"Third, and against that lack of long lens innovation, it seems unsurprising that there isn’t a plan to produce new and exciting lenses as Nikon has done. Where are the lightweight options like the 800/6.3 and 600/6.3? Where is the 600 with the integrated TC? ***crickets***"
Nikon seems to be getting a lot of mileage out of copying old Canon technology, like lenses with built-in TC's (Canon started doing this in the 1970's) or lightweight telephotos with diffractive optics, which Canon introduced over 20 years ago. I even saw a lens review a while back talking about Nikon's "revolutionary" discovery of fluorite lens elements for the new Z 600mm f4 (which Canon has been doing since the 1960's...).
It seems that innovation is now synonymous with plagiarism. ...Show more →
So…where are those retread lenses? Sounds like Canon should be able to just roll them off the line.
groob wrote:
The main thing this thread illustrates to me is that people have dramatically different approaches to, and standards for, wildlife photography. For example, some people are willing to get to a location 30 minutes prior to sunrise, set up a blind, and wait out a subject. They meticulously plan the light angle, the background, and the distance to the subject. But others get to a location well after sunrise and just stroll through, hoping for a decent chance at a grab shot.
The issue that keeps arising in this thread is that the two groups are trying to impose their standards on the other. For people in the first group, an f/11 lens or even a 500mm f/7.1 is unthinkably slow. But those lenses are perfectly acceptable for people in the latter group. I am not making a judgment about which group is better. Photography is a hobby for almost all of us that is simply meant to be enjoyed. So, people should do what makes them happy. But before passing judgement or even giving thoughts, one should try to put themselves in the shoes of the person they’re responding to because rheee grips have vastly different needs and preferences. ...Show more →
Excellent point indeed.
The OP obviously belongs to the first category of shooters, for whom the last 10% of performance is night and day because he wants his equipment to be aligned with the excellence of his approach to bird photography.
This connects to what I wrote 423 pages (🤣 back in this thread about relevant benchmark for focusing. Whether I want my equipment provider to devote resources to optimizing the bird AF of small birds on busy backgrounds (typically corresponding to images captured by the second group) or on other aspects?
Canon is apparently thinking of themselves as both a sport photography brand and one aiming to provide the masses with excellent equipment enabling them to get good results. Hence the quality mid range lenses line up but shortcomings on the high end front for birders.
Sony appears to be focusing on “the best tech in the smsllest/most streamlined possible camera/lens”. They see themselves as having invented the “Apple DNA”. They will never put a TC on a super télé because the bump is ugly. Same with vertical gripped bodies.
Nikon is more about uncompromised performance for high end shooters. Be it at the cost of weight and/or size or price.
Brands have strategies and release products accordingly. That’s the direction they are aiming at. It may take them some time to succeed. But they will get there.
Their marketing teams will nonetheless try to convince the world that they are best at everything. But it simply isn’t true because ideas have consequences.
As a photographer I think it is valuable to try to understand their strategic intent and to map it with or own positioning and priorities. That will help optimize value.
Of course this starts by being reasonably realistic about oneself. The second category photographer thinking they are first category may buy into Nikon and end up thinking that 5,000 US$ for a 800mm f6.3 S is too expensive.
"Third, and against that lack of long lens innovation, it seems unsurprising that there isn’t a plan to produce new and exciting lenses as Nikon has done. Where are the lightweight options like the 800/6.3 and 600/6.3? Where is the 600 with the integrated TC? ***crickets***"
Nikon seems to be getting a lot of mileage out of copying old Canon technology, like lenses with built-in TC's (Canon started doing this in the 1970's) or lightweight telephotos with diffractive optics, which Canon introduced over 20 years ago. I even saw a lens review a while back talking about Nikon's "revolutionary" discovery of fluorite lens elements for the new Z 600mm f4 (which Canon has been doing since the 1960's...).
It seems that innovation is now synonymous with plagiarism. ...Show more →
So where are they if it is that easy? Only Canon have the nerve to reuse the DSLR versions of their 600 F4 and 400 F2.8, weld a 2xTC and an adapter on there and charge 20k for it, and if you look at the optical diagram that is exactly what they did.
ingekj wrote:
So where are they if it is that easy? Only Canon have the nerve to reuse the DSLR versions of their 600 F4 and 400 F2.8, weld a 2xTC and an adapter on there and charge 20k for it, and if you look at the optical diagram that is exactly what they did.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The mobs of whiners who all claim to want these lenses will never actually buy one anyway.
ingekj wrote:
So where are they if it is that easy? Only Canon have the nerve to reuse the DSLR versions of their 600 F4 and 400 F2.8, weld a 2xTC and an adapter on there and charge 20k for it, and if you look at the optical diagram that is exactly what they did.
Yes, it’s what they did.
They possibly did it because it was the only way for them to release a line up of RF lenses in a timing compatible with the release of the R3.
It appears they just got surprised by the speed at which Sony and Nikon came up with a credible line up of pro sports equipment.
And most Canon photographers expressed no dissatisfaction with the approach. Some are genuinely fine, others are aware but the group has limited tolerance for members criticizing the holy brand, you are either with us or against us kind of mindset. Freedom of speech is ok as long as you agree (see “bubbles”…). 🤣
As a result Canon has apparently decided it is fine to not invest more in that segment. They just came up with a 100-300mm f2.8 under pressure from press agencies and that’s it for now.
They are dealing with the few unhappy ones by having agents call them Sony trolls or whiners in forums like this one. It’s a privilege to use Canon. Thou shall not criticize. 🤣
Their biggest revenue earner is the Imaging group which made its money on Cameras and Interchangeable lenses.
