4 ms·

I mean, I suppose on the consumer or prosumer level, but if you go to any sporting event, you will see a sea of Canon L series glass and not much else... Not s

by criley2 10y ago

I mean, I suppose on the consumer or prosumer level, but if you go to any sporting event, you will see a sea of Canon L series glass and not much else... Not sure the quality of the source but this suggests that 75% of the pro cameras at last weeks Super Bowl were Canon, and all of the television broadcast lenses were HD Canon lenses. I just don't see GoPro or Fuji competing at that level, so perhaps their issue was expanding past the point that their core business could support once those periphery product lines fell out of trend. [1] http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-eos-dslr-cameras-and-ef-lenses-touch-down-on-the-sidelines-of-the-big-game-in-houston/ http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-eos-dslr-cameras-and-ef-len...

monkmartinez 10y ago
How many professional sports photographers are there? I guess all those wedding photographers need to look the part with Canon's and Nikon's too. Is that enough to keep Canon and Nikon afloat?
- sgt101 10y ago
  My wife's a professional wedding photographer, so she's got the glass as you say in the game... I'm a dunce photographer, but I've been taking photos using my phone (like everyone) and I enjoyed it, so one day I picked up one of the DSLR's with a "decent" 85mm lens on it and took a photo. The difference is astonishing - it's night and day. The world is filled with light and depth, colours are like bonfires shadows are like the pits of the deepest mine. But then again I guess that's one data point! It may be that in fact phone cameras are great and I'm just deluded.
  - TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
    You're completely correct about the difference. You can't take a photo like that with a phone, and you never will be able to. Because physics and economics. But... that kind of quality costs many thousands of dollars, and it's heavy enough to be a problem. You have to decide the weight is worth it before you head out the door for a day of lens aerobics. The market for people who need/want to do that is tiny. This makes me sad, because I love that look, and I hope it never disappears.
    - iamatworknow 10y ago
      >This makes me sad, because I love that look, and I hope it never disappears. I don't think it will for a long time. There's still a market for film photography, if that's any indication.
      - alistairSH 10y ago
        And there are assorted "retro" cameras on the market. If the Olympus PEN-F were weather-sealed, I'd own one already (instead of my much less expensive PL-6).
  - criley2 10y ago
    No, it's not a delusion, it comes down to a few simple things like sensor size. I have an entry level Canon DSLR from 2007, 7MP, which takes far better photos than any smartphone I've ever used. The reason is pretty simple, it has a 1 inch square area for its sensor, while the smartphone sensor is about the size of a small pinky nail (1cm squared or less?) For any given period of time, the larger sensor can capture more light at once, either taking better exposed or faster shots, and having far more data in which to encode a digital images pixels. It's certainly insanely impressive what modern hardware and software get out tiny sensors, but bigger sensors are still incomparably better -- AND can benefit from many of the same advances small sensors use. It's kind of like car engines. It's always impressive when someone gets insane performance out of a tiny engine, but no one disputes that a big engine is going to be more powerful than a small one, especially when displacement is the only difference.
    - open_bear 10y ago
      Same story here: used Nikon D40 bought in 2008 is still producing amazing photos.
  - Someone 10y ago
    Now put that camera in your trouser pocket. I bet the difference is like night and day, too. "The best camera is the one you have on you" has made those larger cameras lose out on smartphones more and more.
    - alistairSH 10y ago
      As noted elsewhere, that's the beauty of mirrorless system cameras (Fuji X, Olympus and Panasonic μ4/3, etc). I had a Canon Rebel XT for years, but rarely used it because it was bulky. Great photos, but like you said, if you don't have it with you that doesn't do much good. I picked up an Olympus PEN E-PL6 two years ago and with a standard prime, it fits in a jacket pocket or small bag. Doesn't fit in trouser pockets, but it's small enough to carry around on vacation without being a nuisance. And can still take an assortment of lenses (I regularly use a 9-18mm wide angle and a 17mm prime). My wife uses a Canon S100, which is truly pocketable. And still produces a way better photo than a smartphone (although that gap is getting narrower by the year, especially in good conditions). But, all that said, 80% of our photos are with the smartphones, because they're always with us.
  - pfd1986 10y ago
    Care to share her portfolio? perhaps over pm, if you like. I'm looking for one atm =)
jdietrich 10y ago
I think that Canon and Nikon have been resting on their laurels, in large part because they have the photojournalism market sewn up. They're the undisputed champions of a small and highly visible market, but they have been overtaken in almost every other respect. They don't make the best sensors, they don't make the best lenses, they don't make a compelling mirrorless camera. Canon and Nikon don't have the aspirational appeal that they used to. Their prestige has been badly undermined by the Sony/Zeiss partnership - the best sensors paired with the finest glass. Sigma used to be the cheap option, but they're now producing some of the best primes in the world. It used to be that serious photographers were either Canon or Nikon people, but now they have a lot more choice.
- luckydude 10y ago
  Nikon just doesn't have the money to compete, I'm friends with one of the Nikon glass people, as in the people who make the glass, he's just depressed each time I come over with some great Canon lens (I showed up with the 400mm f4 DO which is identical in size to the 200mm f2, he was stunned they could make a 400mm that small with optics that good). I whole heartedly disagree that Canon is coasting. Years ago they knew that they would make a 50Megapixel camera and they started redoing their lenses to resolve details at that pixel size. Go look at the mark II lenses, the 70-200, the 300/400/600. Go look at the bodies that do 50MP, the landscape people love them. Canon is investing heavily into bodies and glass. That said, I've got the Sigma 85mm ART and have looked at other Sigma glass. Couldn't be happier with the optics, they are still behind in the auto focus speed. If that's not an issue then Sigma is killing it and that's a good thing.
javiramos 10y ago
I think that there might be a new wave of camera companies that might substantially disrupt the high-end Nikon/Canon market. Light is a good example. [1] [1] https://light.co/technology https://light.co/technology

by criley2 10y ago

monkmartinez 10y ago

How many professional sports photographers are there? I guess all those wedding photographers need to look the part with Canon's and Nikon's too. Is that enough to keep Canon and Nikon afloat?

