| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/21/2005 02:59:09 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by Joey Lawrence:
Originally posted by Fetor:
chicks dig white lenses :-P |
Chicks dig photographers that take good pictures of them, Canon or Nikon, end of story. |
Ok, so you're pretty much right too, Joey- but to achieve good pictures you have to have a Canon. :-P
|
|
|
|
07/21/2005 03:22:30 PM · #52 |
i wouldnt say nikon takes better pictures than canon, ive seen amazing pictures in challenges on this site that i could of swore a canon camera took. but as i look through the results i see that lots of pictures were taken with the nikons.
to me and a long with a bunch of other people, nikons layout of the camera just doenst make sense to me, it seems there are so many unnessicary buttons and functions that can be combined into 1 button
that would be my biggest pet peeve about nikon cams, that and the "nikkor"
Message edited by author 2005-07-21 15:22:57.
|
|
|
|
07/21/2005 03:56:05 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by brianlh:
Nikon over Canon for pro sports? That doesn't sound right, given all the pictures we've seen of the L line at events. Maybe it's just that the Canon guys stand together (somehow I doubt it)? |
Those pictures are staged. Canon pays some of the big name sports photogs to pose as a group. And they do it in the morning before the games are started so they can set it up with nothing but big L glass on the latest Canon bodies. And most of those guys don't buy their equipment themselves anyway. If you shoot sports, and get down on the sidelines, you'll see more Nikons than Canons. In the bleachers everybody thinks that all the white lenses are Canon but some are Nikon too. |
Wow, very interesting - I never would've guessed it.
|
|
|
|
07/21/2005 04:01:34 PM · #54 |
To quote this website
"Why is it that with over 60 years of improvements in cameras, lens sharpness and film grain, resolution and dynamic range that no one has been able to equal what Ansel Adams did back in the 1940s? Ansel didn't even have Photoshop!...The camera's only job is to get out of the way of making photographs."
So who uses which cameras, and who talks about them? To summarize this website, we are all measurebators here (read my post, you'll see)
The Seven Levels of Photographers
Artist: Top Level 7
An artist fixes his imagination in a tangible form called a photograph. He captures the spirit of place or person, real or imagined, in this photograph and the viewer responds to this.
Artists use any sort of camera, including pinholes and disposables, or 8 x 10s. They use whatever instrument they need to create what they want.
Whore: Level 6
A whore is an artist who sells his soul by accepting money or drugs for his art.
By lowering himself to this level his vision is compromised.
Why? Because when one depends on selling one's soul to pay for one's food and pad one does not screw with the program, which means that one does not try new styles.
Amateur: Level 5
People who earn less than half of their income from photography are amateurs. This has nothing to do with the quality of their photography.
This person loves to create photographs. Good amateurs of pure spirit can transcend the other levels directly to being an artist.
Amateurs almost always shoot Canon SLRs.
Snapshooter: Level 4
This is my mom and most people. These people want memories, as opposed to photographs or cameras.
Snapshooters use point-and-shoot and disposable cameras, which give the same excellent results as the Leicas, Nikons, Canons and Contaxes used by everyone else.
Professional: Level 3
A professional photographer is a person who earns his entire living (100%) from the sale of photographs.
Professionals do not create art for a living; they create images for commerce. They usually have some familiarity with the tools and can get out decent images, however they may or may not be able to capture imagination.
Professionals spend more on film and lab fees each month than they spend on camera gear in a year.
Professionals shoot Nikon SLRs, Mamiya medium format and Calumet 4x5" cameras. They cannot afford gear as good as most serious amateurs.
Rich Amateur: Level 2
These are amateurs who, by having too much money, buy lots of equipment which can fetter their freedom of expression. Rich amateurs shoot Leicas, Contaxes, Alpas, Hasselblads and Linhof 4x5s. The poorer rich amateurs shoot Nikon or even Canon SLRs.
Equipment Measurbator: Bottom Level 1
They are interested solely in equipment for its own sake. They will talk your ear off for hours if you let them, but as soon as you ask to see their portfolio their bravado scurries away, or they think you want to see their cameras or stocks.
