37 ms·

Nikon versus Canon: A Story of Technology Change

239 points by tomaskafka 9y ago

ubernostrum 9y ago
I'm supposing that this comes up in the context of people complaining about Apple. It's interesting to see an example of a company which basically chained itself to backwards compatibility and a sort of focus-group dedication to what "pro" users wanted, and ended up losing the "pro" market as a result (to a company that willfully broke compatibility and developed something nobody seemed to be asking for).
- tonyedgecombe 9y ago
  I've wondered for a while if we worry too much about backwards compatibility, it must be a huge burden for companies like Microsoft to deal with. Meanwhile Apple seems to almost relish breaking old API's with each new release of macOS and it doesn't seem to hurt them.
  - _ph_ 9y ago
    With cameras of course lack of backwards compatibility means breaking compatiblity with existing lenses. A complete "pro" set of lenses is worth thousands if not tens of thousands. So this is a step to be taken carefully. When Canon retired the FD system, a lot of people were unhappy, certainly hurting Canons business at that time (incidentally, that caused me to swith from Canon FD to Nikon F when getting my first AF-SLR). In the long time, that big step has paid off for Canon.
  - radiowave 9y ago
    There's room for different approaches. Part of the reasons why Microsoft's biggest customers are so is because they value that backwards compatibility. And it's also the reason why they're probably not big Apple customers. (Except of course for ubiquitous management iPhone.)
- Finnucane 9y ago
  Part of the problem for Nikon was that their old lenses were built to last forever, so they did. I just got a new Nikon DSLR, and I've had Nikons since the 1970s. So The fact that I can grab my AI-S lenses (but sadly not the even older pre-AI lenses) and go out and shoot is cool. And I've never felt drawn to Canon. A while ago I did acquire a Hasselblad, but that's a different story entirely.
jasode 9y ago
Some more factors not mentioned in the blog: - Canon came out with Image Stabilization lenses first and had a 3 to 4 year head start on Nikon. (Arguably, Nikon invented VR Vibration Reduction first but they didn't beat Canon to market by making professional lenses immediately.) This started the mass exodus of professionals to Canon and caused the "sea of white lenses" you see at every sports event.[1] - Canon bet on in-house CMOS technology for sensors instead of Nikon's strategy of partnering with Sony (and Kodak). Canon iterated faster on their digital cameras. In 2002, Canon had a very well-received 1ds full-frame digital while Nikon only offered a body for Kodak's horrible Dcs Pro 14n. Nikon didn't have their own full-frame camera until 2007. In technology races, 5 years is an eternity. Although the most expensive camera is never the best-selling product, any leadership position in the top-of-the-line camera can be leveraged and its features can trickle down to the cheaper mass-market cameras. - Canon was the bigger company with other profitable product domains outside of cameras such as photocopiers, video camcorders, printers, etc. (E.g. Canon made the imaging engine for both Apple LaserWriter and HP LaserJet.) This allowed them to plow more capital and investments back into the camera division. Nikon also some other domains such as scientific microscopes and film scanners but they were less profitable. In the film days, Nikon definitely had the perception of being the "Ferrari" of cameras but the shift to digital allowed Canon to take the lead. [1] https://www.google.com/search?q="telephoto+lenses"+sports+events&source=lnms&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q="telephoto+lenses"+sports+ev...
- dng88 9y ago
  It is autofocus not vr ...???
- mozumder 9y ago
  One thing about Nikon is that they've always used a more advanced process technology in its same generation camera compared to Canon. If Canon used .5um, Nikon would use .35um, for example. This always helped with the ISO sensitivity & dynamic range of Nikon's sensors, which were always less noisy than Canon's. The Nikon D3 changed everything, for example, by allowing impossible shots at sensitivities previously unheard of.
  - 9y ago
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Jedd 9y ago
In the Four Thirds, later Micro Four Thirds, world, Olympus and Panasonic played out some of the familiar tropes between these two corporations -- except they (Oly & Pana) had already agreed on the sensor size and lens mount electronics... so it was much less risky or painful to commit to one over the other. In general terms, Panasonic had the better motion video features, Olympus had the better stills, but it was / is pretty fuzzy, and a closely matched feature set. One of my top five favourite blog posts ever is an impassioned rant [1] about digital Full Frame sensors, originally published in 2008 before they became generally affordable (but while they were still very much a fantasy for many photographers who didn't really understand why they wanted one). Updated over the years, and still worth the read. As someone entering the field without a large collection of (by contemporary standards) poorly designed, overweight, ill-suited lenses -- it was a less complex decision to identify the path that most closely resembled an open standard. [1] http://www.digitalsecrets.net/secrets/FullFrameWars.html http://www.digitalsecrets.net/secrets/FullFrameWars.html
- _ph_ 9y ago
