.
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: mbaginy on April 17, 2018, 05:32:40 am
... The fact that my digital Nikons do not incorporate a split-image screen is incredibly annoying, because with it, I would not, today, need af at all. ...
Do any current bodies offer a split-image focus screen?  The lack this is one reason I quit using (Leica and Zeiss) manual focus lenses with my former Canon bodies.  I wasn't convinced using third party focus screens either.  Now I use Fujifilm cameras and am mostly pleased.  I still miss a split-image screen though, but love the aperture ring.
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: Rob C on April 17, 2018, 07:10:49 am
Do any current bodies offer a split-image focus screen?  The lack this is one reason I quit using (Leica and Zeiss) manual focus lenses with my former Canon bodies.  I wasn't convinced using third party focus screens either.  Now I use Fujifilm cameras and am mostly pleased.  I still miss a split-image screen though, but love the aperture ring.


I don't think that they do; I think it has something to do with a different type of screen surface being better for af systems. It would be the one factor that, were it offered, would make me think of upgrading one of my current bodies.

Rob
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: eronald on April 17, 2018, 07:25:11 am

I don't think that they do; I think it has something to do with a different type of screen surface being better for af systems. It would be the one factor that, were it offered, would make me think of upgrading one of my current bodies.

Rob

SLR AF systems don't see the focus screen, but much light is abducted by passing THROUGH  the main mirror into a cavity in the bottom of the camera where it is tortured and expires.

Edmund
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: KLaban on April 17, 2018, 07:37:59 am
Do any current bodies offer a split-image focus screen?  The lack this is one reason I quit using (Leica and Zeiss) manual focus lenses with my former Canon bodies.  I wasn't convinced using third party focus screens either.  Now I use Fujifilm cameras and am mostly pleased.  I still miss a split-image screen though, but love the aperture ring.

Leica M series.

;-)
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: mbaginy on April 17, 2018, 07:53:15 am
Keith, for years I shot with an M3 and only two lenses: my all-time favorite, the dual range 50/2 and a 35/2 with glasses (ugly but fine).  After my switch to digital (Canon), I sold all analog gear.  Big mistake, but I didn't recognize it at the time.  I missed a Leica M and bought an M8.  Never liked it and had difficulties with the white balance (often went completely screwy!).  Sold it.  Since I'm using Fujifilm, I'm (more or less) content and enjoy the proper aperture ring immensely.

No Keith, no more M for me.  Maybe if I hit the lottery (I'll buy one for Rob too!).  :)
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: KLaban on April 17, 2018, 09:33:59 am
Keith, for years I shot with an M3 and only two lenses: my all-time favorite, the dual range 50/2 and a 35/2 with glasses (ugly but fine).  After my switch to digital (Canon), I sold all analog gear.  Big mistake, but I didn't recognize it at the time.  I missed a Leica M and bought an M8.  Never liked it and had difficulties with the white balance (often went completely screwy!).  Sold it.  Since I'm using Fujifilm, I'm (more or less) content and enjoy the proper aperture ring immensely.

No Keith, no more M for me.  Maybe if I hit the lottery (I'll buy one for Rob too!).  :)

Hi Mike, my post was of course tongue-in-cheek, hence the wink. The M series isn't for everybody, in fact it's probably only for the very discerning few ;-)

I'd never try to convince anyone of the suitability of any camera system or suggest that buying anything other than an adequate system for need or pleasure is a futile exercise: if they want it, need it, then good on 'em.

Getting back to buying new or used, I never liked tying up more money than I needed to. As an example, when buying into Hasselblad digital medium format I had the choice of buying a new body at £16,000 or an as new body with less than 200 clicks on the clock at £6,200 complete with warranty from Hasselblad UK. 
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: NancyP on April 17, 2018, 09:36:53 am
Canon 1DX and presumably 1DX II has some eight or so interchangeable screen options, including a split screen, and I think that all are calibrated to work seamlessly with the metering system.
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: hogloff on April 17, 2018, 09:49:12 am
So, you are suggesting that I must change my interests and techniques simply to comply with new technology? Let me assure you that I led a very useful career without af or digital, doing things then, that I wanted to do, that many if not most photographers today, armed with their über expensive digital nursemaids toys will never ever get the opportunity to do. I need no lectures from you about catching that "special moment" shot. Perhaps you could stick a copy of your message onto HC-B's grave, too.

Talk about putting the cart in front of the poor old horse!

Af has brought one positive into my life: it helps my old eyes. Against that, the fact that dslr screens are incredibly poor compared with those of film cameras of similar status up the totem pole. The fact that my digital Nikons do not incorporate a split-image screen is incredibly annoying, because with it, I would not, today, need af at all. I know this for a fact because I still own a never-used-again film camera: an F3. I sometimes pull it out of retirement, stick a lens into it and just gaze with sadness through its pentaprism... like youth, a quality gone for ever.

Glad those old cameras worked out for you...but you should realize that many photographers are also making a good living and many more enthusiasts making great photos with today's high tech cameras...and they aren't all snotty nosed techy's that don't know real photography as you seem to imply.

If you want to stay in yesteryear...that's fine, but do respect others that enjoy the new technologies in today's cameras and are creating some amazing photos with these new toys.
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: Rob C on April 17, 2018, 09:53:16 am
SLR AF systems don't see the focus screen, but much light is abducted by passing THROUGH  the main mirror into a cavity in the bottom of the camera where it is tortured and expires.

Edmund

Yes, AFAIK there is a secondary, small mirror used to work af, the poor positioning of which causes the problems of front or rear focussing.

But isn't it also something to do with light travelling backwards through the eyepiece and screwing exposure somewhat? If the screen type makes no difference to that problem, then why don't they simply use old-type screens and thus, even if without a split-image device, manual focus would be more accurate as long as the screen was properly mounted?

I never use any af point other than the central one; that is seldom the main locus of my subject, but as I use only that one central area, a split-image would serve me just as well for the times it is the main area of interest, and be very useful with my non-af optics as mentioned above. A focus-confirmation light is not a convenient alternative because it lies outwith the image, on my cameras, at least.

Using alternative focusing areas of the af system would slow me down a lot. I don't use tripods anymore, and I can't think trying to change from one af zone to another is a rapid way to work. Yes, in some cases zone focussing is perfectly good enough. That said, I supose one could pre-set an af system so as to force one to make a series of shots with the main subject in a set position: a series of faces all at the magical third, for example...
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: Rob C on April 17, 2018, 10:08:24 am
Glad those old cameras worked out for you...but you should realize that many photographers are also making a good living and many more enthusiasts making great photos with today's high tech cameras...and they aren't all snotty nosed techy's that don't know real photography as you seem to imply.

If you want to stay in yesteryear...that's fine, but do respect others that enjoy the new technologies in today's cameras and are creating some amazing photos with these new toys.


Respect might start at home, don't you think?

"Ones that don’t get anything out of new tech are ones that don’t embrace the technology and just get stuck in the good old days way of things."

I quote you, above. And to counter your excitement over new snappers, I referred to HC-B who, apparently, must have been really compromised and held back from greatness by his lack of now-contemporary tools. You could toss in Salgado, too, who was nothing before he went digital...

Rob
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: hogloff on April 17, 2018, 10:32:53 am

Respect might start at home, don't you think?

"Ones that don’t get anything out of new tech are ones that don’t embrace the technology and just get stuck in the good old days way of things."

I quote you, above. And to counter your excitement over new snappers, I referred to HC-B who, apparently, must have been really compromised and held back from greatness by his lack of now-contemporary tools. You could toss in Salgado, too, who was nothing before he went digital...