Younger ones play video games or engage in chat rooms and web surfing. Older ones join "camera" clubs. (You should join photography clubs, but never camera clubs or any clubs that try to score art, since art is entirely subjective and cannot be scored numerically.)
So says Ken Rockwell.
Message edited by author 2005-07-21 16:02:40.
|
|
|
|
07/21/2005 04:06:08 PM · #55 |
Just because you an 'artist' could use any camera and achieve good results doesn't mean that they still don't prefer one medium or another - or one brand or another. And I think that, choosing DPC as our community of choice, it could farely well be said of most of us that we like to create photographs and don't focus entirely on the equipment (in fact, it only seems as of late that equipment has become an issue of discussion at DPC - compared to the days of old).
|
|
|
|
07/21/2005 04:09:43 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by brianlh:
Just because you an 'artist' could use any camera and achieve good results doesn't mean that they still don't prefer one medium or another - or one brand or another. And I think that, choosing DPC as our community of choice, it could farely well be said of most of us that we like to create photographs and don't focus entirely on the equipment (in fact, it only seems as of late that equipment has become an issue of discussion at DPC - compared to the days of old). |
well said
|
|
|
|
07/21/2005 04:19:10 PM · #57 |
Because in the days of old, however that is defined, there was much less equipment to choose from. When you have 3 options, not much to discuss. When you have 7 or 10 or 100, then there is something to talk about.
|
|
|
|
07/21/2005 04:19:50 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
...
So says Ken Rockwell. |
That explains that bunch of outdated crap...it's from Ken... |
|
|
|
07/21/2005 04:21:04 PM · #59 |
"Professionals spend more on film and lab fees each month than they spend on camera gear in a year"
In what year was that? 1970? |
|
|
|
07/21/2005 04:25:52 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
To quote this website
"Why is it that with over 60 years of improvements in cameras, lens sharpness and film grain, resolution and dynamic range that no one has been able to equal what Ansel Adams did back in the 1940s? Ansel didn't even have Photoshop!...The camera's only job is to get out of the way of making photographs."
So who uses which cameras, and who talks about them? To summarize this website, we are all measurebators here (read my post, you'll see)
The Seven Levels of Photographers
Artist: Top Level 7
An artist fixes his imagination in a tangible form called a photograph. He captures the spirit of place or person, real or imagined, in this photograph and the viewer responds to this.
Artists use any sort of camera, including pinholes and disposables, or 8 x 10s. They use whatever instrument they need to create what they want.
Whore: Level 6
A whore is an artist who sells his soul by accepting money or drugs for his art.
By lowering himself to this level his vision is compromised.
Why? Because when one depends on selling one's soul to pay for one's food and pad one does not screw with the program, which means that one does not try new styles.
Amateur: Level 5
People who earn less than half of their income from photography are amateurs. This has nothing to do with the quality of their photography.
This person loves to create photographs. Good amateurs of pure spirit can transcend the other levels directly to being an artist.
Amateurs almost always shoot Canon SLRs.
Snapshooter: Level 4
This is my mom and most people. These people want memories, as opposed to photographs or cameras.
Snapshooters use point-and-shoot and disposable cameras, which give the same excellent results as the Leicas, Nikons, Canons and Contaxes used by everyone else.
Professional: Level 3
A professional photographer is a person who earns his entire living (100%) from the sale of photographs.
Professionals do not create art for a living; they create images for commerce. They usually have some familiarity with the tools and can get out decent images, however they may or may not be able to capture imagination.
Professionals spend more on film and lab fees each month than they spend on camera gear in a year.
Professionals shoot Nikon SLRs, Mamiya medium format and Calumet 4x5" cameras. They cannot afford gear as good as most serious amateurs.
Rich Amateur: Level 2
These are amateurs who, by having too much money, buy lots of equipment which can fetter their freedom of expression. Rich amateurs shoot Leicas, Contaxes, Alpas, Hasselblads and Linhof 4x5s. The poorer rich amateurs shoot Nikon or even Canon SLRs.
