p.1 #2 · What would you be shooting if Canon didn't exist?
Well, as much as I am a fan of Leica equipment, I cannot shoot solely with their Rangefinders. So economically speaking I would be a Nikonian if there was no canon.
I think that's a pretty easy decision unless you're a die-hard pentax or olympus shooter.
EDIT: thinking more about the question, if Canon never existed, I don't think digital cameras would be quite where they are at currently. To the point of saying I don't think digital cameras would be advanced enough to replace film. To that effect I would likely still be shooting with my Horseman 4x5 and Mamiya RZ67, which means I never would have bought the Hasselblad H1 and tried to go MF digital.
When you think about that statement. "What if there never was a Camera company called Canon?"
How different would the face of photography be? What kind of developments would have never been made?
p.1 #5 · What would you be shooting if Canon didn't exist?
My second camera set is micro 4/3s. The image quality is between my 1DMK2 and my 5DMK2. But the size is great. The GF1 body is about the size of a G 9/10/11 with fast lens (20 mm, f1.7), wide lens (7-14), and long lens (14-200) options.
p.1 #8 · What would you be shooting if Canon didn't exist?
I'd be happily shooting Nikon. I say happily because if Canon didn't exist, I'd be ignorant of all the wonderful primes that are possible and would simply adapt to Nikon's lens lineup.
p.1 #11 · What would you be shooting if Canon didn't exist?
Not an answerable question. If Canon didn't (hadn't) existed then none of the above would be producing the cameras that currently exist. Not to say that Canon is the end all be all of photography, but it has been an undeniable force in the development of the camera as we know it for the last, say 50 years. We have no idea what the camera circa 2010 would be without the company's presence.
p.1 #12 · What would you be shooting if Canon didn't exist?
OntheRez wrote:
Not an answerable question. If Canon didn't (hadn't) existed then none of the above would be producing the cameras that currently exist.
p.1 #15 · What would you be shooting if Canon didn't exist?
it would have to be nikon if canon didn't exist.
Mainly because they have a huge amount of options when it comes to lenses and accessories compared to the rest of the companies. That and I don't like Sony.
p.1 #16 · What would you be shooting if Canon didn't exist?
I picked other because way back when I got my first SLR it was Canon, if it didn't exist who knows what camera I would have started with Olympus, Nikon, Pentax,.....
p.1 #17 · What would you be shooting if Canon didn't exist?
burningheart wrote:
I picked other because way back when I got my first SLR it was Canon, if it didn't exist who knows what camera I would have started with Olympus, Nikon, Pentax,.....
Back when I got my first SLR, it was almost a Topcon instead of a Nikon.
I wonder how many remember those SLRs?
p.1 #18 · What would you be shooting if Canon didn't exist?
EB-1 wrote:
Back when I got my first SLR, it was almost a Topcon instead of a Nikon.
I wonder how many remember those SLRs?
EBH
I have a couple Topcons. There was a thread on pnet a couple weeks ago about which camera had the best feeling advance, and Topcons came up numerous times. They seriously feel like you could run them over with a car and have no trouble operating them afterwards. Plus, they produced the first 300/2.8!
I'd personally probably be shooting an F6 and an F100. Though I doubt either one would be as advanced if they didn't have Canon as a competitor.
p.1 #20 · What would you be shooting if Canon didn't exist?
I'd still be shooting my Pentax LX. This is still my favorite camera of all time. I changed for autofocus. If digital hadn't come along, I'd probably have gone back.