  The article is still quite valid. The sensor prices might have come down a bit further than expected, but a full frame camera still carries a substantial premium, especially when compared to µFT. But more important than the sensor prices are the consequences for the lenses, if you compare the sensor formats. The camera companies have solved the problems with vignetting and soft corners by designing a whole set of new lenses[1]. So a 35mm sensor performs nicely with modern lenses, but those lenses are quite expensive and most importantly, vastly bigger and heavier than their ancestors. So while a 35mm system might provide the maximum quality, for anyone with a budget, both financially and transportation-wise, the µFT system is more in the spirit of analog 35mm format, both size and performance wise, while the digital 35mm cameras drift more into the classic medium format field, in performance but importantly also price and size wise. [1] Meanwhile Leica managed to bring their digital M cameras to 35mm, getting excellent image quality even in the corners with a mix out of clever sensor design and in-camera post processing.
  - achamayou 9y ago
    The M8 was an anomaly more than anything else, and probably used an APS-H sensor because Leica couldn't get a 24x36 sensor from anyone. It was a flawed camera in many ways, and they went back to 35mm as soon as they could get a sensor that size on the M9 (from Kodak iirc).
_ph_ 9y ago
In my eyes, over the decades both companies kept leapfrogging over each other. With the T90, Canon probably made the most advanced non-AF SLR, only to abandon the FD-mount. This was a very costy change, which paid of later on, as it allowed Canon to start over without any legacy. Early on, Nikon had the lead in DSLRs, but Canon was the first with a 35mm DSLR. Nikon took a long time to go 35mm, but the D800 and D810 was a big step ahead with its 36mp sensor, only very recently Canon exceeded that with ther 50mp version of the 5D. The next important step for both companies will be the transition to mirrorless technology. As µFT and the Sony A7/A9 are showing, mirrorless is the next step in camera technology. It will be interesting to watch how Canon and Nikon approach this transition. As both companies currently make their money with SLRs, it is a risky step, but an inevitable one. If one of them missteps in that transition, it means at least a big set back if not a complete loss of their role in the camera market.
- detaro 9y ago
  Yeah, Sony is proving to be dangerous. Awesome sensor tech, and lenses that can compete with the high-end of Canon/Nikon's ranges (and Tamron is getting there too), at a point where lens quality really matters if you want to be able to use the pixel density.
  - vanderZwan 9y ago
    > at a point where lens quality really matters if you want to be able to use the pixel density. And this can only become a bigger issue since resolution increases while sensor size shrinks or stays the same. It is an old truism that you should care more about the quality of your lenses than your camera body, and that hasn't really changed.
    - floatboth 9y ago
      > you should care more about the quality of your lenses than your camera body The only problem is low light. My 600D takes fine photos in sunlight or with a flash, but otherwise the sensor noise is awful.
shawnz 9y ago
This is mostly unrelated, but I've had a longstanding question about the camera industry and maybe someone here will know the answer. Why do we keep investing in DSLR technology when mirrorless is obviously superior? Is it just a matter of professional photographers being hung up on old technology?
- mi100hael 9y ago
  A lot of it is due to lenses. Lenses contribute at least as much to image quality as camera bodies. Pros will often have tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in lenses, and glass doesn't go obsolete. But SLR lenses are only compatible with other SLRs with the same mount. So switching to mirrorless isn't just a matter of buying a Sony body instead of a Canon body the next time you want to upgrade. It's also a matter of replacing thousands and thousands of dollars of glass (and that's assuming there are equivalent replacements, which isn't always the case).
  - shawnz 9y ago
    How come it wouldn't have been possible to develop a mirrorless camera that is compatible with the lenses of existing SLR cameras?
    - meschi 9y ago
      It is possible, but SLRs have a bigger flange distance to the sensor, because a mirror has to fit between the lens and the sensor. To be able to use SLR lenses with mirrorless cameras, the mirrorless camera needs to have the same flange distance as the SLR, which would make the camera body bigger. This kills one of the main mirrorless features.
      - blattimwind 9y ago
        Yeah but you can easily add a mechanical adapter, e.g. Nikon sells the FT1.
        9y ago
influxed 9y ago
Ease of use is what hooked me in the early 2000s with the Rebel, so I stayed with it during the switch to digital SLR a few years later. It's interesting that while autofocus is what captured a lot of the market, Canon's current manual-focus lenses are what keep me firmly locked in. Their TS-E line (tilt/shift) can't autofocus, yet is everything I want and more from photography. They iterate more and have more to offer than Nikon's equivalent lens line, PC-E (perspective control). I use my phone to take pictures more often than my DSLR, but "DSLR equivalent" or "DSLR quality" are just silly phrases for a phone until they can shift the focal plane or have super telephoto ability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_control https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_control
- vvanders 9y ago