Rob

Right...throw in the old relics to make your points. Wonder if those old relics would still be shooting with their old relic gear today? Doubt it. After all, wasn't HC-B using one of the most advanced systems for his time? Why did he not just use a brownie?

Rob if your photo needs are met with old cameras, that's fine, but please don't ridicule others that meet their photo needs with newer tech...after all not everyone wants to shoot their images with always focusing square in the middle if the image.
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: NancyP on April 17, 2018, 12:22:57 pm
The photographer's most important equipment is the central nervous system (Brain and Eye).

I will say that Live view Magnify is a great tool for critical focus, a lot easier on the eyes than a loupe and ground glass. Look, no hood!
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: Rob C on April 17, 2018, 02:02:05 pm
Right...throw in the old relics to make your points. Wonder if those old relics would still be shooting with their old relic gear today? Doubt it. After all, wasn't HC-B using one of the most advanced systems for his time? Why did he not just use a brownie?

Rob if your photo needs are met with old cameras, that's fine, but please don't ridicule others that meet their photo needs with newer tech...after all not everyone wants to shoot their images with always focusing square in the middle if the image.


And to think that I'd imagined that sort of repetitive reasoning was confined to the Coffee Corner!

Over 'n' out.
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: hogloff on April 17, 2018, 03:14:00 pm

And to think that I'd imagined that sort of repetitive reasoning was confined to the Coffee Corner!

Over 'n' out.

More like Down 'n' out.  ;D
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: Ivo_B on April 17, 2018, 03:34:48 pm
I met a charming Belgian familly last weekend.

Their 2 teenage girls were using consumer Nikon DSLRS and the parents consumer Canon DSLRs.

I asked them why it was the case.

Their answer was “Nikon is bankrupt, that’s why we bought new Canon DSLRs”.

Intrigued, I asked them how they knew about Nikon’s bankruptcy.

Their answer “the sales person told us”.

I am starting to understand the kind of ethics Canon’s surprisingly good business results are resulting from... ;)

Cheers,
Bernard

I'm pretty sure the Belgian family went to a Dutch photo gear market.

Tsss, Dutchmen......


 8) :o
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: BernardLanguillier on April 18, 2018, 07:56:42 am
More data about the world press award usage ratio, this time with a historical perspective.

It does appear that the technological leadership of Nikon is starting to translate into actual numbers as more and more press photographers naturally migrate towards the better tools. I believe that the stabilized 24-70mm f2.8 did play a role here as well since it has been the only rugged pro zoom with VR available for a few years now. Superior battery life is a key characteristics too. Overall it appears that Nikon has been delivering exactly what the pros needed.

Total Units: 96 36 44 38
2018 2017 2016 2015
Nikon-2018-52.0%; 2017-30.6%; 2016-27.2%; 2015-18.4%
Canon-2018-30.2%; 2017-55.5%;2016-63.6%; 2015-60.5%
Fujifilm-2018-5.2%; 2017-8.3%; 2016-2.3%; 2015-0.0%
Sony - 2018- 5.2%; 2017- 0.0%: 2016-2.3%; 2015-0.0%

Odds are that Sony will start to increase in the coming years as Nikon peaks and Canon continues to decrease, but that may take a few years. The current Sony generation still doesn't seem to offer the level of physical ruggedness needed for critical applications away from home.

It will be interesting to see whether Nikon's dismal marketing/sales dpt is able to leverage their de facto superior position/product line up towards consumers while remaining ethical. I am wondering whether they are even aware that their main competitor keeps spreading rumors about their upcoming "bankruptcy"... I wouldn't be surprised at all if they had no clue...

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: BernardLanguillier on May 14, 2018, 09:53:49 pm
I wonder how the sales guys who have been pushing Canon boxes will share with their customers the information below:

https://www.dpreview.com/news/2953539022/nikon-restructuring-and-strong-d850-sales-lead-to-8x-increase-in-annual-profit

My educated guess is that... they won't...  ;D

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: BJL on May 14, 2018, 10:10:37 pm
I wonder how the sales guys who have been pushing Canon boxes will share with their customers the information below:

https://www.dpreview.com/news/2953539022/nikon-restructuring-and-strong-d850-sales-lead-to-8x-increase-in-annual-profit

My educated guess is that... they won't...  ;D

Cheers,
Bernard
Decent news for Nikon, but exaggerated by that article: it was mostly cost cutting, with reduced revenues but profit margin up by 3.5% from 0.5% to a still modest 4%. The ratio of profit margins is a nonsensical measure: if it had been 0.1% last year, the same +3.5% would have been a 36X improvement
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: BernardLanguillier on May 15, 2018, 01:32:48 am
Decent news for Nikon, but exaggerated by that article: it was mostly cost cutting, with reduced revenues but profit margin up by 3.5% from 0.5% to a still modest 4%. The ratio of profit margins is a nonsensical measure: if it had been 0.1% last year, the same +3.5% would have been a 36X improvement

Yes, I agree.

But this is very very far from a company about to go bankrupt.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: Martin Kristiansen on May 15, 2018, 03:39:47 am
Yes, I agree.

But this is very very far from a company about to go bankrupt.

Cheers,
Bernard

Yep, and that is wonderful news.
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: Rob C on May 15, 2018, 05:42:41 am
Yep, and that is wonderful news.


Ab-so-lute-ly!

Rob
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on May 15, 2018, 06:00:09 am
... The ratio of profit margins is a nonsensical measure...

Ab-so-lute-ly!

Say the profit was growing from 1 cent to a whopping 8 cents on a billion dollar revenue... they would portray that as a 700% profit growth  ;)
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: Rob C on May 15, 2018, 06:59:34 am
Ab-so-lute-ly!

Say the profit was growing from 1 cent to a whopping 8 cents on a billion dollar revenue... they would portray that as a 700% profit growth  ;)


I love a personal datum line!

:-)
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: BJL on May 15, 2018, 12:21:00 pm
Yes, I agree.

But this is very very far from a company about to go bankrupt.
I in turn agree: a lot of the issues and poor profits at Nikon seem to be from sectors other than the interchangeable camera and lenses that we all know and love, like the decline of inexpensive compact cameras and the struggles of a separate Nikon subsiduary, Nikon Precision. And a lot of the recent losses or low profits seem to be from restructuring one-offs: in various ways, writing off investments and now surplus assets in those sectors, and reducing payroll by firing a lot of employees.


Onward to Nikon's brave new (somewhat smaller and mostly mirrrorless) future!
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: hogloff on May 15, 2018, 03:37:28 pm
I in turn agree: a lot of the issues and poor profits at Nikon seem to be from sectors other than the interchangeable camera and lenses that we all know and love, like the decline of inexpensive compact cameras and the struggles of a separate Nikon subsiduary, Nikon Precision. And a lot of the recent losses or low profits seem to be from restructuring one-offs: in various ways, writing off investments and now surplus assets in those sectors, and reducing payroll by firing a lot of employees.


Onward to Nikon's brave new (somewhat smaller and mostly mirrrorless) future!

Actually if you study the Nikon financials you'll notice revenue and profits are on the rise in the Precision Equipment business and are on the decline in the Camera business...their forecast indicates a continual decline for Cameras ( including profit ) and a continual increase for the Precision Equipment. They are also high on their Medical division.

IE:  Nikon is branching away from being a majority Camera company into other fields and has concerns about their camera division.
Title: The PR war and Nikon's latest financial report
Post by: BJL on May 15, 2018, 05:42:54 pm
Actually if you study the Nikon financials you'll notice revenue and profits are on the rise in the Precision Equipment business ... They are also high on their Medical division.

