| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/27/2005 10:04:55 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by jbsmithana:
Eddy - is this true or marketing hype? |
I knew I should have posted a link. Here is the quote:
âThe EOS-1D Mark II took photojournalism and sports photography by storm and was chosen by more than 70% of professional photographers at the 2004 Athens Olympics, â reported Mogens Jensen, Head of Canon Consumer Imaging Europe. link
Originally posted by jbsmithana:
I know the famous Canon photos of pros lined up on the sidelines is a staged shot for marketing purposes so .... |
I've yet to see any proof that those shots are staged. Do you have any links? i.e. articles on SportsShooter from photogs who have actually participated in such a staged shot? Since those shots are used in Canon advertisements, I'd think a printed ad where they show the Canon-dominated photo box at Wimbledon with a tagline that says "We count 67 white lenses." would be false advertising if it were "staged".
It isn't difficult to watch just about any pro-sporting event and see oodles of L-glass in "photographer's row". One of the easiest places to see this is in basketball, since they are in each corner of the court, and the TV shots often include them... as the action switches direction, you can see every photographer set down the body with their wide angle lens and switch to their telephoto-equipped body all in unison.
Message edited by author 2005-08-27 22:09:32. |
|
|
|
08/27/2005 10:11:52 PM · #27 |
I bought my 10D because it was the most expensive camera I could afford, and I figured that my photography needed all the help it could get. I also buy the most expensive Canon lenses that I can afford, for the very same reason (plus they look cooler than Nikon gear.) It's improved my photography by leaps and bounds. :)
Seriously, I've been using Canon SLRs and lenses since about 1975. They have tons of nice features and a large selection of bodies, lenses, and matching accessories. And, some of it I can even afford.
Show me a consumer camera that will do everything my 10D and lenses can do and I might buy it.
|
|
|
|
08/27/2005 10:14:55 PM · #28 |
OK - but I note that the quote is from a Canon marketing guy, not very reliable.
Sorry, but I do not have a link. First, I agree that there are quite a few Canons on the sidelines. I go to quite a few games and see the L glass. I also see a number of Nikons along with some of Nikons long lenses that are now light colored. I was told about the staged shot buy a Canon guy who said that at least the one they use in the mags was staged before a game. I believe it has also been mentioned here on threads by Canon owners themselves.
The moral of the story is Canon does a fantastic job on marketing (listen up Nikon) and makes a great products. But so does Nikon and now that the D2x is out I believe you will again see more Nikons on the sidelines. Nikon has always catered to the photojournalist market.
|
|
|
|
08/27/2005 10:35:08 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by jbsmithana:
OK - but I note that the quote is from a Canon marketing guy, not very reliable. |
Why do you consider the "Head of Canon Consumer Imaging Europe" a "marketing guy"? Personally, I dont think a company as large as Canon would have somebody (let alone the "head of" something, indicating he's an exec pretty high up the ladder) just spout off figures like that in world-wide press releases without them being true.
Originally posted by jbsmithana:
some of Nikons long lenses that are now light colored |
Nikon has been offering some of their telephone lenses in "gray" for a long time. A lot of people think Canon has white lenses just as a "status symbol". That isn't the case at all. It is because when you are shooting in the hot sun, large, white lenses are less affected by thermal issues that can affect optics compared to large, black ones... not to mention they are more comfortable to hold!
Originally posted by jbsmithana:
I was told about the staged shot buy a Canon guy who said that at least the one they use in the mags was staged before a game. I believe it has also been mentioned here on threads by Canon owners themselves. |
Sounds a lot like "a friend of a friend who knows somebody told me..." Until I see a pro photog state that he was part of a staged marketing shot for Canon, I just consider those stories to be "rumor material". But that's just me. :-)
Message edited by author 2005-08-27 22:40:36. |
|
|
|
08/27/2005 10:37:06 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by deapee:
I got a canon, originally, because it was cheap and everyone else seemed to have one...then I made the switch :D |
How was vacation? |
|
|
|
08/27/2005 10:41:29 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by dsmeth:
With some simple math I came up with about 50% of the users on DPC own a Canon. Of that 50%, 50% or more of those are expensive Canons not simple point and shoot type. Is this because Canon makes the best camera? Or, is it like a bunch of 7th graders arguing "my shoes are better and more expensive than yours?"
With that in mind, I start wondering how many people at DPC own a Canon just because everybody else does. While I have no way of calculating the numbers for this, I'll bet they are high. (Most people wouldn't admit it anyway)
It's not just cameras, it's anything. When you hang out with any group and see the people you most admire using certain gear or taking a certain approach, you're inclined to follow along. In sailboat racing, for example, back in the 70's when I was active, use of North Sails just snowballed like crazy because they were winning so many races, and the more people bought them the more races they won. It's a natural, human thing to do.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not knocking Canon or anybody that owns one. I think they are probably great cameras.(and yes I could afford one if I wanted one) I do think it's sad that people would buy something expensive just because everybody else has it. Most people at DPC are photography enthusiests, not professionals. So why would you need $3000+ dollars of camera and lenses unless you bought it because everybody else has it?