sgt101 10y ago
My wife's a professional wedding photographer, so she's got the glass as you say in the game... I'm a dunce photographer, but I've been taking photos using my phone (like everyone) and I enjoyed it, so one day I picked up one of the DSLR's with a "decent" 85mm lens on it and took a photo. The difference is astonishing - it's night and day. The world is filled with light and depth, colours are like bonfires shadows are like the pits of the deepest mine. But then again I guess that's one data point! It may be that in fact phone cameras are great and I'm just deluded.
- TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
  You're completely correct about the difference. You can't take a photo like that with a phone, and you never will be able to. Because physics and economics. But... that kind of quality costs many thousands of dollars, and it's heavy enough to be a problem. You have to decide the weight is worth it before you head out the door for a day of lens aerobics. The market for people who need/want to do that is tiny. This makes me sad, because I love that look, and I hope it never disappears.
  - iamatworknow 10y ago
    >This makes me sad, because I love that look, and I hope it never disappears. I don't think it will for a long time. There's still a market for film photography, if that's any indication.
    - alistairSH 10y ago
      And there are assorted "retro" cameras on the market. If the Olympus PEN-F were weather-sealed, I'd own one already (instead of my much less expensive PL-6).
- criley2 10y ago
  No, it's not a delusion, it comes down to a few simple things like sensor size. I have an entry level Canon DSLR from 2007, 7MP, which takes far better photos than any smartphone I've ever used. The reason is pretty simple, it has a 1 inch square area for its sensor, while the smartphone sensor is about the size of a small pinky nail (1cm squared or less?) For any given period of time, the larger sensor can capture more light at once, either taking better exposed or faster shots, and having far more data in which to encode a digital images pixels. It's certainly insanely impressive what modern hardware and software get out tiny sensors, but bigger sensors are still incomparably better -- AND can benefit from many of the same advances small sensors use. It's kind of like car engines. It's always impressive when someone gets insane performance out of a tiny engine, but no one disputes that a big engine is going to be more powerful than a small one, especially when displacement is the only difference.
  - open_bear 10y ago
    Same story here: used Nikon D40 bought in 2008 is still producing amazing photos.
- Someone 10y ago
  Now put that camera in your trouser pocket. I bet the difference is like night and day, too. "The best camera is the one you have on you" has made those larger cameras lose out on smartphones more and more.
  - alistairSH 10y ago
    As noted elsewhere, that's the beauty of mirrorless system cameras (Fuji X, Olympus and Panasonic μ4/3, etc). I had a Canon Rebel XT for years, but rarely used it because it was bulky. Great photos, but like you said, if you don't have it with you that doesn't do much good. I picked up an Olympus PEN E-PL6 two years ago and with a standard prime, it fits in a jacket pocket or small bag. Doesn't fit in trouser pockets, but it's small enough to carry around on vacation without being a nuisance. And can still take an assortment of lenses (I regularly use a 9-18mm wide angle and a 17mm prime). My wife uses a Canon S100, which is truly pocketable. And still produces a way better photo than a smartphone (although that gap is getting narrower by the year, especially in good conditions). But, all that said, 80% of our photos are with the smartphones, because they're always with us.
- pfd1986 10y ago
  Care to share her portfolio? perhaps over pm, if you like. I'm looking for one atm =)

jdietrich 10y ago

I think that Canon and Nikon have been resting on their laurels, in large part because they have the photojournalism market sewn up. They're the undisputed champions of a small and highly visible market, but they have been overtaken in almost every other respect. They don't make the best sensors, they don't make the best lenses, they don't make a compelling mirrorless camera. Canon and Nikon don't have the aspirational appeal that they used to. Their prestige has been badly undermined by the Sony/Zeiss partnership - the best sensors paired with the finest glass. Sigma used to be the cheap option, but they're now producing some of the best primes in the world. It used to be that serious photographers were either Canon or Nikon people, but now they have a lot more choice.

luckydude 10y ago
Nikon just doesn't have the money to compete, I'm friends with one of the Nikon glass people, as in the people who make the glass, he's just depressed each time I come over with some great Canon lens (I showed up with the 400mm f4 DO which is identical in size to the 200mm f2, he was stunned they could make a 400mm that small with optics that good). I whole heartedly disagree that Canon is coasting. Years ago they knew that they would make a 50Megapixel camera and they started redoing their lenses to resolve details at that pixel size. Go look at the mark II lenses, the 70-200, the 300/400/600. Go look at the bodies that do 50MP, the landscape people love them. Canon is investing heavily into bodies and glass. That said, I've got the Sigma 85mm ART and have looked at other Sigma glass. Couldn't be happier with the optics, they are still behind in the auto focus speed. If that's not an issue then Sigma is killing it and that's a good thing.

javiramos 10y ago

I think that there might be a new wave of camera companies that might substantially disrupt the high-end Nikon/Canon market. Light is a good example. [1] [1] https://light.co/technology https://light.co/technology