  Yeah, to me Canon has the edge in lens library which really matters more than the body(unless you're shooting sports). Lenses like the 35/1.4, 85/1.2, 135/2, TS-E family and others just can't be found else where(although some of the Zeiss stuff comes close).
  - blattimwind 9y ago
    I've heard similar comments about the 1.2 stop lenses before, but not one person making them ever used them when they said it. In these cases it is probably the "high end bias" at work: X makes a very good premium Y, therefore I assume their low/mid-range Z is good as well. We see this frequently with CPUs and GPUs: X has the performance crown, therefore for performance, buy X, regardless of price segment.
    - vvanders 9y ago
      So the 85/1.2L is somewhat of a specialty lens(much like the TS-E series) you'll find it's more used for portraits and the like. I've rented it and it's a legitimately an incredible piece of glass(esp considering the problems the 50/1.2L has), I just didn't shoot things enough where I could justify laying out ~$2k for a single lens. I do however own both the 35/1.4L and 135/2L which are both amazing lenses. The 35L is wide enough to be incredibly versatile and the bokeh rendering is sublime. The 135L has awesome reach and one of the fastest focusing lenses short of the big white L lenses which cost 4-5x. Only the 85/1.2L and 200/2L are better at obliterating backgrounds but they each have their own drawbacks. I've also rented the 200/2L and that is also amazing(with a pricetag to match at ~$5k) but Nikon has an equivalent so it's not much in the argument of Canon vs Nikon.
neom 9y ago
imo Canon created and then heavy push into a digital prosumer market. The Canon 300D Kit was priced perfectly to capture mid-market, many in that mid-market went on to become the pro market. My college cohort was the first through the newly created “Digital Imaging and Technology” program(at art school in canada), by the time we graduated (2006), most people had switched to Canon because the CA / Lens Sharpness / AF became demonstratively better. From there it was a natural path to follow 30D > 5D > 5DmkII. Additionally, the Canon prime lineup at the time was fantastic.
yladiz 9y ago
I'm not sure how true this now, but a few years ago the idea was that in general Canon had the edge (and it does have the marketshare) but Nikon was better at low-light, non sports, and had somewhat better quality for the price, whereas Canon was better as sports, video, and had a larger range of lenses. This is why I chose a Nikon D7000 about 7 years ago. If I knew what I knew about my preferences now, back then, I would have gone with something lighter and smaller, like a Pentax or Olympus. If I were to choose today, I'd go with a Sony mirrorless instead since that seems to be where the market is going and Canon/Nikon are slow to catch up to mirrorless cameras. The nicer Sony A series mirrorless cameras are perfect for my use cases (I don't do sports, and generally like low light or underexposing my photos, I'd like to have full frame, and I really prefer something light), whereas fitting these criteria is difficult/not possible with Canon or Nikon, primarily the competing lightness and full frame aspects.
- ilovecars2 9y ago
  I just bought an A6000 mirrorless camera and love it! I’ve had it for a couple of weeks and so far it’s been great. Low light shooting is excellent and 1080p 60FPS video is nice. I don’t care for the integrated WiFi so don’t use it.
  - culot 9y ago
    The a6000 is the value champion. It amazing that they can sell it for $600. That you can get a Sony a7 for only $800 is likewise amazing. Such stellar image quality for so little bank. It'll be interesting to see Canon and Nikon enter the mirrorless camera space in earnest. Hmm.
    - opencl 9y ago
      I bought a NEX-6 for ~$450 4 years ago and am shocked at the total lack of improvement at that price bracket since then. Of course this was right after the price dropped in response to the A6000. The A6000 is definitely nice but actually has a few regressions compared to the NEX-6, with a lower-resolution viewfinder and losing the electronic level.
robotmay 9y ago
My dad always shot Nikon (until recently when he picked up a smaller Fuji thing), but I personally have always preferred Canon for two reasons: 1: Variety of lenses. When I was into photography ~10 years ago, you could buy 4 different Canon 70-200mm lenses; an F4, F4 w/ image stabilisation, an F2.8, and an F2.8 w/image stabilisation. This meant that they had a great bit of glass within multiple different price ranges, and it made it much easier to get into their ecosystem. 2: The menu system on Canon cameras is really logical, for me. Nikon menus have always confused the hell out of me.
- wishinghand 9y ago
  It’s astounding to me how bad the menu systems are for most cameras. It’s a common negative quality I see in reviews for Nikon, Sony. Samsung, Olympus, and Panasonic. I haven’t read any Canon reviews so I’ll have to take your word for it that they’re an outlier.
  - icanhackit 9y ago
    As someone with Canon, Nikon, Panasonic and Pentax cameras I'd say Panasonic have the best menus out there. Their app for remotely controlling cameras is also excellent. Panasonic really seems to understand software and interface design. Their Depth from Defocus and subject tracking technology is also pretty astounding (certainly for stills, though GH users might grumble about focus 'wobble') and shows that they're a technology company in the camera space and can leverage that to make their cameras do things that classical camera companies have difficulty grasping or rely on costly hardware solutions to overcome.
