Kerry Pierce
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
LeifG wrote:
I have already explained quite clearly. Since you cannot read I will repeat some important points:
 I have no trouble reading, but you seem to have a lot of trouble writing. 
1) Canon had fast AF in most/all pro lenses. Nikon didn't. Most had screwdriver AF.
Really, when was AF-S introduced, last week?  The 28-70 and 80-200 AF-S lenses came out many years ago. Those 2 lenses, then the 70-200vr in 2004, would have been the staple lenses in the vast majority of "pro's" and amateur's bags. AFAIK, all of the big exotic primes have been AF-S for years.
2) Canon had IS in most pro lenses. Nikon did not have an equivalent for quite some time.
Right, such as? Their 24-70 isn't IS. The 70-200vr and 200-400vr have been out for years. Curiously, canon doesn't have a match for the 200-400vr. Nikon introduced the 200 f/2 in 2004, but canon only recently matched it, late last year..... So, you have to be talking about the big exotics, another niche market..... BFD. How many big exotic lenses do you own? How many people do you know, that own a 400 f/2.8?
3) High ISO performance of cameras such as the D70 was abysmal.
That camera sold at least a couple million copies and, IIRC, was the best selling camera for nikon, ever. High ISO is not the be all, end all, today and never was. But even for high ISO, the d50 came out in 2005.
My statement was not obsure. You yourself said that Nikon share was down to 30%. It is now on roughly even terms with Canon. Or are you disagreeing with yourself?
Yes, your statement was obscure, nothing of substance, and still is. Market share for canon is/was in the 40% range. Nikon's market share is/was in the 30% range. They have always been roughly on even terms, comprising almost 80% of the market between them. Everyone else takes up the remaining 20%. Nikon has always been 20% market share ahead of the number 3 player. Assuming that they current market shakes out some weak players, nikon isn't likely to be one of those falling by the wayside.
Kerry Pierce wrote:
The bottom line is that nikon has been 2nd in market share, for many years, by a huge margin. They have a dominant position in the market and have been making record profits and market share gains, for several years now, again, long before the d3. Nikon began gaining market share and increasing profits with the introduction of the d70. They've gained with every model since, so, I see no reason to buy your statement.
Interesting. You attack me for not giving sources, then you make statements without giving sources. Pot kettle and black come to mind.
My statement is easily verified with google searches. Yours is not.
Kerry Pierce wrote:
Niche markets and high profile pros are not anywhere near the majority of the market, nor do they comprise the lion's share of the profit. Your assertion that nikon is "back" now, apparently because of the d3 and later cameras, doesn't hold water. The numbers, any way you want to look at them, do not support that at all.
For example, FX cameras, according to people like Thom Hogan, comprise less than %5 of the total market for nikon. The same is said to hold true for canon.
I made no such statement. I made no mention of the D3. You are putting words into my mouth. But the performance of low end Nikon cameras is now at least as good as those from Canon. And price wise Nikon are now very competitive at the low end.
Of course you made no such statement about the d3. You made an ambiguous, obscure, meaningless statement. Now you're dogging the d70, which was nikon's best selling camera of its time.
Again, the bottom line is that nikon isn't "back" now. At the very least, they've been "back" since the introduction of the d70 in 2004. To make the math easy for you, that's 5 years. They came out with the d50 in 2005, which by most accounts, is a very good high ISO camera. Niche markets such as birding didn't make or break any camera company, but there were a lot of birders using the d2x and d2h.
Nikon laid an egg with the d2h, but that certainly doesn't mean that the d2h was a crap camera. It just didn't hit its intended market, which again, is a niche market. The d3 corrected that marketing mistake. If you had said that nikon was "back" into the sports market now, then I'd have agreed with you.
|
because I had lost faith in Canon to produce a camera with features that I wanted at a price point I was willing to pay.