p.2 #1 · 2025 Wildlife Photographer of the Year winners' camera bodides + lenses data
There are several other contributing factors (brand reputation, quality of service, availability of spare parts ...).
This is what is most interesting to me. Some photographers are obviously sponsored/brand ambassadors and are supported by the company so they continue their patronage, but I have a feeling that these are in the minority. Objectively AF performance is one of the most important things, but from users / reviewers that have the opportunity to test all 3 systems it seems that Canon and Sony are a notch higher than Nikon. So the question begs why does Nikon still command such a high market share? At least in the areas of AF and maybe even IQ they are not "objectively" the strongest. So is it competitive pricing? Legacy? Customer service?
Photographers with a vision can shoot anything and get results. Yes. But why do said photographers choose said gear? If the results were simply random we would see an even spread over the years. If it were by market share then Canon would have continued their dominance (follow the leader).
I've seen this thread of thought in other threads. "Good" or "top" violinists or pianists all gravitate towards certain brands, but they would obviously still be good regardless if they played on the "best" pianos, or regular ones. But the pattern persists. So is it a by product of top musicians make a ton of money, and then choose the most expensive and most prestigious instruments? I don't necessarily think Nikon is the most expensive and prestigious of the main trio...so the underlying rationales of the top performers in WPYC's choice of system are of interest and worth at least some speculation and quantitative analysis.
p.2 #2 · 2025 Wildlife Photographer of the Year winners' camera bodides + lenses data
Ripolini wrote:
Here, no one is looking for “The Best Gear” by counting anything. I understand that you don't understand, so don't lecture us. Oh, in case you didn't know, data always contains information. Slogans don't.
OK mom
- - -
I've seen this thread of thought in other threads. "Good" or "top" violinists or pianists all gravitate towards certain brands, but they would obviously still be good regardless if they played on the "best" pianos, or regular ones. But the pattern persists. So is it a by product of top musicians make a ton of money, and then choose the most expensive and most prestigious instruments? I don't necessarily think Nikon is the most expensive and prestigious of the main trio...so the underlying rationales of the top performers in WPYC's choice of system are of interest and worth at least some speculation and quantitative analysis. ...Show more →
With pianists it is, in large part, because one company’s pianos are widely available in every location where they will perform. It would be entirely impractical for performers to demand any of, say, four different brands of piano. (An extraordinarily small number can demand unusual brands.)
Violinists actually use a wide variety of different instruments.
Regarding “quantitative analysis,”correlation is not causation.
p.2 #3 · 2025 Wildlife Photographer of the Year winners' camera bodides + lenses data
Nobody said anything about causation. This is simply descriptive statistics of WPYC winners / highly commended.
Causation would be something like "choosing Nikon gives you the highest probability of landing a WPY winner", which nobody in this thread has mentioned because its quite a silly statement to begin with.
Correlation. It is interesting that the Nikon system is dominant in the WPYC. You could very easily take up the stance that it is not interesting at all, and that photographers could roll a dice with any of the 3 main system and still get good results. This is of course true, but it is also probably true that most serious photographers (WPYC recognized ones) seriously contemplate which system is best for their needs and vision, and subsequently make a choice.
Regarding pianos and violins...you could really substitute any of those items, instruments, or tools, with another one and you'd arrive at a similar point. And each category would have a specific nuance. Why does Nike dominate the winners of the Boston Marathon? Probably because it does in fact sponsor the best athletes and podium finishes are more predictable (not very interesting). Why do many of the WPYC recognized photographers of the last 5 years mainly use Nikon? (interesting to me) Why does Canon seem to be on a decline in WPYC presence? (also interesting, I'd wager it has something to do with their restrictive mounts).
p.2 #4 · 2025 Wildlife Photographer of the Year winners' camera bodides + lenses data
Lethimcook wrote:
Nobody said anything about causation. This is simply descriptive statistics of WPYC winners / highly commended ...
Right, but let's not limit the analysis to brand A or B. In the color plots I posted above, I was mostly interested in the resolution of the sensor. As you can see, "average" resolution has increased over time (obviously: manufacturers are very skilled at gradually increasing performance to stimulate demand and guarantee sales of new products). But are the images from, say, 2011 less spectacular than those from 2025? In 2011, photos were mainly taken with 12 Mpix sensors, whereas today almost no one takes photos with those sensors that were capable of producing excellent images (and large prints for the NPYC traveling exhibition).
Reasoning in the same way as those who say that a good photographer can use anything, we come to the conclusion that cameras with more than 12 megapixels are not needed to take better photos. I could even agree with that ...
In addition, my B&W charts for the last edition (2024) show data on camera type (MILC, DSLR, etc.) and sensor size (e.g., FF & APS-C). We find that about two-thirds of the images were taken with full-frame cameras. So, despite the advantages of both the smaller size of APS-C gear and the crop factor when shooting with telephoto and macro lenses, the 24x36 format is largely prevalent. Finally, more than half of the photos were taken with MILCs, but DSLR cameras were still well represented, at around 35%.