- stevekemp 9y ago
  I agree with those two reasons, and add a third: I've got smallish hands for a man, and the canon-bodies always felt better suited to me for that reason.
  - robotmay 9y ago
    I have large hands and so I've always had to put battery grips on mine, but as that improves the balance with bigger lenses I never minded :D
FiveSquared 9y ago
What change? Canon or Nikon’s DSLR’s have been dropping due to a lack o “breakthroughs” in the industry. If they made a camera with a “smart” setting that adapts to the current conditions, make it easy to use, make it easy to sync with smartphones, and price it at 400-500 dollars, it could be a must-have for Instagram addicts.
- CydeWeys 9y ago
  Many cameras do now have the ability to sync with a smartphone over Bluetooth or WiFi, it's just unrefined and drains battery life. My camera, the Olympus OM-D E-M5 II, can do this with nothing more than an app install on Android/iOS. The battery drain is problematic, though, and it doesn't work unless you shoot in JPG or RAW+JPG! That's right, it won't auto-convert images on the fly just when requested. Since I shoot RAW only for higher burst performance, that means that I don't use this photo, and wait until I get home before posting anything.
  - petepete 9y ago
    Nikon's SnapBridge app is an abomination. There was a recent upgrade that improved things, but it's still unreliable, even for providing the camera with GPS data.
- SwellJoe 9y ago
  The SL2 is almost exactly that (a little out of your suggested price range with a kit lens, but it's a better camera than most people need for Instagram and the like), if a DSLR is even the right choice for that demographic. Every manufacturer has something in that ~$500-$700 range that is similarly competent; I only mention the Canon SL2 because it is the most effective when it comes to being "smart" (the new autofocus system in Canon cameras is by far the best in the market; it's frighteningly good, and much faster than a human operator could be). But, 1080p (or 4k) video, good automatic settings, etc. are all pretty standard across the board from every manufacturer. It's hard to find a camera from a good manufacturer that doesn't work great. But, there are also cameras in your suggested price range that aren't DSLRs that fit the bill, probably better than a DSLR for the casual camera user. A lot of the smart tech in DSLR cameras has trickled down into point and shoot cameras, including good autofocus, white balance, etc. Lens technology has moved more slowly, but the digital part of cameras has been advancing extremely rapidly.
flavio81 9y ago
As a camera nerd owner of many of the cameras mentioned in the article: Canon F-1, New F-1; Nikon F, F2, and F3, plus some Canon EOS cameras, I can plainly say this article is ill-researched and downright silly in places. It thoroughly ignores a big part of the Canon-Nikon war, which started even before the Nikon F was introduced(1959), and attributes -like a fanboy- inventions like "electronic metering" or "Autofocus" to Nikon, where the truth is that neither Nikon nor Canon were involved in inventing such stuff. Comparing the F-1 to the Nikon F by comparing pictures of how big the system looks? That's the most idiotic camera comparison i've ever seen!! The story of Canon vs Nikon is very long, starts in the mid-50s, and in truth is a three-actors story: It is really the story of Asahi Optical (Pentax) vs Nikon vs Canon. For Canon was the direct competition to Nikon in the rangefinder era (1950s-early 1960s), and Nikon was direct competition to the established Pentax in the SLR era. For most of the early 60s, photojournalists either preferred the Nikon F (the "system") or the Pentax (spotmatic and early models). Basically, Nikon(Nippon Kogaku) was an optical manufacturer and Canon was a small shop which did the big feat of building the first japanese 35mm camera. So this first camera was first sold with Nikon lenses, since Canon(Kwanon) didn't manufacture lenses. Then, all through the 50s, Nikon brought a series of very sophisticated rangefinder cameras (& lenses) and Canon brought some very high quality rangefinder lenses. The two rangefinder systems were already competing (!) Canon, in the early 60s, considered rangefinders the better system and didn't think SLR cameras were to be strong competition, that's why in 1959 they released a half-baked effort at a SLR, the Canonflex, just to have something to show off when the Nikon F was released. The Canonflex wasn't even released with a wide angle lens, which shows how little commitment Canon had to SLR cameras. Meanwhile in the early 60s, Asahi Optical (Pentax) already had very refined SLR cameras and a whole array of SLR lenses. The first japanese wideangle lens for a SLR was released by Asahi, not Canon nor Nikon. The Nikon F was the first japanese SLR "system" camera and this head-start made them get more customers than any competitor (save Pentax). The 1971 Canon F-1 camera was the culmination of an attempt that started by Canon in the mid-60s to create a SLR that competed frontally with Nikon. This attempt started first by Canon massively increasing the R&D in camera lenses, culminating in a series of many "firsts" in japanese optics (during the 1965-71 period). Part of this long-term strategy was creating lenses of state-of-the-art performance, which often beat the (then current) Nikkor lenses at magazine reviews. An example is the Canon FL 19/3.5R (1965) which was thoroughly superior to the Nikon offering, another example was the FL-F fluorite telephoto lenses (1968). Another example was the FL 55/1.2 aspheric, the first production standard lens with aspheric surfaces. This was obviously a preparation for the release of the F-1 camera. The F-1 camera was thoroughly superior to the Nikon F and a formidable rival of the (introduced in 1971 as well) Nikon F2. It got accepted and used by professionals, however Nikon had entered that market first. Even today the high value of the F-1 in the used market is an indication of the esteem this camera is held by the collectors. The New F-1 camera (1981) was the direct competitor of the Nikon F3 as well, but that's another story!!
