Kerry Pierce wrote:
panos.v wrote:
Kerry, chill out. The fact is that Nikon's superteles got VR quite some time after Canon had IS in theirs. There is still no 300/4VR. There is no 17-55VR, like Canon's. There is no 24-105VR and there is none of the numerous 70-200 IS versions and so on. I'm not saying that these lenses are necessarily "professional" or that they are needed at all, but Canon gives you the choice of making up your mind at that. Nikon doesn't. And a lot more Canon lenses have AFS/USM unlike Nikon, just look at the prime lineup, the first Nikon AFS prime shorter than 200mm was introduced just a few months ago with the 50/1.4 AFS. Canon has USM on anything but the older 15/2.8, 24/2.8, 28/2.8, 35/2 and 50/1.8.

The facts are the facts.

I don't dispute any of that. I simply don't see any reason to believe that it matters. How many supertele exotics do both companies sell? OTOH, how many "normal" lenses do they sell? Do you really believe that AF-S in a short prime makes a significant difference? I've seen no evidence to suggest that it does, at least for the vast majority of applications. Lots of folks use MF on such lenses.

Lots of folks use MF and so do I a lot of the time, in fact I used it so much I even went into the trouble of installing a Katzeye screen but that doesn't mean we should live in the dark ages, we might as well go back to shooting Kodak Ultra Max. And no, I am not exactly in dire need of a AFS short prime, I was just pointing out that your arguement against Leifg that Nikon has had AFS on lenses for ages was wrong, as Nikon has AFS on a few zooms and the super teles only, instead of most lenses. That is not an arguement against your beloved Nikon, it is just a fact. If you do not believe me, draw up a list of lenses from each company and compare to your heart's content.

Regardless, the market gains and record profits that nikon has been posting since the introduction of the d70, tell all of the story that matters. If the "problem" lenses of which you speak make or break a company, why has nikon been recording record profits and market share gains since 2004? And why would you ignore the 200-400vr and 200 f/2, for example? Only nikon "problems" count?

Man you really need to read before you get on with your blind rage. First of all go and read my other posts about the D70. And if you read my post again, you will see that I am referring to primes shorter than 200mm. I don't "count" problems mate, that is for pissing contests which you might or might not love taking up. The only problems I count are the ones I encounter on my cameras and lenses and so far I haven't encountered any, as long as my camera does what I want it to do, that's good enough for me and I couldn't care less what you or anyone else shoots with.

The point is and always was, that there are differences between the 2 companies, both good and bad. Neither of them are perfect and nikon was never out of the game. For every "problem" you want to cite with nikon, an equal number of "problems" can be cited for canon, or any other company, for that matter. IMO, nit-picking minor details is a waste of time. Nikon has been producing lots of lenses, every year and all of them are top notch for their intended market. Will they ever make every lens that will satisfy every user? not likely........

So, let's not pretend that canon is supreme and nikon is crap, because of these lenses, when the bottom line, profits and viability are what matters.


Nobody says that Canon is supreme but if you think that Canon does not actually offer more lens choices and if you think that Nikon was not behind when Canon has been making cameras like the 5D and 1Ds while all Nikon could do was a D100 then...

I really do not see why people get so worked up with this crap. I have said numerous times every single dSLR produced today is capable of excellent results. You just need to know which camera to use for what purpose and how to use the camera and lenses. Enough said, this thread is so silly.

Let's all have a drink to relax

I am swayed and counter-swayed by the successive posts. I am glad that you guys are discussing the relative merits of the two camps that have never come up before, this is an eye-opener for me.

panos.v wrote:

Let's all have a drink to relax

panos.v wrote:
I really do not see why people get so worked up with this crap. I have said numerous times every single dSLR produced today is capable of excellent results. You just need to know which camera to use for what purpose and how to use the camera and lenses. Enough said, this thread is so silly.

Let's all have a drink to relax


Agreed 100%, except for that energy drink . It may contain caffeine that may make you even more agitated .

