RogerAure wrote:
According to the Norwegian newspapers Nikon Norway has confirmed that his footage has been used by a advertisement agency in Thailand when the D800 was launched. The management in Nikon Japan has agreed to pay Sørgjerd his standard rate times two for the use of his footage and come with an official apology to him (this was what Sørgjerd wanted).
The manager of Nikon Norway says that it is embarrassing that they have used someones footage without their permission and especially embarrassing that it was shot on Canon.
that is a great number. Even I would guess, Nikon did not (want to) know about. As far I remember Apple, MS and IBM did the same 20 years ago having presentations with Amigas in the back room. But in times of the internet it is unbelieveable any company or agency believes they get away with that.
Especially to steel creatives peoples stuff (and saying "sorry" and paying twice after it comes out - what is a nice thing) that was produced with the competitors gear and "sold" as done with "ours" ... that indeed is a big, big, big shame. Nikon: "Booooooohh!"
Sanlameer wrote:
It is actually quite simple, use the best tool for the job.
I would wonder, if Canon marketing is not using this for a big great campain.
" ... use the best tool for the job!"
Canon: "Thank you Nikon for using our gear to sell yours!"
Dear Canon, feel free to use this great claim, but this time pleas do not forget to pay me, too.
A 5D MK III, the new grip, a 24-70mm 2.8 L II and 70-200mm 2.8 L IS USM II will be accepted. Thank you.
What is it about the insecurity displayed by people who get excited about such?? Sure it was seriously dumb and embarrassing but does it really mean anything at the end of the day
I know many of you (In fact I have emails from posters on this thread saying so!!) feel that the equipment you use makes the difference between heaven and hell as to your photographic output, but truly, how many of you really exploit the full capabilities of your current gear?
Tim Ashton wrote:
What is it about the insecurity displayed by people who get excited about such?? Sure it was seriously dumb and embarrassing but does it really mean anything at the end of the day
I know many of you (In fact I have emails from posters on this thread saying so!!) feel that the equipment you use makes the difference between heaven and hell as to your photographic output, but truly, how many of you really exploit the full capabilities of your current gear?
Tim
The difference on the end of the day? Read my wishlist to Canon
The equipment I use was choosen by Nikon to make a promovideo. So I am still happy with it.
Tim Ashton wrote:
"...how many of you really exploit the full capabilities of your current gear?"
Tim
The same could be said of just about any human endeavor, including use of our brains. However, to "exploit the full capabilities of your current gear" is not necessarily photographically or artistically significant. What matters is if you can use a few of those features well enough to realize your vision.
This is just crazy. How unethical, and who does Nikons productions, a child?
I think the insecurity came about by Nikon, it just doesn't make sense. Yes, it can mean alot, and I can't imagine why they'd be so stupid to allow this blunder. Here they are trying to get kudos for an improved video system and they do this? Duhhh!
Gochugogi wrote:
The same could be said of just about any human endeavor, including use of our brains. However, to "exploit the full capabilities of your current gear" is not necessarily photographically or artistically significant. What matters is if you can use a few of those features well enough to realize your vision.
The point of this thread is not how many people actually use how much of their gears capability.
It is just and easy who a world leading company can do a promo video for their newest stuff giving people the info: "It was done with it" And in reality they just did not only take stuff, done with the competitors gear, and next to this it was taken without permission and without paying for it.
As a photographer I would like to see my pics printed. But I would not like to see them printed and told it was done with Nikon D800 and taken by "whome ever" while in fact it was shot with Canon by Ralph Conway.
Is this really worth any discussion? Or creating out of topic content in this thread?
...irrelevant who-where-what, to pluck somebody's work and use it as if it was your own is immoral, unethical...and illegal. Gain was made, damage was done, sorta like "Sorry I raped you, but I had to have it. Here's a few bucks, it's all good."
Ralph Conway wrote:
I would wonder, if Canon marketing is not using this for a big great campain.
" ... use the best tool for the job!"
Canon: "Thank you Nikon for using our gear to sell yours!"
Dear Canon, feel free to use this great claim, but this time pleas do not forget to pay me, too.
A 5D MK III, the new grip, a 24-70mm 2.8 L II and 70-200mm 2.8 L IS USM II will be accepted. Thank you.
Ralph
hey Ralph, you forgot a couple lines in there, should read like
"Thank you Nikon for using our gear to sell yours but PLEASE make sure to get the focus nailed down cause we put a crappy focusing system in the camera"
hey Ralph, you forgot a couple lines in there, should read like
"Thank you Nikon for using our gear to sell yours but PLEASE make sure to get the focus nailed down cause we put a crappy focusing system in the camera"
Tim Ashton wrote:
What is it about the insecurity displayed by people who get excited about such?? Sure it was seriously dumb and embarrassing but does it really mean anything at the end of the day
I know many of you (In fact I have emails from posters on this thread saying so!!) feel that the equipment you use makes the difference between heaven and hell as to your photographic output, but truly, how many of you really exploit the full capabilities of your current gear?
Tim
What if Nikon took your entire portfolio and used it in all of the advert campaigns and TV commercials and sold prints of your works and paid you nothing and gave you no credit (and said that they took the photos on their equipment to boot)?
I saw this thread earlier today on the Nikon side. And I am a Nikon user so you will know where this is coming from.
From what I have seen, I think most of the promo videos for Nikon are not done by Nikon employess but rather by production houses and photographers that typically use Nikon products. I would like to know the when, where, who, what, how and why mechanics by which the production company acquired to Canon footage. I would bet Nikon would also like an answer to that question.
Do you have a link to the dpreview blurb. I just went to their site and looked in the "news" catagory. I didn't find anything going back for the last week. Then I went back and watched the alleged Nikon promo video that has TSO's footage and even at 1080 the quality is pretty bad. Much, much poorer than the Official Nikon promo video "Joy Ride". Even TSO's footage looks bad in that video and the footage on his sight looks great. It almost looks like someone edited a video out of pirated youtube SD video footage.
Gregstx wrote:
...I went back and watched the alleged Nikon promo video that has TSO's footage and even at 1080 the quality is pretty bad. Much, much poorer than the Official Nikon promo video "Joy Ride". Even TSO's footage looks bad in that video and the footage on his sight looks great. It almost looks like someone edited a video out of pirated youtube SD video footage.
The one I saw looked like someone who was at the event used his or her camcorder to shoot the big screen on which the promo video was being shown.
But Canon on the other hand are trying to fight off a reputation for having focus issues with their cameras and at least one of the few image samples from the 5D111 is soft. They cannot even demonstrate some level of quality control over the sample images.
There are people out there just not doing their jobs.