rb808 9y ago
Its kinda like battling about who's best as the whole boat sinks. Its rare to see a compact camera these days and SLRs are slowly disappearing too. I know I've stopped using mine. There will always be pros and some enthusiasts, but I can only see pain for these companies Canon & Nikon will probably limp along but Pentax, Ricoh, Olympus, Fuji will end up like Kodak.
nayuki 9y ago
The history of Nikon vs. Canon reminds me of the following stories. * In the "System Compatibility" section, this talks about how Canon threw out backward compatibility in 1987 (to the chagrin of existing customers), but gained an all-electronic lens mount that eased future expansion and achieved better compatibility in the long run: https://kenrockwell.com/tech/nikon-vs-canon.htm#comp https://kenrockwell.com/tech/nikon-vs-canon.htm#comp * In the "Introduction" section, this talks about how autofocus was superior on the early Canon products than the early Nikon products: https://kenrockwell.com/tech/nikon-vs-canon.htm https://kenrockwell.com/tech/nikon-vs-canon.htm * Nikon's insanely complicated matrix of body-lens compatibility: https://kenrockwell.com/nikon/compatibility-lens.htm https://kenrockwell.com/nikon/compatibility-lens.htm . Whereas on Canon, simply "if it fits, it works".
slr555 9y ago
There is a sales and marketing side to this story as well. Switching costs in photography are quite high if you are invested in a system. Changing systems means selling every lens you own at a greatly depreciated price and purchasing new equivalents at full price. Canon wanted the pro sports market and Nikon was deeply entrenched. 300mm, 400mm, and 600mm lenses that are der rigeur for the sports pro (plus a few others like the 70-200mm) are far more expensive than camera bodies. Canon heavily subsidized the switching costs for key influential pros to get the ball rolling. These incentives were strategically timed to coincide with some of the innovations mentioned in the article. Had they not primed the pump and switched all there big teles to putty gray the battle would have been much tougher. As far as the Nikon vs Canon thing, I remember a Helmut Newton documentary where a tourist hands him an instamatic camera to take a picture of the tourist with the model. Newton obliges and they show the finished shot. Which looks exactly like a Helmut Newton. It's not the hardware....
abakker 9y ago
Can I just say that what I really want is a mirrorless that is shaped more like a pistol than a traditional camera? I have a 5DSR and a bunch of lenses, and don’t get me wrong, it is a fantastic camera...but, innovation in the form factor of cameras would be a welcome change. The existing industrial design is overly informed by the constraints of a roll of film, but, is not either the most ergonomic or the most stable position to hold a camera. We could do much better if we’d give it up. Small size mirrorless bodies really show what’s wrong with the current style, too. They’re difficult to hold on to, and the buttons are virtually all dual purpose. At least the 5D has a nice grip, but with any kind of telephoto it becomes pretty awkward to stabilize. Finally, with a “pistol format” camera, you can extend the viewfinder back from the lens, which can let you keep the existing big lenses and sensors but make an overall smaller package (the components move into the grip). This shallow sensor-lens depth is the main impediment to putting full frame glass and sensors into the standard small size mirrorless bodies. As has been cited elsewhere in this thread, smaller glass with higher density sensors is not a long term solution. Big glass does have a lot of advantages for high end photographs.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >Can I just say that what I really want is a mirrorless that is shaped more like a pistol than a traditional camera? I can see how that would be great for taking pictures at airports and major crowded events -- especially if one is black or middle-eastern... Seriously, what would the improvement be? It would be tedious to hold pistol-like, and more shaky than current designs. And it's not like it hasn't been tried (e.g. old 8mm film cameras were like that). >As has been cited elsewhere in this thread, smaller glass with higher density sensors is not a long term solution. It has already eclipsed bigger glass. And not just smaller glass, but the tiny kind of glass in mobile phones (sub 1"). For most people, that's it, and bigger glass is only for specialists and enthusiasts (trucks vs cars -- for most people the mobile camera is their car, and pro cameras are trucks for limited people). And of course it's only gonna get better -- an major mobile phone with like 1" sensors (plus all the processing advancements inside due to the crazily better than even a pro DSLR/mirroless processor) gonna wipe out what's remaining from the compact market too.
FreekNortier 9y ago
No science behind it but I just like the way a Nikon looks and the way it feels when I hold it.