IE:  Nikon is branching away from being a majority Camera company into other fields and has concerns about their camera division.
On the longer term, "Precision" has shrunk a lot (losing a lot of the chip-making equipment market to ASML, as has Canon) and "Camera" has become a larger proportion of the whole than it was a decade ago, so this might just be recovering a bit from a nadir in the previous year or two. And as I said above, a lot of shrinkage in "Camera" is in compacts, not interchangeable cameras and lenses.

Agreed about "Medical"; many camera makers seem to be targeting that as a profit growth area (Olympus and Ricoh-Pentax for example).
Title: Re: The PR war and Nikon's latest financial report
Post by: hogloff on May 15, 2018, 07:09:28 pm
On the longer term, "Precision" has shrunk a lot (losing a lot of the chip-making equipment market to ASML, as has Canon) and "Camera" has become a larger proportion of the whole than it was a decade ago, so this might just be recovering a bit from a nadir in the previous year or two. And as I said above, a lot of shrinkage in "Camera" is in compacts, not interchangeable cameras and lenses.

Agreed about "Medical"; many camera makers seem to be targeting that as a profit growth area (Olympus and Ricoh-Pentax for example).

Here are the actual numbers from Nikon themselves:


Year       DSLR cameras       DSLR lenses
2015      4,610,000             6,680,000
2016      4,040,000             5,900,000
2017      3,100,000             4,620,000
2018      2,620,000             4,010,000

Forecast for 2019 is another 11% decrease in revenue for the camera division with a 4% decrease in operating profits.

That's quite a drastic decline in 4 short years...and it seems to be continuing...where as the Precision Instruments business is projected to increase revenues by more than 20% along with operating profits increases.
Title: Re: The PR war and Nikon's latest financial report
Post by: BernardLanguillier on May 15, 2018, 07:13:30 pm
Here are the actual numbers from Nikon themselves:

Year       DSLR cameras       DSLR lenses
2015      4,610,000             6,680,000
2016      4,040,000             5,900,000
2017      3,100,000             4,620,000
2018      2,620,000             4,010,000

Forecast for 2019 is another 11% decrease in revenue for the camera division with a 4% decrease in operating profits.

Looking at the high end (D850/D5 class) we care about here at LL would paint a very different picture.

Most of the decrease is in low end DSLR where marketing and sales tactics (see this very thread) are the main factor.

So we have different factors at play here, a global market saturation for IL cameras, a timid growth of mirrorless and, within the DSLR segment, a very agressive competitor (Canon) trying to sell low end bodies at any price since they know that they are weak in the high end against both Nikon and Sony.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: hogloff on May 15, 2018, 07:32:41 pm
Here is a view of Nikon's market share over the last few years:

Year       DSLR share      DSLR lenses share
2015      34%                30%
2016      31%                28%
2017      26%                24%
2018      23%                21%
Title: Re: The PR war and Nikon's latest financial report
Post by: hogloff on May 15, 2018, 07:40:00 pm
Looking at the high end (D850/D5 class) we care about here at LL would paint a very different picture.

Most of the decrease is in low end DSLR where marketing and sales tactics (see this very thread) are the main factor.

So we have different factors at play here, a global market saturation for IL cameras, a timid growth of mirrorless and, within the DSLR segment, a very agressive competitor (Canon) trying to sell low end bodies at any price since they know that they are weak in the high end against both Nikon and Sony.

Cheers,
Bernard

Well Nikon's camera revenues have been dropping even more dramatically. With Nikon's view of the camera world and their projections of further drops in revenues...maybe Nikon will transform into a high end / priced niche camera manufacturer like Leica. If they are abandoning any hopes of the low end DSLR and leaving that to Canon...then all that is really left if the high end niche market...which by definition will carry a hefty price tag in order to financially make sense.

Yes...maybe Canon is out marketing Nikon...but that's the name of the game. There have been many better mouse traps that bit the dust because they could not properly market the better mouse trap to the consumer...and they died on the vines. Nikon used to be No.1 back in the older film days...then Canon came in and quickly erased that with both an on slot of innovative cameras and a great marketing campaign. Sony is trying to do the same...will that push Nikon down the chain to a niche provider...time will tell.
Title: Re: The PR war and Nikon's latest financial report
Post by: BJL on May 15, 2018, 07:53:00 pm
If they [Nikon] are abandoning any hopes of the low end DSLR and leaving that to Canon...then all that is really left if the high end niche market
That and the EVF camera system ("mirrorless") market! Though Nikon will be starting a bit behind Canon and well behind four other companies in that sector, and with Canon, Panasonic and Sony having considerable video-camera resources that can carry over to EVF still+video cameras.
Title: Re: The PR war and Nikon's latest financial report
Post by: BernardLanguillier on May 15, 2018, 09:53:37 pm
Yes...maybe Canon is out marketing Nikon...but that's the name of the game. There have been many better mouse traps that bit the dust because they could not properly market the better mouse trap to the consumer...and they died on the vines. Nikon used to be No.1 back in the older film days...then Canon came in and quickly erased that with both an on slot of innovative cameras and a great marketing campaign. Sony is trying to do the same...will that push Nikon down the chain to a niche provider...time will tell.

At the end of the film days, Canon overtook Nikon thanks to more innovation and better technology both in terms of cameras and lenses. That's fair play and photographers benefit from this.

Nikon overtook again at the beginning of digital with the D1, but they were not able to maintain this lead due to poor choices in terms of sensor technology. Again, the early lead of Canon in digital thanks to FF CMOS was great news for photographers since they delivered a product that really helped. Fair play again.

Today it is very different. The innovation for photography is Nikon (at least in the DSLR domain) and Canon is trailing behind, yet they keep gaining market share. And it certainly looks like spreading FUD is a core sales tactics they are relying on. It may be naive, but I don't call this fair play.

Sony is of course innovating at yet a fast pace than Nikon in the mirrorless domain, but their monopoly should end very soon.

What Nikon needs to do is easy. They need to hire a real marketing team and to release a competitive mirrorless offering. I am not worried about the mirrorless, their camera will be competitive. I am a lot more worried for them about their ability to transform their marketing...

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: The PR war and Nikon's latest financial report
Post by: chez on May 15, 2018, 10:20:41 pm
At the end of the film days, Canon overtook Nikon thanks to more innovation and better technology both in terms of cameras and lenses. That's fair play and photographers benefit from this.

Nikon overtook again at the beginning of digital with the D1, but they were not able to maintain this lead due to poor choices in terms of sensor technology. Again, the early lead of Canon in digital thanks to FF CMOS was great news for photographers since they delivered a product that really helped. Fair play again.

Today it is very different. The innovation for photography is Nikon (at least in the DSLR domain) and Canon is trailing behind, yet they keep gaining market share. And it certainly looks like spreading FUD is a core sales tactics they are relying on. It may be naive, but I don't call this fair play.

Sony is of course innovating at yet a fast pace than Nikon in the mirrorless domain, but their monopoly should end very soon.

What Nikon needs to do is easy. They need to hire a real marketing team and to release a competitive mirrorless offering. I am not worried about the mirrorless, their camera will be competitive. I am a lot more worried for them about their ability to transform their marketing...

Cheers,
Bernard

I think there are so many times when you can strike out and come back. I believe Nikon is on its last swing of the bat. Having a great 850 just does not drive a company as big as Nikon. They need to shore up their declining revenues in their camera devision in the face of growing revenues in their other devisions. Where does one put their R&D into...a declining revenue division or one that is growing like their Precision Instruments or their future in Medical Instruments?

I’ve been involved in enough companies at the executive level to know how the wheels turn in their brains. It’s all about showing your share holders revenue and profits next year and a declining devision is not good news.