Equipment Measurbator: Bottom Level 1
They are interested solely in equipment for its own sake. They will talk your ear off for hours if you let them, but as soon as you ask to see their portfolio their bravado scurries away, or they think you want to see their cameras or stocks.
Younger ones play video games or engage in chat rooms and web surfing. Older ones join "camera" clubs. (You should join photography clubs, but never camera clubs or any clubs that try to score art, since art is entirely subjective and cannot be scored numerically.)
So says Ken Rockwell. |
i dont agree with much of any of that, i believe most photographers go though phases
take me for example, i started off as a snapshot picture taker as most people did then i tried to develop my eye to see things better
and im still most of those things all at once, nobody is just a art photographer, or just a "whore"
all of that stuff was just a way to classify people, making us feel like we are in a product in a certian isle of a grocery store
|
|
|
|
07/21/2005 05:49:14 PM · #61 |
| Buy one of each then you can be everybodys friend. |
|
|
|
07/22/2005 08:35:04 AM · #62 |
Originally posted by jtf6agent:
Buy one of each then you can be everybodys friend. |
I totally agree....this is what I did...and I have to say that NIKON far exeeds Canon when used as a door-jam.
(love you guys!) |
|
|
|
07/22/2005 11:02:43 AM · #63 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Those pictures are staged. Canon pays some of the big name sports photogs to pose as a group. And they do it in the morning before the games are started so they can set it up with nothing but big L glass on the latest Canon bodies. |
Links? References? Photos of said "staged shots" being taken?
So you're saying Canon staged a bunch of shots at the Olympics in Athens or at the Democratic National Convention?
(And FWIW, Nikon does not make white lenses, they offer some of their lenses in "gray".)
|
|
|
|
07/22/2005 11:16:50 AM · #64 |
Originally posted by Gil P:
Originally posted by jtf6agent:
Buy one of each then you can be everybodys friend. |
I totally agree....this is what I did...and I have to say that NIKON far exeeds Canon when used as a door-jam.
(love you guys!) |
HAHAHAHHA
|
|
|
|
07/22/2005 02:39:22 PM · #65 |
As a Quebecois, I can relate to Nikonians...fiercely defending their shrinking borders as the Canon Empire grows...
Canon is like the BORG... assimilate or die! |
|
|
|
07/22/2005 02:57:56 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by Gil P:
As a Quebecois, I can relate to Nikonians...fiercely defending their shrinking borders as the Canon Empire grows...
Canon is like the BORG... assimilate or die! |
I totally agree that Canon is 10X bigger than Nikon..... but like most women would say... "it's not all about size".... ;-)
|
|
|
|
07/22/2005 02:59:44 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by Gil P:
Canon is like the BORG... assimilate or die! |
Then die I shall but not without a fight.
|
|
|
|
07/22/2005 03:05:19 PM · #68 |
|
|
|
07/22/2005 03:15:45 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by doctornick:
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
...
So says Ken Rockwell. |
That explains that bunch of outdated crap...it's from Ken... |
Amen to that. I always have to put on my knee-high boots to read Ken R. 60 yrs and no one has equalled AA? Gimme a break jake!!
|
|
|
|
07/22/2005 03:24:02 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by kosmikkreeper:
Originally posted by Gil P:
As a Quebecois, I can relate to Nikonians...fiercely defending their shrinking borders as the Canon Empire grows...
Canon is like the BORG... assimilate or die! |
I totally agree that Canon is 10X bigger than Nikon..... but like most women would say... "it's not all about size".... ;-) |
the women that say that....say it not to hurt your feelings! |
|
|
|
07/22/2005 03:29:28 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by Gil P:
Originally posted by kosmikkreeper:
Originally posted by Gil P:
As a Quebecois, I can relate to Nikonians...fiercely defending their shrinking borders as the Canon Empire grows...