239 points by tomaskafka 9y ago

I'm supposing that this comes up in the context of people complaining about Apple. It's interesting to see an example of a company which basically chained itself to backwards compatibility and a sort of focus-group dedication to what "pro" users wanted, and ended up losing the "pro" market as a result (to a company that willfully broke compatibility and developed something nobody seemed to be asking for).

tonyedgecombe 9y ago
I've wondered for a while if we worry too much about backwards compatibility, it must be a huge burden for companies like Microsoft to deal with. Meanwhile Apple seems to almost relish breaking old API's with each new release of macOS and it doesn't seem to hurt them.
- _ph_ 9y ago
  With cameras of course lack of backwards compatibility means breaking compatiblity with existing lenses. A complete "pro" set of lenses is worth thousands if not tens of thousands. So this is a step to be taken carefully. When Canon retired the FD system, a lot of people were unhappy, certainly hurting Canons business at that time (incidentally, that caused me to swith from Canon FD to Nikon F when getting my first AF-SLR). In the long time, that big step has paid off for Canon.
- radiowave 9y ago
  There's room for different approaches. Part of the reasons why Microsoft's biggest customers are so is because they value that backwards compatibility. And it's also the reason why they're probably not big Apple customers. (Except of course for ubiquitous management iPhone.)
Finnucane 9y ago
Part of the problem for Nikon was that their old lenses were built to last forever, so they did. I just got a new Nikon DSLR, and I've had Nikons since the 1970s. So The fact that I can grab my AI-S lenses (but sadly not the even older pre-AI lenses) and go out and shoot is cool. And I've never felt drawn to Canon. A while ago I did acquire a Hasselblad, but that's a different story entirely.

jasode 9y ago

Some more factors not mentioned in the blog: - Canon came out with Image Stabilization lenses first and had a 3 to 4 year head start on Nikon. (Arguably, Nikon invented VR Vibration Reduction first but they didn't beat Canon to market by making professional lenses immediately.) This started the mass exodus of professionals to Canon and caused the "sea of white lenses" you see at every sports event.[1] - Canon bet on in-house CMOS technology for sensors instead of Nikon's strategy of partnering with Sony (and Kodak). Canon iterated faster on their digital cameras. In 2002, Canon had a very well-received 1ds full-frame digital while Nikon only offered a body for Kodak's horrible Dcs Pro 14n. Nikon didn't have their own full-frame camera until 2007. In technology races, 5 years is an eternity. Although the most expensive camera is never the best-selling product, any leadership position in the top-of-the-line camera can be leveraged and its features can trickle down to the cheaper mass-market cameras. - Canon was the bigger company with other profitable product domains outside of cameras such as photocopiers, video camcorders, printers, etc. (E.g. Canon made the imaging engine for both Apple LaserWriter and HP LaserJet.) This allowed them to plow more capital and investments back into the camera division. Nikon also some other domains such as scientific microscopes and film scanners but they were less profitable. In the film days, Nikon definitely had the perception of being the "Ferrari" of cameras but the shift to digital allowed Canon to take the lead. [1] https://www.google.com/search?q="telephoto+lenses"+sports+events&source=lnms&tbm=isch https://www.google.com/search?q="telephoto+lenses"+sports+ev...

dng88 9y ago
It is autofocus not vr ...???
mozumder 9y ago
One thing about Nikon is that they've always used a more advanced process technology in its same generation camera compared to Canon. If Canon used .5um, Nikon would use .35um, for example. This always helped with the ISO sensitivity & dynamic range of Nikon's sensors, which were always less noisy than Canon's. The Nikon D3 changed everything, for example, by allowing impossible shots at sensitivities previously unheard of.
- 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Jedd 9y ago