At least that’s my take on it. Nikon has one more kick at the camera can...or it might just be sold off.
Title: Re: The PR war and Nikon's latest financial report
Post by: BernardLanguillier on May 15, 2018, 10:41:47 pm
I think there are so many times when you can strike out and come back. I believe Nikon is on its last swing of the bat. Having a great 850 just does not drive a company as big as Nikon. They need to shore up their declining revenues in their camera devision in the face of growing revenues in their other devisions. Where does one put their R&D into...a declining revenue division or one that is growing like their Precision Instruments or their future in Medical Instruments?

I’ve been involved in enough companies at the executive level to know how the wheels turn in their brains. It’s all about showing your share holders revenue and profits next year and a declining devision is not good news.

At least that’s my take on it. Nikon has one more kick at the camera can...or it might just be sold off.

I don't share your views.

Having been in Japan for 20 years working with many Japanese companies, there is a sense of pride here that goes beyond rationale decision making. You are most probably right from a Western culture standpoint, but by that logic Nikon should have quit making cameras 3-4 times already.

Their current DSLR line-up is across the board superior to Canon's for photography and so is their lens line up IMHO.

Nikon has never been in a better position technically from a product standpoint against their traditional competitor and they are close to releasing their next gen mirrorless camera which should position them much better against Sony.

Why on earth would they want to quit?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on May 16, 2018, 12:25:20 am
Bernard, you heard of the seven stages of grief? I think you are still in the first one: denial😉
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: Martin Kristiansen on May 16, 2018, 02:02:13 am
I hope Nikon stay in the game. I hope Canon finally do something in the FF mirrorless sector. I was one of the guys that switched to Canon with the 1DS. Nikon had nothing like it. A group of local pros met with Nikon at the time. Some big deal guy was out from Europe to chat with us. He told us that FF was not a good idea and it was a marketing thing by Canon. He told us Nikon would not be going FF. Then they did. Annoyed a lot of us. I ended up shooting Canon for years until heading to Sony.

Now Nikon are once again playing catch up. Seems they are great at refining but not good at picking the really big trends. As in FF cmos and now digital. A lot of the pros I know are still with Canon after Nikons last poor decision. Now they have lost to mirrorless I suspect. A whole new lens mount on its way and anyone wanting to stay with Nikon has some big decisions to make.

They make great cameras, always have done, but something a little off n their communication and decision making.
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: BernardLanguillier on May 16, 2018, 02:30:53 am
Now Nikon are once again playing catch up. Seems they are great at refining but not good at picking the really big trends. As in FF cmos and now digital. A lot of the pros I know are still with Canon after Nikons last poor decision. Now they have lost to mirrorless I suspect. A whole new lens mount on its way and anyone wanting to stay with Nikon has some big decisions to make.

They make great cameras, always have done, but something a little off n their communication and decision making.

Yes, I couldn't agree more.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: BernardLanguillier on May 16, 2018, 02:33:46 am
Bernard, you heard of the seven stages of grief? I think you are still in the first one: denial😉

The way I see it, if Nikon goes down Canon should go down even faster. The reason being that the only truly valuable technological asset they have today is Dual sensor AF, and even that is not really much better than what Sony does now and what Nikon did 5 years ago with the 1 series.

And since that won't happen, I think the world is not yet on the verge of collapsing.  ;D

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: fredjeang2 on May 16, 2018, 06:20:13 am
I hope Nikon stay in the game. I hope Canon finally do something in the FF mirrorless sector. I was one of the guys that switched to Canon with the 1DS. Nikon had nothing like it. A group of local pros met with Nikon at the time. Some big deal guy was out from Europe to chat with us. He told us that FF was not a good idea and it was a marketing thing by Canon. He told us Nikon would not be going FF. Then they did. Annoyed a lot of us. I ended up shooting Canon for years until heading to Sony.

Now Nikon are once again playing catch up. Seems they are great at refining but not good at picking the really big trends. As in FF cmos and now digital. A lot of the pros I know are still with Canon after Nikons last poor decision. Now they have lost to mirrorless I suspect. A whole new lens mount on its way and anyone wanting to stay with Nikon has some big decisions to make.

They make great cameras, always have done, but something a little off n their communication and decision making.
Yep. Gone are my Nikons. A brand I use to love, specially D3 and D4 . But it's an industry where things are going fast
And everybody in my surrounding needs to deliver 4k as well. Nikon ignored that fact for too long.
The little they did was not serious enough and the crop factor was a bad joke.
At least Canon has a very good 4k with the 1dx mk2 although using an old codec producing huge files
But it stands still with Red in post.
Canon has been very protective because they sell video cameras, but Nikon had an open road they
Were not willing to exploit seriously. People switch to Sony or Fuji.
Pentax is another brand that missed the party too.
Altough they react, it's already a bit late.
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: hogloff on May 16, 2018, 09:19:41 am
The way I see it, if Nikon goes down Canon should go down even faster. The reason being that the only truly valuable technological asset they have today is Dual sensor AF, and even that is not really much better than what Sony does now and what Nikon did 5 years ago with the 1 series.

And since that won't happen, I think the world is not yet on the verge of collapsing.  ;D

Cheers,
Bernard

Unfortunately Bernard, it does not always come down to who has the biggest stick, but has a lot to do with what one does with that stick. If Nikon cannot turn their revenue slide around...they will be forced into making more drastic decisions. Bottom line, Canon has been eating Nikon's shorts these past years...and mirrorless has taken off without any involvement from Nikon...so here it sits with a declining market share, declining revenues and in a need to restructure to keep alive.

They are also expanding in other areas that bring in the bucks, so we'll see how prominent the camera division will be to Nikon in 5 years. My view, it will be a much smaller contributor...if not totally removed by a sale to another company.
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: BernardLanguillier on May 16, 2018, 04:05:01 pm
Unfortunately Bernard, it does not always come down to who has the biggest stick, but has a lot to do with what one does with that stick. If Nikon cannot turn their revenue slide around...they will be forced into making more drastic decisions. Bottom line, Canon has been eating Nikon's shorts these past years...and mirrorless has taken off without any involvement from Nikon...so here it sits with a declining market share, declining revenues and in a need to restructure to keep alive.

I’ll agree with you or disagree after they reveal their mirrorless offering. ;)

There is just no point in predicting their doom this close to what is likely to be their biggest annoucement ever (unless you are trying to convince somehone that buying into Sony mirrorless now is better of course  ;D).

Beyong the hype, the reality today is that Nikon provides oveall the highest performing cameras money can buy for general shooting (D850) and action (D5) while still being profitable in photography.

I think there are worse positions to be in.

Their focus on high end has been clear for a few years and they have executed perfectly along this strategy. I expect them to stick to this strategy in mirrorless as well and to execute very well there too. What it means in terms of the absolute size of their camera business is anyone’s guess.

The weak areas at Nikon are marketing/sales, inventory mgt and strategic decision making. I think that these are much easier to fix than poor engineering/manufacturing.

I certainly hope that Nikon succeeds in other domains such as medical devices also though.

As a final word, I also hope that Canon wakes up and delivers a mirrorless FF solution I would find exciting and appealing. That would be the first time in 10 years I would feel GAS for something with a Canon logo on it.   ;D

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: Telecaster on May 16, 2018, 05:11:03 pm
I hope Canon and Nikon both put out compelling mirrorless systems. The more players, the better.

