The PR war

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Amen, sister!

[BernardLanguillier]

Totally agree Nancy.

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

Cheers,
Bernard

[NancyP]

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.

[BJL]

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.

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... 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.

[BernardLanguillier]

Seriously, Bernard, who cares???

The people who buy cameras instead of mobiles phones?

Cheers,
Bernard

[hogloff]

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.

[Rob C]

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.

[BJL]

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.

[hogloff]

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.

[NancyP]

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.

[Chris Livsey]

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.

[BJL]

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.)

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Good points, Chris, about the wrong, deliberately used (I do not mean by Bernard) statistical pool, happens way too often.

[Rob C]

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...

:-)

[BJL]

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?

[Martin Kristiansen]

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.

[Rob C]

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.

[Rob C]

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.