LeifG
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
Kerry Pierce wrote:
 I have no trouble reading, but you seem to have a lot of trouble writing. 
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.
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?
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.
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.
My statement is easily verified with google searches. Yours is not.
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.
...Show more →
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".
|
2nd place today is no different than being in 2nd place 5 or 10 years ago.