-Dave-
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: NancyP on May 16, 2018, 08:27:05 pm
I do think that it is a bit snobbish to dismiss the buyers of less-expensive DSLRs as being swayed only by advertising and fast sales talk, and to consider less-expensive cameras as an unimportant part of the overall camera market. There are buyers out there who are not satisfied by the fully automatic phone cameras but who can't afford or don't see the need for buying top-of-the-line "pro" grade cameras (D5, 1DXII, D850, A9, A7R3, or medium format). Maybe paying off student loans, saving for the children's education, saving for retirement, helping a financially needy family member, setting aside money for anticipated house repairs or car, taking a college course, going on a trip, and so on are better uses for money at the time for a lot of hobbyist photographers. The top of the line gear gives the last 5% of quality or permits some photos unobtainable with the usual 24 to 135mm equivalent range of mass market lenses (eg, night action photos with 400mm f/2.8 lens and top-of-line full frame camera). However, there's a heck of a lot of good photography that can be done with a basic APS-C DSLR and a cheap normal range zoom.
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on May 16, 2018, 08:29:35 pm
Amen, sister!
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: BernardLanguillier on May 16, 2018, 08:52:05 pm
Totally agree Nancy.

There are sub-segments among APS-C buyers and the less the skills the more influencable.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: NancyP on May 17, 2018, 11:30:12 am
In that case, Bernard, I personally would influence them to buy the basic camera that fits their hands and eyes, plus plan for later purchase of an acceptable tripod, head, L bracket, wired or remote release, and a flash (give pointers on budget modifiers), rather than buying the most camera bells and whistles.  ;)  And of course, it depends on what sorts of photos they want to make. Then, point them to a good Lightroom or other postprocessing platform teacher.

For a beginner, a sub-$1,000.00 DSLR camera plus zoom lens combo, maybe with a Nifty Fifty f/1.8 also, any manufacturer, is a pretty decent start. You have to get the young people to try non-cell photography, and keeping prices low is key.

I don't pretend to be a great photographer, and I have been pretty happy with a basic Canon full frame (6D original, second digital camera ever), which I use 90% of the time (ie, any time other than birding or travel, for which I take my APS-C). I don't print larger than 13 x 19. Yep, I glance longingly at more modern sensors, but most of the modern improvements in autofocus are wasted on me, because much of my work is manual focus macro or landscape, and I haven't been interested in video to date. Then again, I am an "old dog" who learned photography on a fully manual 35mm camera, so I tend to default to manual modes.
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: BJL on May 17, 2018, 12:55:31 pm
Nancy, I greatly agree in principal, in particular on prioritizing ultimate sensor performance far below other aspects of the camera, lenses and other accessories.

But i disagree on some of the details. On lenses, I do not buy the traditionalist idea of starting with one focal length, no matter how much the likes of HCB acieved within that Procrustian bed, and even though I started that way with my K-1000. I would instead recommend exploring a wider range of possibilities from the beginning with (heresy alert!) a decent standard zoom of about 4x range. And choosing a system with a lens selection that offers a healthy amount room for growth without having to change to a different format, like good prime lenses for if and when the time comes.

And of course I would not insist on it being a DSLR, especially given the somewhat hampered VF performance for manual focusing in the smaller DSLR formats.
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: BernardLanguillier on May 17, 2018, 08:26:29 pm
In that case, Bernard, I personally would influence them to buy the basic camera that fits their hands and eyes, plus plan for later purchase of an acceptable tripod, head, L bracket, wired or remote release, and a flash (give pointers on budget modifiers), rather than buying the most camera bells and whistles.  ;) 

Yes, I would agree on this. But today if you look at facts, there is little reason to recommend a Canon low end APS-C DSLR body unless you care about video. ;)

I am not saying they cannot take good pictures, any camera can. But they are behind the Nikon options in terms of sensor, AF and zoom lens quality which is pretty much what most buyers of these should care about. They are also behind the Sony and Fuji options btw if you expand the search to mirrorless systems.

This is the reason why I can only think of sales/marketing as the reason why Nikon is being killed relative to Canon in that market segment although they produce superior tools.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on May 17, 2018, 09:20:58 pm
... But they are behind the Nikon options in terms of sensor, AF and zoom lens quality which is pretty much what most buyers of these should care about...

Seriously, Bernard, who cares???

They might be better by your standards, by DxO standards, blah, blah, blah standards, but who the heck cares??? Those “low end” cameras are already better 10x than people who are going to use them are photographers. Heck, those cameras are probably better than you and I taken together are photographers.
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: BernardLanguillier on May 18, 2018, 04:41:23 am
Seriously, Bernard, who cares???

The people who buy cameras instead of mobiles phones?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: hogloff on May 18, 2018, 08:07:18 am
The people who buy cameras instead of mobiles phones?

Cheers,
Bernard

I don't think so. Low end cameras targeted at the beginning consumer are all so capable today that it would be very hard to determine which one is better than the other by these consumers. Sure, we bit heads can get deep into the technical advantages of one over another...but do you really think these beginner photographers know any difference...or in fact care?

Brand recognition is huge for consumer products and Canon just out markets Nikon at the consumer level. It's not good enough to make a better mousetrap if you don't know how to tell the consumer how this mousetrap will capture more mice than the competition.
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: Rob C on May 18, 2018, 08:49:59 am
I don't think so. Low end cameras targeted at the beginning consumer are all so capable today that it would be very hard to determine which one is better than the other by these consumers. Sure, we bit heads can get deep into the technical advantages of one over another...but do you really think these beginner photographers know any difference...or in fact care?

Brand recognition is huge for consumer products and Canon just out markets Nikon at the consumer level. It's not good enough to make a better mousetrap if you don't know how to tell the consumer how this mousetrap will capture more mice than the competition.

My instant reaction was that I'd have hoped the mousetrap would have caught that goddam mouse once and for all, not attract even more of them to catch.

But cameras, whilst not mouse traps, are certainly marketed with innocence in mind. Therein the lie they all spin: my machine will make you a wonderful photographer. So yeah, dreams are made of publicity, especially when the marketing is done via the name of a well-known pro. I wonder how many Olympus units Bailey and Lichfield shifted and, today, how many D810 cameras walked out of the shop because of the Peter Lindbergh "shooting of" videos.
Title: The PR war—and ignoring the mainstream of ILC users
Post by: BJL on May 18, 2018, 10:46:40 am
The people who buy cameras instead of mobiles phones?
Bernard, it is time to retire this persistent false dichotomy that all customers either:
- meet or exceed my very demanding standards, or
- care so little about quality that they will use the cheapest, most convenient or most fashionable garbage.

Instead, the vast majority of users of interchangeable lens cameras fall in between, including most people who have an ILC system, and choose an APS-C or Four Thirds system as their only one. And for example, stepping out of internet-enthusiast-forum-world into the real world of the markets you are discussing, I would bet that a solid majority of ILC users are satisfied with JPEGs from their camera, and do not own raw processing software. Or prime lenses. Or a tripod. These are the customers that determine the unit sales share between Canon, Nikon, and the rest.
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: hogloff on May 18, 2018, 11:20:35 am


But cameras, whilst not mouse traps, are certainly marketed with innocence in mind. Therein the lie they all spin: my machine will make you a wonderful photographer. So yeah, dreams are made of publicity, especially when the marketing is done via the name of a well-known pro. I wonder how many Olympus units Bailey and Lichfield shifted and, today, how many D810 cameras walked out of the shop because of the Peter Lindbergh "shooting of" videos.

Ah, come on Rob...marketing 101. Ronald McDonald selling happy meals to kids. Beautiful movie star selling facial cream to women. It's all about marketing to the innocence, no matter what product.
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: NancyP on May 18, 2018, 12:21:29 pm
Y'all got it wrong. The real profit for camera stores is selling those darn off-brand UV filters, off-brand camera batteries, off-brand crappy slow cards, and added insurance.

