Due to all the brand bashing that goes on around here.. I think we should have a tally of challenge results via camera brand.. which camera has the most top 3 finishes. Also take into consideration the # of owners..and # of entry's each brand has accumulated. I'm not a math wizard and have no idea how to figure this out.. otherwise I'd do it myself =)
Of course it all has to do with talent.. but it would still be fun right? Since with Cannon.. you can't!
I am finishing up a statistics class right now and I would love to do a test of significance to try to tell if the mean scores of the cameras are actually different from each other and whether one is greater than the other... It actually sounds like it would be really interesting.
But then again, we do all know that it isn't the camera, its the photographer. So, what is the point of doing this anyways...
But I might do it in the next week just to see the outcome... and if I do, I will most definitely post it here!
speaking of statistics...it would all depend on sample size. I get the impression there are many more Cannon owners around- so likely there are more ribbons awarded to Cannon, but that doesn't prove anything.
In the end I think you'd discover there's statistically no significance on how many ribbons either camera had.
speaking of statistics...it would all depend on sample size. I get the impression there are many more Cannon owners around- so likely there are more ribbons awarded to Cannon, but that doesn't prove anything.
In the end I think you'd discover there's statistically no significance on how many ribbons either camera had.
Agreed.. I was looking at the number of submissions on cannon vs nikon.. and the highest number of submissions with a nikon is the D70 with 16,000 or so.. and cannon has several cameras with 20,000 and even 30,000 submissions for individual cameras..
so there would have to be a percentage of ribbons vs submissions or something like that.
Patsfan, you got the numerator and the denominator backwards there. What you divided suggests that roughly for every 24 Canon users there is one ribbon, and for every 30 Nikon users there is a ribbon (meaning Canon has a lower 'miss' rate). In some cultures a lower density of success might be considered a positive thing though, so maybe Nikon is the winner afterall. I kid, I kid.
I am finishing up a statistics class right now and I would love to do a test of significance to try to tell if the mean scores of the cameras are actually different from each other and whether one is greater than the other... It actually sounds like it would be really interesting.
But then again, we do all know that it isn't the camera, its the photographer. So, what is the point of doing this anyways...
But I might do it in the next week just to see the outcome... and if I do, I will most definitely post it here!
Well that shoots my theory right in the head... Here I was going to go buy a new camera to get a better score.
This all seems to keep coming back to I'm supposed to have talent and put some effort into it. Learn from my mistakes, and all that junk!!!!
#$$#^#$^ $%^&%(*#@ !!! I thought for everything else there was MasterCard!!! Can't even believe advertising hype anymore.... What's this world coming to?
Where's the camera that has voice prompts to say, "Hey, point me over there, and click. That's a nice picture..."
Patsfan, you got the numerator and the denominator backwards there. What you divided suggests that roughly for every 24 Canon users there is one ribbon, and for every 30 Nikon users there is a ribbon (meaning Canon has a lower 'miss' rate). In some cultures a lower density of success might be considered a positive thing though, so maybe Nikon is the winner afterall. I kid, I kid.
Actually, he does have it wrong.
He has it as owners per ribbon. Invert it and you get it ribbons per owner. Which would be that 4.2% of the Canon owners have earned ribbons, and 3.3% of the Nikon owners have ribbons. So Canon would be the winner.
However, as the old saying goes, figures lie and liars figure. It all depends on perspective. 5 is 50% of 10, but 10 is 100% more than 5. So you get a 100 percent pay boost going from 5 to 10, but only a 50% pay cut going from 10 to 5.
Where is this all going? Well, it would be extremely hard to use the statistics here to say which camera is better. But I would propose that the closest solution would be to count the number of photographers who have ribboned using each brand, and not the ribbons themselves. Some here have won multiple times. This would scew the results based on talent. Even then, you might want to limit the search to the last couple of years. Or limit it to certain models. Does a 5 year old point and shoot ribbon make today's prosumer Canon better than today's prosumer Nikon.
At this point this all makes my head hurt, so I'm going back to my corner and shut up now...
Patsfan, you got the numerator and the denominator backwards there. What you divided suggests that roughly for every 24 Canon users there is one ribbon, and for every 30 Nikon users there is a ribbon (meaning Canon has a lower 'miss' rate). In some cultures a lower density of success might be considered a positive thing though, so maybe Nikon is the winner afterall. I kid, I kid.
Actually, he does have it wrong.
He has it as owners per ribbon. Invert it and you get it ribbons per owner. Which would be that 4.2% of the Canon owners have earned ribbons, and 3.3% of the Nikon owners have ribbons. So Canon would be the winner.
However, as the old saying goes, figures lie and liars figure. It all depends on perspective. 5 is 50% of 10, but 10 is 100% more than 5. So you get a 100 percent pay boost going from 5 to 10, but only a 50% pay cut going from 10 to 5.
Where is this all going? Well, it would be extremely hard to use the statistics here to say which camera is better. But I would propose that the closest solution would be to count the number of photographers who have ribboned using each brand, and not the ribbons themselves. Some here have won multiple times. This would scew the results based on talent. Even then, you might want to limit the search to the last couple of years. Or limit it to certain models. Does a 5 year old point and shoot ribbon make today's prosumer Canon better than today's prosumer Nikon.
At this point this all makes my head hurt, so I'm going back to my corner and shut up now...
He has it as owners per ribbon. Invert it and you get it ribbons per owner. Which would be that 4.2% of the Canon owners have earned ribbons, and 3.3% of the Nikon owners have ribbons. So Canon would be the winner.
Where is this all going? Well, it would be extremely hard to use the statistics here to say which camera is better. But I would propose that the closest solution would be to count the number of photographers who have ribboned using each brand, and not the ribbons themselves. Some here have won multiple times. This would scew the results based on talent.
Exactly right- you would want to let only one ribbon for one photographer count. That is how you control the talent variable, and make sure you're not counting the same photographer twice. This is about the camera brand, not the photographer. However, even after you get the research design right, then we'd still need a T-test to determine if the results are significant. Yikes!
I love my xti but I got to try a D300 the other day and loved it.... I'm looking to upgrade to full frame but canon won't announce their damn 5d mkII... I don't want a regular 5d because it has dust issues and its old (im a tech nut sorry) The 40d isn't a full frame so is it really worth buying over my xti? Of course the next step is the 1ds mkIII but I can't afford that lol. Canon needs to get with the program...