Well I have to say that I too am following this with interest,
I started with a fuji S2pro, then when the 20D dropped in price I switched to that, I have been waiting with baited breath for the 5D mk2, and it wasnt what I wanted (a D700)

so for me I'll be switching soon, until then, while we are having a drink, you lot can keep your 'energy' drinks

make mine a

D'oh! How can you drink that glue!

Have a proper one

panos.v wrote:
D'oh! How can you drink that glue!

Have a proper one

panos.v wrote:
Have a proper one

gman1339 wrote:
panos.v wrote:
D'oh! How can you drink that glue!

Have a proper one

Only if you add a shot of high quality port to that pint, now thats a treat!

D'oh! How can you drink that glue! Have a proper one



+1! Real men can't see through their beer.

Frankly, the camera doesn't make the photographer. I've seen amazing shots from point & shoots, and throwaway shots from Pro level DSLRs. I've taken award winning pictures with a kit lens, and had my shots taken with pro glass scoffed at...

The photographer makes a camera work well. Canon makes some damn fine cameras and glass, but so does Nikon. Instead of endlessly and mindlessly debating which is better, put your photos where your mouth is!

Show us why a Canon or a Nikon is better. Go out, shoot both, systems with comparable bodies and lenses, and look at your shots. At the end of the day, THAT's all that matters.

[/thread]

LeifG wrote:
I guess this is another one of those stupid "I'm going to highlight all brand X faults and ignore any brand Y ones" threads.

Oddly enough only a few years ago, if you believed the forums, Nikon users were migrating in droves to Canon. Only now have Nikon caught up,and now people are going both ways.

Honestly, the idea that Canon cameras cannot take in focus wedding photos is absurd. Do you really think the massive numbers of wedding photographers who use Canon would stay in business if they were not as good as amateurs using cheap Nikon gear? I think this thread needs a warning bell around its neck so we can hear it coming, and move out of its way ...

+1 ..and now I'll move out of the way!

Kerry Pierce wrote:
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.


Kerry: You are obviously very young or new to photography. Nikon has been playing catch up. Look back 10 years, and then see how they compared. Nikon gradually revamped their range, slowly updating existing lenses with AFS and VR, and they finally got to putting VR in long telephotos in the last year or so, and introducing some nice tilt shift lenses. This is not "an ambiguous, obscure, meaningless statement" but simple fact. About 5 years ago I was thinking seriously about switching due to Nikon not providing the goods. Many forums were full of Nikon users considering a switch. Now they have made up most shortcomings, and still offer many of the lenses Nikon are rightly famous for such as the 200mm F4 AFD micro. The fact that some lenses are so good is why I stayed, and thank goodness I did.

Nikon are back and not just in sports. How about birding? Or concert photography? And so on. No, they were not back with the D70, but it was the first signs that they were starting to introduce serious gear for the semi-serious amateur. And you cannot dismiss the shortcomings as only of interest to professionals. People quite often buy into a system, and first make sure the system will allow them to grow.

And I don't much care for your emotional aggressive posting style of dismissing what I say as "an ambiguous, obscure, meaningless statement", or "nonsense".

Scottykm617 wrote:
Well I have to say that I too am following this with interest,
I started with a fuji S2pro, then when the 20D dropped in price I switched to that, I have been waiting with baited breath for the 5D mk2, and it wasnt what I wanted (a D700)

so for me I'll be switching soon, until then, while we are having a drink, you lot can keep your 'energy' drinks

make mine a


Oh my God. How can you? You philistine! You live in a country that produces some of the world's finest beers, and you drink that Kangaroo urine ..... arrrrrgggghhhhh ...

Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
Kerry Pierce wrote:
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.