Yes, I think that a normal zoom (~f/4) is the proper starter lens. The nifty fifty is the second lens for a beginner. I have a pretty decent 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 for APS-C that makes a darn good one-lens-solution travel lens.  I don't know what Nikon has as an equivalent in the APS-C only lens line, but I am sure that it is good enough. We are spoiled by the ever-improving technology. Any basic camera with full controls is a good starter camera, and seems like a miracle to those of us who remember small format cameras in the film days.  I am big on ergonomics and viewfinder personal preference for being highly important in choice of cameras - if it doesn't feel good (intuitive) in the hands and one hates the viewfinder, the camera will just sit on the shelf.

I'd advise a beginner to get an inexpensive camera and lens, and spend the savings on basic camera operations and post-processing classes and reference book, joining a photo club or meetup group, Freeman's "Photographer's Eye" book series, shoot a lot, and then start in on tripod/head/L bracket/release, flash, modifiers.

Oddly, I have yet to get a normal zoom for the full-frame camera. That may be because I use the full frame camera for planned outings for macro and / or landscape, and I tend to bring 2 or 3 good primes.
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: Chris Livsey on May 18, 2018, 02:07:21 pm
Another piece of information that seem to indicate that among people who know their craft the reality today is that Nikon’s old DSLRs are currently the clear leaders.

https://nikonrumors.com/2018/04/16/most-of-the-photos-in-the-world-press-photo-2018-contest-were-taken-with-nikon-51-5-and-dslr-cameras-83-5.

Since the technology used in consumer cameras is derived from those, how do we explain the much better Canon results? Can they be explained without having to look into dodgy sales techniques bordering on FUD?

Cheers,
Bernard


Those quotes are misleading.
There were 73,044 images taken by 4,548 photographers submitted to WPS however those stats were only based on 97 out of the 129 winning photographs that had EXIF data attached. WPS does not publish data on cameras used now.
The Headline was:
Most of the photos in the World Press Photo 2018 contest were taken with Nikon (51.5%) and DSLR cameras (83.5%) Nikon Rumours Headline
Should have read:
Most of the 97 that we have data for out of the 129 winners were taken with Nikon etc

"World Press Photo no longer publishes the data on the cameras used, a good part of the images keep this information in their metadata. Specifically, 97 of the 129 selected."

Google Translate from the Nikon Rumours source: http://www.photolari.com/las-camaras-de-los-world-press-photo-nikon-gana-y-las-reflex-siguen-arrasando-con-un-85/

The data sample is 97 out of 73,044 then extrapolated to "Most Photos in"

PR war/Fake News etc etc

The Leica M10 took two images, probably the same photographer, but I have doubts that the implied extrapolated 1,500 images from a Leica M10 were submitted, I could be wrong of course.
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: BJL on May 18, 2018, 03:37:31 pm
Yes, I think that a normal zoom (~f/4) is the proper starter lens. ... I have a pretty decent 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 for APS-C that makes a darn good one-lens-solution travel lens.  I don't know what Nikon has as an equivalent in the APS-C only lens line, but I am sure that it is good enough.
Ah yes; to me the "mid-speed" f/4 and f/2.8-4 zoom category is under-appreciated: if the reason for having f/2.8 with film was speed, the drop to f/4 with digital still gives far more speed, with savings in bulk and cost, and the flexibility of wider zoom ranges. Nikon has a couple of candidates in its DX range, like the 16-80mm F2.8-4 from 2015, which probably supersedes the 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 from 2004. (And of course Nikon DX has the usual abundance of "f/5.6 at the long end" options.)
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on May 18, 2018, 04:36:14 pm
Good points, Chris, about the wrong, deliberately used (I do not mean by Bernard) statistical pool, happens way too often.
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: Rob C on May 18, 2018, 05:17:20 pm
Ah yes; to me the "mid-speed" f/4 and f/2.8-4 zoom category is under-appreciated: if the reason for having f/2.8 with film was speed, the drop to f/4 with digital still gives far more speed, with savings in bulk and cost, and the flexibility of wider zoom ranges. Nikon has a couple of candidates in its DX range, like the 16-80mm F2.8-4 from 2015, which probably supersedes the 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 from 2004. (And of course Nikon DX has the usual abundance of "f/5.6 at the long end" options.)


In this post, are you still thinking in terms of the neophyte?

If not, I'd take issue with the thing about wide apertures. Film was no different than digital from the point of view of getting a look to a shot, and a wide aperture was often the way to achieve it.

Personally, I think a fast lens has a lot more going for it than just the ability to work in low light levels, but speed costs money, and unless the newbie understands a few photographic things, then yes, it might not be the more attractive option for him.

Also, the idea of a zoom might end up being counterproductive: they are usually bulky, and as you know, folks are increasingly looking to cut down on bulk and weight, and it could soon lead to a life on the shelf. A "normal" focal length can teach a lot of things that a zoom disguises, one such being getting the most out of a single lens.

Choices, choices...

:-)
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: BJL on May 18, 2018, 05:54:10 pm
In this post, are you still thinking in terms of the neophyte?
Somewhat, but not entirely.

If not, I'd take issue with the thing about wide apertures. Film was no different than digital from the point of view of getting a look to a shot, and a wide aperture was often the way to achieve it.
I though I had covered that with a qualification, but let me add some clarifying words: "if [for a particular photographer] the reason for having f/2.8 with film was speed". Clearly that is not the case for everyone, but is for many (or for me at least!). And there are those for whom the artistic "look" of backgrounds blurred far more than the eye would see in the original scene is handled by prime lenses or other special purpose tools, not by the walk-around standard zoom.


P. S. Is "look" always code for "artistically desirable deviation from a technically accurate [and so allegedly flat and boring] recording of the scene? Like third harmonic distortion from tube amps?
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: Martin Kristiansen on May 19, 2018, 02:24:28 am

In this post, are you still thinking in terms of the neophyte?

If not, I'd take issue with the thing about wide apertures. Film was no different than digital from the point of view of getting a look to a shot, and a wide aperture was often the way to achieve it.

Personally, I think a fast lens has a lot more going for it than just the ability to work in low light levels, but speed costs money, and unless the newbie understands a few photographic things, then yes, it might not be the more attractive option for him.

Also, the idea of a zoom might end up being counterproductive: they are usually bulky, and as you know, folks are increasingly looking to cut down on bulk and weight, and it could soon lead to a life on the shelf. A "normal" focal length can teach a lot of things that a zoom disguises, one such being getting the most out of a single lens.

Choices, choices...

:-)

We seem to have a bit of a fad going on at the moment for very fast lenses. I don’t have an issue with it at all but I do think it odd that the faster lenses are perceived as inherently superior rather than as fulfilling a creative decision.

As you say the wide aperture is more about getting a look than being able to shoot in low levels and that is even more true with currrent technology than it ever was in film days.

I don’t use fast lenses and don’t buy them. A waste of money on one hand and also I have enough stuff to carry around without adding the bulk of fast lenses. That is for my style of work of course. It’s my creative decision. I like context and don’t like to isolate things with very shallow dof  I had a look at all my most successful images and looked at what apertures I used and nothing wide open was in that bunch of photos. After that I unloaded all my fast glass and now go for the f4 options when buying zooms.

I don’t agree that slower lenses are the tools of neophytes or the ignorant. Buy what you need, not what makes you look like your idea of an expert. If you love shallow dof then go for it but that is a creative decision, or should be, and is not the mark of sophistication or superior knowledge.
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: Rob C on May 19, 2018, 07:08:38 am
Somewhat, but not entirely.
I though I had covered that with a qualification, but let me add some clarifying words: "if [for a particular photographer] the reason for having f/2.8 with film was speed". Clearly that is not the case for everyone, but is for many (or for me at least!). And there are those for whom the artistic "look" of backgrounds blurred far more than the eye would see in the original scene is handled by prime lenses or other special purpose tools, not by the walk-around standard zoom.