In the Four Thirds, later Micro Four Thirds, world, Olympus and Panasonic played out some of the familiar tropes between these two corporations -- except they (Oly & Pana) had already agreed on the sensor size and lens mount electronics... so it was much less risky or painful to commit to one over the other. In general terms, Panasonic had the better motion video features, Olympus had the better stills, but it was / is pretty fuzzy, and a closely matched feature set. One of my top five favourite blog posts ever is an impassioned rant [1] about digital Full Frame sensors, originally published in 2008 before they became generally affordable (but while they were still very much a fantasy for many photographers who didn't really understand why they wanted one). Updated over the years, and still worth the read. As someone entering the field without a large collection of (by contemporary standards) poorly designed, overweight, ill-suited lenses -- it was a less complex decision to identify the path that most closely resembled an open standard. [1] http://www.digitalsecrets.net/secrets/FullFrameWars.html http://www.digitalsecrets.net/secrets/FullFrameWars.html

_ph_ 9y ago
The article is still quite valid. The sensor prices might have come down a bit further than expected, but a full frame camera still carries a substantial premium, especially when compared to µFT. But more important than the sensor prices are the consequences for the lenses, if you compare the sensor formats. The camera companies have solved the problems with vignetting and soft corners by designing a whole set of new lenses[1]. So a 35mm sensor performs nicely with modern lenses, but those lenses are quite expensive and most importantly, vastly bigger and heavier than their ancestors. So while a 35mm system might provide the maximum quality, for anyone with a budget, both financially and transportation-wise, the µFT system is more in the spirit of analog 35mm format, both size and performance wise, while the digital 35mm cameras drift more into the classic medium format field, in performance but importantly also price and size wise. [1] Meanwhile Leica managed to bring their digital M cameras to 35mm, getting excellent image quality even in the corners with a mix out of clever sensor design and in-camera post processing.
- achamayou 9y ago
  The M8 was an anomaly more than anything else, and probably used an APS-H sensor because Leica couldn't get a 24x36 sensor from anyone. It was a flawed camera in many ways, and they went back to 35mm as soon as they could get a sensor that size on the M9 (from Kodak iirc).

_ph_ 9y ago

In my eyes, over the decades both companies kept leapfrogging over each other. With the T90, Canon probably made the most advanced non-AF SLR, only to abandon the FD-mount. This was a very costy change, which paid of later on, as it allowed Canon to start over without any legacy. Early on, Nikon had the lead in DSLRs, but Canon was the first with a 35mm DSLR. Nikon took a long time to go 35mm, but the D800 and D810 was a big step ahead with its 36mp sensor, only very recently Canon exceeded that with ther 50mp version of the 5D. The next important step for both companies will be the transition to mirrorless technology. As µFT and the Sony A7/A9 are showing, mirrorless is the next step in camera technology. It will be interesting to watch how Canon and Nikon approach this transition. As both companies currently make their money with SLRs, it is a risky step, but an inevitable one. If one of them missteps in that transition, it means at least a big set back if not a complete loss of their role in the camera market.

detaro 9y ago
Yeah, Sony is proving to be dangerous. Awesome sensor tech, and lenses that can compete with the high-end of Canon/Nikon's ranges (and Tamron is getting there too), at a point where lens quality really matters if you want to be able to use the pixel density.
- vanderZwan 9y ago
  > at a point where lens quality really matters if you want to be able to use the pixel density. And this can only become a bigger issue since resolution increases while sensor size shrinks or stays the same. It is an old truism that you should care more about the quality of your lenses than your camera body, and that hasn't really changed.
  - floatboth 9y ago
    > you should care more about the quality of your lenses than your camera body The only problem is low light. My 600D takes fine photos in sunlight or with a flash, but otherwise the sensor noise is awful.

shawnz 9y ago

This is mostly unrelated, but I've had a longstanding question about the camera industry and maybe someone here will know the answer. Why do we keep investing in DSLR technology when mirrorless is obviously superior? Is it just a matter of professional photographers being hung up on old technology?

mi100hael 9y ago
A lot of it is due to lenses. Lenses contribute at least as much to image quality as camera bodies. Pros will often have tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in lenses, and glass doesn't go obsolete. But SLR lenses are only compatible with other SLRs with the same mount. So switching to mirrorless isn't just a matter of buying a Sony body instead of a Canon body the next time you want to upgrade. It's also a matter of replacing thousands and thousands of dollars of glass (and that's assuming there are equivalent replacements, which isn't always the case).
- shawnz 9y ago
  How come it wouldn't have been possible to develop a mirrorless camera that is compatible with the lenses of existing SLR cameras?
  - meschi 9y ago
    It is possible, but SLRs have a bigger flange distance to the sensor, because a mirror has to fit between the lens and the sensor. To be able to use SLR lenses with mirrorless cameras, the mirrorless camera needs to have the same flange distance as the SLR, which would make the camera body bigger. This kills one of the main mirrorless features.
    - blattimwind 9y ago
      Yeah but you can easily add a mechanical adapter, e.g. Nikon sells the FT1.
      - 9y ago