When speaking specifically of DSLR sales, which we really should be doing because those are what the discussion has focused on, the difference is actually much smaller. Market-share data from IDC (see CrunchGear and PDNPulse) indicates that Canon had a big lead in 2006 (46.7% to Nikon's 33%), but that said lead nearly evaporated in 2007 when the results were nearly neck-and-neck (42.7% to 40%).

Full 2008 reports are not yet available. However, they should be pretty interesting. Canon has been #1 in P&S sales at 18% for the last year or two, with Sony second at 16%. Yet Nikon announced at PMA that they had scored that #1 position in December 2008, according to the NPD group. Whether that's a one-month outlier or an indication of a stronger trend, I don't know. But either way, it should definitely affect Nikon's market-share numbers in a good way. I would not be surprised to see Nikon DSLR sales exceed Canon's, since 2008 was a very good year for Nikon and the 1D3 year for Canon.

Note that none of the above means I think that Canon is failing. Canon has had a very bad year, has thoroughly screwed the pooch with the 1D3 (and their handling of the 1D3 situation has been a much, much bigger fiasco than the already-substantial problems caused by the AF issues), and there's going to be some dark days in Canonland. But both Nikon and Canon will soldier on, both will have good years and bad years, and both will remain good and solid systems.

I wish Canon and their users the best of luck. I'm sure things will get better for them. On an individual basis, I love my Nikons much more than I ever loved my old Canons. Unless there is a game-changing circumstance that really threatens the future of Nikon as a company and a system, I'm a-stayin' right here.

Thanks. Nice to have some statistics to back up points I was making. Nikon have been making record profits of late which can only be good for us consumers.

" screwed the pooch "

Nice expression!

panos.v wrote:
Have a proper one

panos.v wrote:

Lots of folks use MF and so do I a lot of the time, in fact I used it so much I even went into the trouble of installing a Katzeye screen but that doesn't mean we should live in the dark ages, we might as well go back to shooting Kodak Ultra Max. And no, I am not exactly in dire need of a AFS short prime, I was just pointing out that your arguement against Leifg that Nikon has had AFS on lenses for ages was wrong, as Nikon has AFS on a few zooms and the super teles only, instead of most lenses. That is not an arguement against your beloved Nikon, it is just a fact. If you do not believe me, draw up a list of lenses from each company and compare to your heart's content.

, yeah, I figured someone would trot out the nikon fanboy garbage, but I didn't expect it from you....

The point is and remains, that all of the standard "pro" lenses that I can think of, have AF-S and have had it for years, so I don't see where my statements were wrong, as you state. I see no reason to believe that short primes really need it, except for use on bodies that don't have motors. It's something that would be nice to have, no doubt, but I can't see any significant difference in the AF speed of my sigma 50 vs my nikkor 50 f/1.4d. Regardless, I also believe that eventually all nikkors will be AF-S, precisely because of the latter bodies. That's the only reason all of canon's lenses are USM, cuz none of their bodies have motors and won't AF without USM lenses.


Nobody says that Canon is supreme but if you think that Canon does not actually offer more lens choices and if you think that Nikon was not behind when Canon has been making cameras like the 5D and 1Ds while all Nikon could do was a D100 then...

Never said that canon didn't offer more lens choices. It's likely that they always will. If you think that makes nikon behind canon, then I'd say you're not looking at the big picture. Do we really need 5 versions of the 70-200? Canon has almost always been "ahead" in the digital game, by those standards. Canon has had the lead in market share for many, many years too. Does nikon have to be the leader in both market share, number of bodies and lenses, and accessories to be "back"? Well, if those are your standards, nikon was never in the game to begin with and couldn't be "back" now.

Nikon hasn't made huge inroads in market share and produced huge profits because of those lenses, or the high profile, expensive bodies. They've made their market share and money selling DX cameras and DX lenses to consumers at the lower price range. How many of those folks buy super teles or bags full of AF-D primes? Would some of them buy AF-S primes? Absolutely, but not nearly in the numbers that they'll buy the AF-S DX zooms.


Let's all have a drink to relax

Cool, but I'll have a Black Label.