If Canon made those lenses, don't you think people with Canon bodies would buy them? how else do you think Canon made/makes money?
Calling people whiny when pointing out shortfalls of the company is not appropriate. BTW, we are all Canon fanboys and want our company to do better than the competition. It is more of angst and disappointment.
They possibly did it because it was the only way for them to release a line up of RF lenses in a timing compatible with the release of the R3.
Or, they did it because those lens designs were barely 3 years old and already state of the art, and there was no need to redesign them from scratch.
And they didn't just add a built-in mount converter. They re-tooled the focusing controllers to use RF protocols natively, which is different than just adapting an EF lens.
This whole argument over RF supertelephoto lenses is tired.
Dragonfire wrote:
If a good photographer gets better with different equipment then the equipment makes the photographer.
The news agencies buy the best equipment and send a staff of employees to the Olympics with the hope that someone will get the shot.
The photographers pictured below did nothing more than focus on one subject and press the shutter button until the end of the action and none of those photographers owned their equipment.
Talent and ambition were totally lacking.
Sorry but anyone who shoots Fuji wouldn't go out on a limb and claim the AF rivals the current Nikon line up. Maybe the older Z6 and Z7 bodies but that's about it. Oh and there's a few other people who have shot Fuji and responded to your comment saying the same things about the AF that I did.
Also new agencies actually go by what they get the best deal (money wise) on within the pro category - to claim differently is a bit much. Remember when the AP pool went with Sony since they cut them a massive deal.
I haven’t done the math but it should be in that ball park. And even if it’s a bit off who cares. I was hoping you’d understand the intent… Apparently I was being too generous. 🤣
garyvot wrote:
Or, they did it because those lens designs were barely 3 years old and already state of the art, and there was no need to redesign them from scratch.
And they didn't just add a built-in mount converter. They re-tooled the focusing controllers to use RF protocols natively, which is different than just adapting an EF lens.
This whole argument over RF supertelephoto lenses is tired.
That certainly was also one factor yes. Whether they remained state of the art after the Nikon TC equipped lenses were released a few months later and whether they meet expectations from wild life shooters is the question though. The line up of 400mm f4.5, 600mm f6.3 and 800mm f6.3 being of course also part of the equation.
Yes, they of course did adapt the protocol to meet RF mount. That is a small change from an engineering point of view.
This thread is an indication that at least some are not convinced.
But this is the very point isn’t. Is Canon still a leader in mirrorless long glass? Or are they a follower?
Canon is probably trying to avoid the fate by concentrating on products that people will actually buy.
Nope! Here is the quote from the published results - "In the Imaging Products Business, revenue grew on increased sales volumes of mirrorless cameras and interchangeable lenses."
They might lose revenue elsewhere, for example in the Components business, but not in the Photo equipment business.
Also, from that same section you are referring to for Operating profit:
- In the Imaging Products Business, profit grew on maintained strength.
- Total operating profit declined due to decreased profit in the Components Business and the Precision Equipment Business (lower sales volumes of FPD lithography systems and lower service revenue), and one-time costs in the Healthcare Business and the Digital Manufacturing Business.
So, no. Nikon is NOT making lenses that people are not buying.
I haven’t done the math but it should be in that ball park. And even if it’s a bit off who cares. I was hoping you’d understand the intent… Apparently I was being too generous. 🤣
Cheers,
Bernard
Obviously, judging from the results I have seen from the Fuji body, you don't have a clue how to setup your equipment. Your equipment must suffer from user error.
theobserver wrote:
Nope! Here is the quote from the published results - "In the Imaging Products Business, revenue grew on increased sales volumes of mirrorless cameras and interchangeable lenses."
They might lose revenue elsewhere, for example in the Components business, but not in the Photo equipment business.
Also, from that same section you are referring to for Operating profit:
- In the Imaging Products Business, profit grew on maintained strength.
- Total operating profit declined due to decreased profit in the Components Business and the Precision Equipment Business (lower sales volumes of FPD lithography systems and lower service revenue), and one-time costs in the Healthcare Business and the Digital Manufacturing Business.
So, no. Nikon is NOT making lenses that people are not buying....Show more →
Nikon’s market share hangs around 12%. Yes people still buy Nikon systems…but many more 88% buy other systems.
Dragonfire wrote:
Obviously, judging from the results I have seen from the Fuji body, you don't have a clue how to setup your equipment. Your equipment must suffer from user error.
Dragonfire wrote:
Obviously, judging from the results I have seen from the Fuji body, you don't have a clue how to setup your equipment. Your equipment must suffer from user error.
Go onto Bernard’s website and I think you’ll have a different view. His work is fantastic and it spans many different genres.
theobserver wrote:
Nope! Here is the quote from the published results - "In the Imaging Products Business, revenue grew on increased sales volumes of mirrorless cameras and interchangeable lenses."
They might lose revenue elsewhere, for example in the Components business, but not in the Photo equipment business.
Also, from that same section you are referring to for Operating profit:
- In the Imaging Products Business, profit grew on maintained strength.
- Total operating profit declined due to decreased profit in the Components Business and the Precision Equipment Business (lower sales volumes of FPD lithography systems and lower service revenue), and one-time costs in the Healthcare Business and the Digital Manufacturing Business.
So, no. Nikon is NOT making lenses that people are not buying....Show more →
As always, folks misquoting on purpose of sharing blatantly false information are just admitting to being unable to win a fact based debate.
I know one very famous old man is trying to make it the norm. That doesn’t make it any right.
back in this thread about relevant benchmark for focusing. Whether I want my equipment provider to devote resources to optimizing the bird AF of small birds on busy backgrounds (typically corresponding to images captured by the second group) or on other aspects?