Canon is like the BORG... assimilate or die! |
I totally agree that Canon is 10X bigger than Nikon..... but like most women would say... "it's not all about size".... ;-) |
the women that say that....say it not to hurt your feelings! |
LOL!!!
|
|
|
|
07/22/2005 03:48:54 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
Originally posted by coolhar:
Those pictures are staged. Canon pays some of the big name sports photogs to pose as a group. And they do it in the morning before the games are started so they can set it up with nothing but big L glass on the latest Canon bodies. |
Links? References? Photos of said "staged shots" being taken?
So you're saying Canon staged a bunch of shots at the Olympics in Athens or at the Democratic National Convention?
(And FWIW, Nikon does not make white lenses, they offer some of their lenses in "gray".) |
Don't know about the convention but I read about them doing the set up shots at the Olympics and at the Super Bowl. However, that's not to say that there weren't other shots taken of groups of photogs using (fill in your preference) at said events. I don't have links to offer you but I read about it in more than one place on the internet. I think one place I read it was on SportsShooter.com. And if memory serves, there were even the names of some of the photogs that got compensated because they were identified from shots in Canon advertisements.
The Nikon gray lenses are grouped with the Canon white lenses (which are not exactly a pure white, more like a creamy tanish white) by most people. From the bleachers the uninitiated can not tell the difference and credit them all to Canon. But you can bet your MkII that none of them appear in the Canon ads, lol.
As far as seeing more Nikons than Canons on the sidelines, that observation is from my own personal experience. Of course it does not include the Olympics. Mostly at the HS level with a little bit of college and such thrown in. And I was referring to professional media photographers, not the soccer moms w/a P&S, or the players' fathers who became event photographers when they got a Rebel last Christmas, or the wannabes like me.
|
|
|
|
07/22/2005 04:15:34 PM · #73 |
Was chatting to Brian in dpc fanatics chat and he thought you all might be interested in my wee verbal splurge:
brianlh: why do you shoot both canon and nikon, might i ask?
Kavey*pie: oh
Kavey*pie: well slightly long story - here it is
Kavey*pie: we wanted to go DSLR (ive had film SLRs since i was 11)
Kavey*pie: and we weren't sure on whether to go for nikon, canon or other
Kavey*pie: we weighed it all up so seriously
Kavey*pie: and in the end nikon won as it felt nicer in the hand AND the interface is SO well deisgned
Kavey*pie: so we got tht plus a cheap zoom telephoto
brianlh: uh huh
Kavey*pie: we used it on a few major trips and had problems with freezing focus on longer lens and assumed it was cheap lens
Kavey*pie: but otherwise very happy wtih it
Kavey*pie: then
Kavey*pie: we met two pros on nikon (on a trip with lots of pros, rest on canon) and both said they'd go to canon now if they were starting from scratch - one will when his current gear wears out - hes a war zone journo so it does wear out
Kavey*pie: the other said
Kavey*pie: he has that problem on both cheap and expensive and both film and digital nikon slrs
Kavey*pie: that was the clincher
Kavey*pie: it's intermittent for sure
Kavey*pie: but with out interest in wildlife it's a problem
Kavey*pie: well
Kavey*pie: we'd already decided to buy a second dslr as we're both into this now
Kavey*pie: so we decided to get a canon next and weight them up seriously
Kavey*pie: the nikon had already paid for itself twice over (in savings on what we would have spent o film and processing for those trips)
Kavey*pie: so we figured no loss really
Kavey*pie: weve decided to go canon
Kavey*pie: we'll still use hte nikon until it's time to buy the next body
Kavey*pie: then we'll both be on canon
Kavey*pie: i still thinkt he nikon interfaace is better than canons but...
Kavey*pie: canon gives equal quality plus more lens choice because of wider consumer and pro base
Kavey*pie: phew
Kavey*pie: :D
|
|
|
|
07/22/2005 05:14:08 PM · #74 |
Well if Kavey is a convert then I.....
am happy for her.
|
|
|
|
07/22/2005 05:24:12 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Well if Kavey is a convert then I.....
am happy for her. |
Are you making fun of meeeee? :o)
|
|