P. S. Is "look" always code for "artistically desirable deviation from a technically accurate [and so allegedly flat and boring] recording of the scene? Like third harmonic distortion from tube amps?

Hi,

No, I'd say look is far more complex than simple mechanical trickery. More is it a manifestation of mind, of how a person views his/her universe which, through photography, becomes somewhat more flexible a concept than through the prism of the naked eye.

For example, it's become fairly easy for me to detect the hand of Peter Lindbergh in b/white photography and there is alomost no way that Sarah Moon can be mistaken for anyone else. That said, Deborah Turbeville can pretty much compete with her in some cases... I say compete, but that's not at all to denigrate Deborah, who has her own beautiful aesthetic; it's just that the two women sometimes almost merge through their romanticism. Newton had his clear identity, as did David Hamilton and, does, Albert Watson.

I find colour far more of a challenge today, regarding spotting identity or look of photographers. I think it's probably because colour doesn't allow the same singularity of vision. In the heyday of colour, say during the era of Pete Turner or Haas and Leiter, style was discernible; today, with digital and its huge range, I think artists drown without trace in a sea of choice. Or, they indulge in the swamp of excess and drown as surely as their contemporaries at the seaside.
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: Rob C on May 19, 2018, 07:13:09 am
We seem to have a bit of a fad going on at the moment for very fast lenses. I don’t have an issue with it at all but I do think it odd that the faster lenses are perceived as inherently superior rather than as fulfilling a creative decision.

As you say the wide aperture is more about getting a look than being able to shoot in low levels and that is even more true with currrent technology than it ever was in film days.

I don’t use fast lenses and don’t buy them. A waste of money on one hand and also I have enough stuff to carry around without adding the bulk of fast lenses. That is for my style of work of course. It’s my creative decision. I like context and don’t like to isolate things with very shallow dof  I had a look at all my most successful images and looked at what apertures I used and nothing wide open was in that bunch of photos. After that I unloaded all my fast glass and now go for the f4 options when buying zooms.

I don’t agree that slower lenses are the tools of neophytes or the ignorant. Buy what you need, not what makes you look like your idea of an expert. If you love shallow dof then go for it but that is a creative decision, or should be, and is not the mark of sophistication or superior knowledge.

Martin, I'm sitting in a restaurant having lunch, hence the iPad which I love, but which is not easy to use in a hurry.

Let me just say that your last paragraph in no way states the spirit of what I think I expressed in my post.
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: Martin Kristiansen on May 19, 2018, 07:18:41 am
Martin, I'm sitting in a restaurant having lunch, hence the iPad which I love, but which is not easy to use in a hurry.

Let me just say that your last paragraph in no way states the spirit of what I think I expressed in my post.

I wasn’t being clear. Essentially I agree with you. With what you had written. I then added my take on the matter and was making a general comment on the current tendency of fast glass and shallow depth of field.

Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: BJL on May 19, 2018, 12:04:41 pm
No, I'd say look is far more complex than simple mechanical trickery. More is it a manifestation of mind, of how a person views his/her universe which, through photography, becomes somewhat more flexible a concept than through the prism of the naked eye.
Rob, thanks for your reply; I should have qualified that I was thinking of discussions about the "look" or "rendition" or "drawing" inherent in a lens (or a film), not what is achieved by the artistic choices and tendencies of the photographer.  I am inclined to the position that you seemed to take in a recent discussion: that with digital, it is usually fine for the lens to simply give an accurate rendition, with the "looks" once sought from lens idiosyncrasies now mostly* achievable in post-processing. Sort of "Lomography vs Photoshoppery".


(*) Not always of course; for example, blurring of backgrounds and foregrounds in software is not yet a match for doing it with large apertures, though we are heading there as can be seen at the vanguard of photographic technological innovation, meaning smart phones.
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: BernardLanguillier on May 19, 2018, 05:50:58 pm
There is a philosophical line btwn an image whose look is the result of lens design vs a post processing.

This impacts the way lenses are designed:
- lenses designed to have a character (Nikon 58mm f1.4 circular bokeh,...)
- lenses designed with some uncorrected aberations (most classic designs) because they didn’t know how to do better
- lenses designed to have a neutral rendering (most recent Canon designs, MF lenses,...)

These choices have large impacts on the look of images and many people in Japan consider this as a very important aspect of photography. Not to say essential.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: Rob C on May 20, 2018, 04:01:50 am
There is a philosophical line btwn an image whose look is the result of lens design vs a post processing.

This impacts the way lenses are designed:
- lenses designed to have a character (Nikon 58mm f1.4 circular bokeh,...)
- lenses designed with some uncorrected aberations (most classic designs) because they didn’t know how to do better
- lenses designed to have a neutral rendering (most recent Canon designs, MF lenses,...)

These choices have large impacts on the look of images and many people in Japan consider this as a very important aspect of photography. Not to say essential.

Cheers,
Bernard

As they used to say in the record business: it's big in Japan.

;-)
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: eronald on May 20, 2018, 02:59:37 pm
As they used to say in the record business: it's big in Japan.

;-)

Yeah, and that as the french would say qualifies as breetish humour.


Edmund
Title: The PR war: look, rendering, bokeh, etc.
Post by: BJL on May 20, 2018, 06:42:30 pm
- lenses designed to have a character (Nikon 58mm f1.4 circular bokeh,...)
- lenses designed with some uncorrected aberations (most classic designs) because they didn’t know how to do better
- lenses designed to have a neutral rendering (most recent Canon designs, MF lenses,...)
Bokeh is a very legitimate one: given that big OOF blurs are not part of the original scene anyway, there is plenty or room for esthetic choices in their shape and whether they fade towards the edge or have a bright "corona".

However I do not see that the nature of a lens's bokeh affects one way or another whether it has a "neutral" (i.e. "undistorted" or "accurate") rendering.
Title: Re: The PR war: look, rendering, bokeh, etc.
Post by: BernardLanguillier on May 20, 2018, 08:04:15 pm
Bokeh is a very legitimate one: given that big OOF blurs are not part of the original scene anyway, there is plenty or room for esthetic choices in their shape and whether they fade towards the edge or have a bright "corona".

However I do not see that the nature of a lens's bokeh affects one way or another whether it has a "neutral" (i.e. "undistorted" or "accurate") rendering.

What I refer to here as "neutral bokeh" is close to what you get in PS when you apply a Gauss blur filter.

What Japanese refer to when they speak about lens rendering also includes CA, astigmatism,...

cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: Rob C on May 21, 2018, 04:38:33 am
Yeah, and that as the french would say qualifies as breetish humour.


Edmund


Yeah, it lends a special bouquet bokeh to life.

Rob
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: Telecaster on May 21, 2018, 03:20:50 pm
I like lenses that force a photograph to look like it was taken with a camera.  :)

-Dave-
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: BernardLanguillier on May 21, 2018, 09:11:54 pm
At the risk of bringing this back to equipment talk, I recommend the following article from Thom Hogan for Nikon users. I own the 6 top lenses he is referring to and I couldn't agree more. Except for the 200mm f2 G that is of course older, the remaining 5 happen to be among the latest Nikon releases and show the level of excellence they are now able to achieve consistently.

Among the cheaper lenses, I also own the 24mm f1.8 and 85mm f1.8 and these 2 are real gems.

http://dslrbodies.com/lenses/lens-articles/choosing-lenses/my-five-favorite-nikkors.html

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: NancyP on May 21, 2018, 09:49:33 pm
RobC, that's why I suggested that lens #2 for a neophyte with an APS-C camera should be an inexpensive "nifty fifty" with f/1.8, at 60 to 80 USD for the Canon version, presumably similar for the Nikon version.