Hey I can get in on this thread now

Have a Sol on me

LeifG wrote:

Kerry: You are obviously very young or new to photography.

I was a partner in a portrait/wedding business back in 1973. We used fully manual 35mm and MF cameras. So, if that makes me young and new to photography, by your reckoning, then I guess that you're "obviously" on the mark.

I am rather new to nikon, though, relatively speaking. I've used a lot of different brand cameras over the years. I have always bought the cameras that gave me the best bang for the buck. Currently, nikon offers those cameras. If they didn't offer what I needed, I'd buy the brand that did and I wouldn't care if that brand were the market "leader". That isn't one of my priorities and I don't know of anyone that cares about that market leader stuff, other than apparently a few photographers on the internet, when they go to buy a product.


Nikon has been playing catch up. Look back 10 years, and then see how they

Look back to when canon took the "lead" in the market, which I believe was with film cameras. Nikon has been "behind", by your standards, ever since. They are still "behind" today, by your standards. By your standards, I don't see how nikon will ever be "ahead". Even by your standards, nikon got "back" into the game in 2004, but they were still only in 2nd place........ 2nd place today is no different than being in 2nd place 5 or 10 years ago.

But, I don't agree with your standards. I don't think they are realistic or pragmatic. GM had the "lead" in the auto industry for years. Look where that got them. Being the market "leader" certainly doesn't mean that you make the best products. It means that you're good at marketing. Canon makes some pretty good stuff, but so do all of the other makers.


And I don't much care for your emotional aggressive posting style of dismissing what I say as "an ambiguous, obscure, meaningless statement", or "nonsense".


I don't much care for people that make the kind of baseless, ambiguous, sweeping statements that you seem to like to make. So, that makes us even.

I remember back in 1975 when I was shooting yearbook photos with a Konica Autoreflex T3, one of the photographers had a Nikon F2 (we are not worthy!), another had a Canon F-1, and even back then, I preferred the Nikon ergonomics. Although both cameras were considered state of the art, and top of the line. IIRC the Nikon optics even then were considered somewhat better than those of the Canon. Other guys used Fujica, Pentax, Minolta, etc.

I think that the Nikon lenses were always a bit better than those of Canon in terms of absolute quality, although Canon did have good lenses as well, albeit with more variation in quality control.

Kerry Pierce wrote:
LeifG wrote:

Kerry: You are obviously very young or new to photography.

I was a partner in a portrait/wedding business back in 1973. We used fully manual 35mm and MF cameras. So, if that makes me young and new to photography, by your reckoning, then I guess that you're "obviously" on the mark.


Since you are clearly not young, I am astonished that you address other forum posters in such an abusive manner using terms such as idiot, fan boy etc. The fact that someone says something you disagree with does not justify your verbally abusing them.

Kerry Pierce wrote:

I am rather new to nikon, though, relatively speaking. I've used a lot of different brand cameras over the years. I have always bought the cameras that gave me the best bang for the buck. Currently, nikon offers those cameras. If they didn't offer what I needed, I'd buy the brand that did and I wouldn't care if that brand were the market "leader". That isn't one of my priorities and I don't know of anyone that cares about that market leader stuff, other than apparently a few photographers on the internet, when they go to buy a product.


Nikon has been playing catch up. Look back 10 years, and then see how they

Look back to when canon took the "lead" in the market, which I believe was with film cameras. Nikon has been "behind", by your standards, ever since. They are still "behind" today, by your standards. By your standards, I don't see how nikon will ever be "ahead". Even by your standards, nikon got "back" into the game in 2004, but they were still only in 2nd place........ 2nd place today is no different than being in 2nd place 5 or 10 years ago.


Yet again you are putting words into my mouth. I said no such thing. I have repeatedly said that Nikon are now on a par with Canon in terms of sales. Quite why you continue to misinterpet what I say is beyond me.