And most Canon cameras owned by DPCers are enthusiast cameras, not professional cameras. Like mine. A high-end enthusiast camera. Why do I need $3,500 worth of gear? Because as a former professional photographer, now retired, I'm intimately familiar with the real, tangible benefits of good equipment, especially good optics. When I went into digital I got along for quite a while with high-quality "prosumer" cameras (most recently a Coolpix 5700 from Nikon) but I eventually began to feel very limited by the gear in 2 ways: I couldn't get true wide-angle (vital for my sort of landscape work) and the sensor itself was just too damned noisy, the pure image quality was not there. I make my own large prints, and they just weren't good enough for me. So I bit the bullet and upgraded.
I would compare photography to playing golf. The pictures are only going to be as good as the person using the camera not because it costs more. In turn, your golf game is only as good as your swing. It don't get better because you spent $2000 on a set of clubs.
As it happens, I was for many years a pretty serious golfer (9 handicap at my best, played 3-5 times a week) and I don't agree with your comparison. It's valid up to a point (if you don't have, or develop, the eye all the gear in the world won't help you), but nevertheless there's an absolute correlation, in a purely technical sense, between better gear and better images. Two examples were already mentioned; image noise and wide-angle capability. Other examples are the ability to shoot at higher ISO without loss of quality, improving low-light photography, and MUCH better optical quality in zoom lenses over the prosumer cams, assuming you buy decent glass for your dSLR. You really DO get what you pay for. The golf club market is MUCH more fad-driven IMO, with people counting unrealistically on the latest gear toimprove their performance. I really don't think that's an issue for most DPCers, who understand photography pretty well. But better gear DOES improve your potential to a noticeable degree, assuming you have moved beyond the basics.
So, did you buy your expensive Canon because you researched and decided that camera was best for you and fit your needs or did you buy it because that's what everybody else had and you wanted to fit in? |
In my case, the former. I gave consideration to less-popular brands like Pentax and Olympus, but eventually narrowed it down to Nikon or Canon because of the vast marketplace for quality glass for those brands. I was leaning towards Canon anyway, because I like the controls of the 20D better than the D70 controls and I prefer the CMOS sensor to the CCD in the Nikon, but the clincher was when I found a really cool local store, owned and staffed by good photographers, that is an authroized Canon dealer but doesn't carry Nikon. I like working with local stores if they will give me a fair price, whicvh these guys did.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
08/27/2005 11:01:17 PM · #32 |
Ok - I surrender (well, mostly)! I did not intend anything as a slam but as a legit question. And yes, even the highest guy up in any corportation is a "marketing guy". They are always "selling". And creative statistics are always fair game. Manipulating statistics/data is the oldest game in the book.
You do great work with your Canon and I'm nobody to question your photographic knowledge. But I will bet you one thing, that you could take just as good an image with a Nikon. |
|
|
|
08/27/2005 11:09:03 PM · #33 |
Yes a lot of research was involved, a lot of holding, testing and then thinking. Tons of sweat as the CC went through the reader and life was good.
[snip from OP]...I do think it's sad that people would buy something expensive just because everybody else has it...[/snip]
It is also sad that there are people who will NOT buy something because everyone has a certain something.
|
|
|
|
08/27/2005 11:10:18 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by awpollard:
It is also sad that there are people who will NOT buy something because everyone has a certain something. |
I do that with cologne... I refuse to buy the most popular stuff as I don't want to smell like every other guy my age...
|
|
|
|
08/27/2005 11:11:30 PM · #35 |
To me I just found that the Canon felt better in my hands than the Nikon D70! I guess it also came down to price too! I used to work in a camera shop so I had access to cheap pricing. But for me, it just felt right at the time and I haven't regretted it since. Though, the 20D would make a wonderful addition to my kit! :)
|
|
|
|
08/27/2005 11:12:16 PM · #36 |
I started with an a-1, then I went to an ae-1 program, then an EOS 630, then an a-2, and have never had 1 problem with a canon product! Why would you change?
|
|
|
|
08/28/2005 12:13:05 AM · #37 |
The choice was between the 300D and nikon D70.
I have not head the best of luck with canon items over the years (printers, slrs) - not that they break, but they are left brained or something and i am right brained. My last film camera was a Nikon...and it literally fell apart.
I was planning on the D70. The things that swayed me to Canon:
-my last nikon fell apart
-the 300D was $300 cheaper
-Canon seems to work hard at advancing their equipment, offering me an upgrade path
-Overall, the Canon 'system' is less expensive than Nikon
-Most of the local DPCrs I know use Canon - a chance to borrow and try a lens, get advice, etc. i.e. local support network
I have been very happy with my choice, no issues. As to the ergonomics one hears about, that the Nikon is better, well...I can't speak from experience of using both, but I have adjusted to teh 300D and have no issues with controls, placement of things of that nature.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 11/19/2025 04:51:19 AM EST.