When I have time (hopefully on the 1st week of January), I might do a similar classification of the data for the photos of the WPYC 2025. If @Lethimcook@ agrees, I could post them here.
p.2 #5 · 2025 Wildlife Photographer of the Year winners' camera bodides + lenses data
Ripolini wrote:
Right, but let's not limit the analysis to brand A or B. In the color plots I posted above, I was mostly interested in the resolution of the sensor. As you can see, "average" resolution has increased over time (obviously: manufacturers are very skilled at gradually increasing performance to stimulate demand and guarantee sales of new products). But are the images from, say, 2011 less spectacular than those from 2025? In 2011, photos were mainly taken with 12 Mpix sensors, whereas today almost no one takes photos with those sensors that were capable of producing excellent images (and large prints for the NPYC traveling exhibition).
Reasoning in the same way as those who say that a good photographer can use anything, we come to the conclusion that cameras with more than 12 megapixels are not needed to take better photos. I could even agree with that ...
In addition, my B&W charts for the last edition (2024) show data on camera type (MILC, DSLR, etc.) and sensor size (e.g., FF & APS-C). We find that about two-thirds of the images were taken with full-frame cameras. So, despite the advantages of both the smaller size of APS-C gear and the crop factor when shooting with telephoto and macro lenses, the 24x36 format is largely prevalent. Finally, more than half of the photos were taken with MILCs, but DSLR cameras were still well represented, at around 35%.
When I have time (hopefully on the 1st week of January), I might do a similar classification of the data for the photos of the WPYC 2025. If @Lethimcook@@ agrees, I could post them here.
It's clear that old or mediocre equipment can win awards, but ~12MP made sense in 2002-2006, not 2011. Many of the people at FM had 21 or 24MP cameras in late 2007/early 2008. Lower res like 16MP was popular for sports and PJ due to the technology of the times. It was not about making better images, just more and faster.
Some of my favorite images were taken with the pair of 1Ds IIs from 2004-2007, but it's not because 16.7 MP was great rather that was all we had.
p.2 #7 · 2025 Wildlife Photographer of the Year winners' camera bodides + lenses data
Lethimcook wrote:
This is what is most interesting to me. Some photographers are obviously sponsored/brand ambassadors and are supported by the company so they continue their patronage, but I have a feeling that these are in the minority. Objectively AF performance is one of the most important things, but from users / reviewers that have the opportunity to test all 3 systems it seems that Canon and Sony are a notch higher than Nikon. So the question begs why does Nikon still command such a high market share? At least in the areas of AF and maybe even IQ they are not "objectively" the strongest. So is it competitive pricing? Legacy? Customer service?
Photographers with a vision can shoot anything and get results. Yes. But why do said photographers choose said gear? If the results were simply random we would see an even spread over the years. If it were by market share then Canon would have continued their dominance (follow the leader).
I've seen this thread of thought in other threads. "Good" or "top" violinists or pianists all gravitate towards certain brands, but they would obviously still be good regardless if they played on the "best" pianos, or regular ones. But the pattern persists. So is it a by product of top musicians make a ton of money, and then choose the most expensive and most prestigious instruments? I don't necessarily think Nikon is the most expensive and prestigious of the main trio...so the underlying rationales of the top performers in WPYC's choice of system are of interest and worth at least some speculation and quantitative analysis. ...Show more →
Nikon is the only one of the big three to offer built-in 1.4x TCs in their 400/2.8 + 600/4 lenses, so some pros might prefer the brand because of that. Also have a good offering of pro-optic telephotos that aren't as fast as the flagship/most expensive versions.
p.2 #8 · 2025 Wildlife Photographer of the Year winners' camera bodides + lenses data
MazeRunner wrote:
Nikon is the only one of the big three to offer built-in 1.4x TCs in their 400/2.8 + 600/4 lenses, so some pros might prefer the brand because of that. Also have a good offering of pro-optic telephotos that aren't as fast as the flagship/most expensive versions.
There are more factors in play:
- Nikon and Canon both have extensive older cameras and lenses while e.g. Sony did not have a large user base of long lenses in the DSLR/T system; today these older (even high-end) products are very affordably on the second hand market, helping new and less affluent photographers
- Nikon focused the Z lens lineup more on pro/enthusiast level lenses while Canon started with pro/consumer lenses with little in-between. I would imagine a lot of ambitious photographers find the former approach more appealing. Canon has since been filling up the middle sector though.
- Nikon's Z8 and Z9 offer silent photography, high-end autofocus, fast frame rates and high resolution with minimal rolling shutter whereas Canon's stacked sensor products have only 24 MP, leaving less room for cropping if needed, and the R5 has significant rolling shutter in e-shutter mode. Sony offers high resolution and high frame rates with minimal rolling shutter in the A1 familiy but they are more expensive than the Z8/Z9.
These factors make it easier and more affordable to get a powerful, high-quality kit for wildlife photography for Nikon than the others. I think this affects the buyers' choices more than the availability of built-in, hot-swappable TCs in two ultra-high-end lenses that only a small number of photographers can afford. However, these features may be important to users in the marketing sense.
Canon and Sony have recently produced 200-800 mm and 400-800 mm lenses and I would imagine these to be appealing to wildlife photographers, but WPY winners and highly commended entries are not typically as often taken with long focal lengths as, e.g., posts on this forum. There are many more environmental shots showing behavior and focal lengths range from fisheye to supertele.