Both Canon and Nikon currently offer very competitive systems. (I suppose the 1D3 fiasco hit Canon hard though.) I am sure some people will prefer one brand over the other.


Kerry Pierce wrote:
But, I don't agree with your standards. I don't think they are realistic or pragmatic. GM had the "lead" in the auto industry for years. Look where that got them. Being the market "leader" certainly doesn't mean that you make the best products. It means that you're good at marketing. Canon makes some pretty good stuff, but so do all of the other makers.


The technical leads of Canon were substance, not marketing. I do photomicrography (photography through the microscope). The camera makes a significant difference to what I can achieve.

Kerry Pierce wrote:


And I don't much care for your emotional aggressive posting style of dismissing what I say as "an ambiguous, obscure, meaningless statement", or "nonsense".


I don't much care for people that make the kind of baseless, ambiguous, sweeping statements that you seem to like to make. So, that makes us even.


Sorry? I stated facts. As someone else said, go and write down a history of Nikon lens releases, and then do the same for Canon, over the past 15 years. And I did not even mention the Canon 5D, with no answer from Nikon for many many years. The same can be said about the 1Ds series.

Kerry Pierce wrote:
The point is and remains, that all of the standard "pro" lenses that I can think of, have AF-S and have had it for years, so I don't see where my statements were wrong, as you state.

So, prime lenses are not "pro" enough for you? I'm pretty sure the 18/2.8, 20/2.8, 24/2.8, 28/1.4, 35/2, 50/1.4, 85/1.4, 105/2, 135/2 and 180/2.8 are pro enough. I will add that I forgot to add the 60AFS and 105AFS in the list of newly made AFS primes, these are pretty "pro" if you ask me and everyone else and they only got AFS in the last year or so. If we discount all these lenses, then the only "standard pro" lenses we're left with are the 17-35, 28-70, 80-200 and 70-200 and then we can add the "irrelevant" (as you said since not many buy them) 300, 400, 500 and the 600. Not exactly a big list.

Again, do not take this as a criticism on my part, I do not actually need AFS on such lenses (certainly not a macro one) but AFS is an advantage as a feature for various reasons (see below) and when somebody says that Nikon is lacking in that respect they are not lying. Dismissing this statement as "irrelevant" because the lenses that "count" have AFS is what leads to fanboi-isms.

I see no reason to believe that short primes really need it, except for use on bodies that don't have motors. It's something that would be nice to have, no doubt, but I can't see any significant difference in the AF speed of my sigma 50 vs my nikkor 50 f/1.4d. Regardless, I also believe that eventually all nikkors will be AF-S, precisely because of the latter bodies.

The issue is not the bodies but the other advantages that AFS gives. To give a list of advantages of AFS over AFD, there is the obvious silent operation and sometimes faster AF (particularly on non D2/D3 bodies) but these I'd put further down the list. The actual advantages of AFS, at least for me, is the fact that you can touch up focus without fiddling with switches and the fact that the focusing ring doesn't rotate. There are some AFD lenses that have non-rotating rings but if you ever used a 180/2.8 or other such lenses with their cludgy AF/MF rings that have to be operated in addition to or instead of the body switch you'd agree that this is just a bit too vintage.

That's the only reason all of canon's lenses are USM, cuz none of their bodies have motors and won't AF without USM lenses.


Actually that is incorrect, some of Canon's older lenses do not have USM, they have a micro motor thingy (the 28/2.8, 35/2 and 50/1.8 being good examples), just like Nikon's older AI-P lenses or some half-baked AFS implementations, I think the first 18-55AFS was one like that.

I'm not particularly fussy about whether a lens is AFS or AFD or AIS. As long as it does the job I'm good with it. We keep on going on about how much better Nikon body ergonomics are and how much better the feature set is, but when somebody comes along and says "yes but the lens ergonomics and features are not exactly top notch" then you have to admit that there is some truth to that. Anyway, I'll go have another drink. Cheers!