I use Canon examples because I have followed Canon low-end camera technology, and simply don't know much about Nikon cheapo used APS-C DSLRs. So, Nikon experts, what would be your best 800 to 1000 USD Nikon used kit that includes APS-C DSLR camera, normal zoom, and nifty fifty?

As for "look", sometimes aberrations can be a feature. Every once in a while I take out an old fast 50mm film-era lens with double Gauss design - plenty of aberration wide open, but also some character. The AIS Nikkor 50 f/1.2 is fun for this. I also occasionally take out my dad's old AIS Nikkor 105 mm f/2.5 - nice look, not as sharp as the sharpest modern lens.
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: hogloff on May 21, 2018, 10:06:15 pm
At the risk of bringing this back to equipment talk, I recommend the following article from Thom Hogan for Nikon users. I own the 6 top lenses he is referring to and I couldn't agree more. Except for the 200mm f2 G that is of course older, the remaining 5 happen to be among the latest Nikon releases and show the level of excellence they are now able to achieve consistently.

Among the cheaper lenses, I also own the 24mm f1.8 and 85mm f1.8 and these 2 are real gems.

http://dslrbodies.com/lenses/lens-articles/choosing-lenses/my-five-favorite-nikkors.html

Cheers,
Bernard

So...what's that got to do with Canon kicking Nikon's butt in sales?
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: BernardLanguillier on May 21, 2018, 10:29:31 pm
So...what's that got to do with Canon kicking Nikon's butt in sales?

Whatever you want to read in it.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: BernardLanguillier on May 22, 2018, 01:10:10 am
So, Nikon experts, what would be your best 800 to 1000 USD Nikon used kit that includes APS-C DSLR camera, normal zoom, and nifty fifty?

A second hand Nikon D7200 has MF like DR and can be had cheap.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: Alex Waugh on May 22, 2018, 04:11:47 am
At the risk of bringing this back to equipment talk, I recommend the following article from Thom Hogan for Nikon users. I own the 6 top lenses he is referring to and I couldn't agree more. Except for the 200mm f2 G that is of course older, the remaining 5 happen to be among the latest Nikon releases and show the level of excellence they are now able to achieve consistently.

Among the cheaper lenses, I also own the 24mm f1.8 and 85mm f1.8 and these 2 are real gems.

http://dslrbodies.com/lenses/lens-articles/choosing-lenses/my-five-favorite-nikkors.html

Cheers,
Bernard

I far prefer the look of Nikkors but I wish they were built as well as Canon L glass. I assist / digital tech quite a few photographers and well used Nikons are always in far, far worse shape physically than their Canon counterparts.

Canons are a bit boring but they also don't have idiosyncrasies like the reversed focus / zoom rings on the 70-200 or the old AF system on the 105mm. I feel like a bit of each Nikkor recently has been unnecessarily compromised in some way, most likely due to recent financial strain. Canon will inevitably equal these lenses in resolution if not overall rendering with none of the surprises.

Also - the size of the new 24-70 - oof.

Edit - I shoot Nikon.
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: BernardLanguillier on May 22, 2018, 07:40:28 am
I far prefer the look of Nikkors but I wish they were built as well as Canon L glass. I assist / digital tech quite a few photographers and well used Nikons are always in far, far worse shape physically than their Canon counterparts.

Canons are a bit boring but they also don't have idiosyncrasies like the reversed focus / zoom rings on the 70-200 or the old AF system on the 105mm. I feel like a bit of each Nikkor recently has been unnecessarily compromised in some way, most likely due to recent financial strain. Canon will inevitably equal these lenses in resolution if not overall rendering with none of the surprises.

Also - the size of the new 24-70 - oof.

Don't know how they are treating their lenses. I don't pay special attention, use my lenses a lot in various unkind locations and most of them look brand new.

I personally find the reversed rings on the 70-200 f2.8 a great feature, I never touch the focusing ring and it is much more stable to hold the lens by its zoom ring since it is located farther from the body. The only thing that takes some getting used to is the reversed order compared to the 24-70 f2.8 E FL, but that is a matter of days with a normally constituted brain IMHO. I used both lenses exclusively for a week last year and after 2 days I was fine.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: Alex Waugh on May 22, 2018, 08:03:20 am
Don't know how they are treating their lenses. I don't pay special attention, use my lenses a lot in various unkind locations and most of them look brand new.

I personally find the reversed rings on the 70-200 f2.8 a great feature, I never touch the focusing ring and it is much more stable to hold the lens by its zoom ring since it is located farther from the body. The only thing that takes some getting used to is the reversed order compared to the 24-70 f2.8 E FL, but that is a matter of days with a normally constituted brain IMHO. I used both lenses exclusively for a week last year and after 2 days I was fine.

Cheers,
Bernard

You are the first person I've known that doesn't heavily dislike the reversed zoom/focus. As for the other photographers they are just regular, busy fashion people. I do love the new 28mm though its probably my pick of the bunch.
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: BernardLanguillier on May 22, 2018, 08:18:32 am
You are the first person I've known that doesn't heavily dislike the reversed zoom/focus. As for the other photographers they are just regular, busy fashion people. I do love the new 28mm though its probably my pick of the bunch.

I know that many a photographer dislike it, bit I don’t get it, this is a minor change for me.

I guess it may be a matter of how used one is to reworking muscle memory.

But objectively speaking it is much more logical this way. And this does clearly contribute to the amazing level of real world sharpness this lens delivers consistently. If my Leica R 180mm f2.8 APO were not lighter and more compact I would have sold it already. The Nikon zoom equals or beats the best 180mm prime ever designed...

Agreed on the 28mm f1.4, one of my most used lens.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: Rob C on May 22, 2018, 08:50:56 am
RobC, that's why I suggested that lens #2 for a neophyte with an APS-C camera should be an inexpensive "nifty fifty" with f/1.8, at 60 to 80 USD for the Canon version, presumably similar for the Nikon version.

I use Canon examples because I have followed Canon low-end camera technology, and simply don't know much about Nikon cheapo used APS-C DSLRs. So, Nikon experts, what would be your best 800 to 1000 USD Nikon used kit that includes APS-C DSLR camera, normal zoom, and nifty fifty?

As for "look", sometimes aberrations can be a feature. Every once in a while I take out an old fast 50mm film-era lens with double Gauss design - plenty of aberration wide open, but also some character. The AIS Nikkor 50 f/1.2 is fun for this. I also occasionally take out my dad's old AIS Nikkor 105 mm f/2.5 - nice look, not as sharp as the sharpest modern lens.

Nancy, I don't mean to be rude, but I can't quite see to which of my posts you are responding, so I can't really reply in turn!

Rob
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: armand on May 22, 2018, 09:23:22 am
A second hand Nikon D7200 has MF like DR and can be had cheap.

Cheers,
Bernard

I’m not the most up to date with their latest offerings but this sounds about right.

As for the lenses, 18-55 or 18-140 for zooms and 35 1.8 DX for prime. I used to use primarily the 16-85 (now replaced by 16-80) but they are above your budget, I do wish Fuji would bring a similar lens for their APS-C.
Title: Re: The PR war
Post by: NancyP on May 22, 2018, 11:11:44 am
oopsie, RobC:
I was referring to your post #95, in which you praised the narrow depth of field look and the discipline of shooting at one focal length as a reason for beginning photographers to choose a fast normal lens. Hear, hear! As you know, that fast normal lens (50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4) was the kit lens of 35mm film cameras way back when, when zooms were dreadful (1970ish). I still have my first lens, 55mm f/1.4 Mamiya-Sekor M42 lens, and use it (via adapter) every once in a while.  The good news is that the nifty fifty is cheap enough for beginners to get along with a f/4 utility normal zoom. For APS-C photographers, 50mm is a decent portrait length.