influxed 9y ago

Ease of use is what hooked me in the early 2000s with the Rebel, so I stayed with it during the switch to digital SLR a few years later. It's interesting that while autofocus is what captured a lot of the market, Canon's current manual-focus lenses are what keep me firmly locked in. Their TS-E line (tilt/shift) can't autofocus, yet is everything I want and more from photography. They iterate more and have more to offer than Nikon's equivalent lens line, PC-E (perspective control). I use my phone to take pictures more often than my DSLR, but "DSLR equivalent" or "DSLR quality" are just silly phrases for a phone until they can shift the focal plane or have super telephoto ability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_control https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_control

vvanders 9y ago
Yeah, to me Canon has the edge in lens library which really matters more than the body(unless you're shooting sports). Lenses like the 35/1.4, 85/1.2, 135/2, TS-E family and others just can't be found else where(although some of the Zeiss stuff comes close).
- blattimwind 9y ago
  I've heard similar comments about the 1.2 stop lenses before, but not one person making them ever used them when they said it. In these cases it is probably the "high end bias" at work: X makes a very good premium Y, therefore I assume their low/mid-range Z is good as well. We see this frequently with CPUs and GPUs: X has the performance crown, therefore for performance, buy X, regardless of price segment.
  - vvanders 9y ago
    So the 85/1.2L is somewhat of a specialty lens(much like the TS-E series) you'll find it's more used for portraits and the like. I've rented it and it's a legitimately an incredible piece of glass(esp considering the problems the 50/1.2L has), I just didn't shoot things enough where I could justify laying out ~$2k for a single lens. I do however own both the 35/1.4L and 135/2L which are both amazing lenses. The 35L is wide enough to be incredibly versatile and the bokeh rendering is sublime. The 135L has awesome reach and one of the fastest focusing lenses short of the big white L lenses which cost 4-5x. Only the 85/1.2L and 200/2L are better at obliterating backgrounds but they each have their own drawbacks. I've also rented the 200/2L and that is also amazing(with a pricetag to match at ~$5k) but Nikon has an equivalent so it's not much in the argument of Canon vs Nikon.

neom 9y ago

imo Canon created and then heavy push into a digital prosumer market. The Canon 300D Kit was priced perfectly to capture mid-market, many in that mid-market went on to become the pro market. My college cohort was the first through the newly created “Digital Imaging and Technology” program(at art school in canada), by the time we graduated (2006), most people had switched to Canon because the CA / Lens Sharpness / AF became demonstratively better. From there it was a natural path to follow 30D > 5D > 5DmkII. Additionally, the Canon prime lineup at the time was fantastic.

yladiz 9y ago

I'm not sure how true this now, but a few years ago the idea was that in general Canon had the edge (and it does have the marketshare) but Nikon was better at low-light, non sports, and had somewhat better quality for the price, whereas Canon was better as sports, video, and had a larger range of lenses. This is why I chose a Nikon D7000 about 7 years ago. If I knew what I knew about my preferences now, back then, I would have gone with something lighter and smaller, like a Pentax or Olympus. If I were to choose today, I'd go with a Sony mirrorless instead since that seems to be where the market is going and Canon/Nikon are slow to catch up to mirrorless cameras. The nicer Sony A series mirrorless cameras are perfect for my use cases (I don't do sports, and generally like low light or underexposing my photos, I'd like to have full frame, and I really prefer something light), whereas fitting these criteria is difficult/not possible with Canon or Nikon, primarily the competing lightness and full frame aspects.

ilovecars2 9y ago
I just bought an A6000 mirrorless camera and love it! I’ve had it for a couple of weeks and so far it’s been great. Low light shooting is excellent and 1080p 60FPS video is nice. I don’t care for the integrated WiFi so don’t use it.
- culot 9y ago
  The a6000 is the value champion. It amazing that they can sell it for $600. That you can get a Sony a7 for only $800 is likewise amazing. Such stellar image quality for so little bank. It'll be interesting to see Canon and Nikon enter the mirrorless camera space in earnest. Hmm.
  - opencl 9y ago
    I bought a NEX-6 for ~$450 4 years ago and am shocked at the total lack of improvement at that price bracket since then. Of course this was right after the price dropped in response to the A6000. The A6000 is definitely nice but actually has a few regressions compared to the NEX-6, with a lower-resolution viewfinder and losing the electronic level.

robotmay 9y ago

My dad always shot Nikon (until recently when he picked up a smaller Fuji thing), but I personally have always preferred Canon for two reasons: 1: Variety of lenses. When I was into photography ~10 years ago, you could buy 4 different Canon 70-200mm lenses; an F4, F4 w/ image stabilisation, an F2.8, and an F2.8 w/image stabilisation. This meant that they had a great bit of glass within multiple different price ranges, and it made it much easier to get into their ecosystem. 2: The menu system on Canon cameras is really logical, for me. Nikon menus have always confused the hell out of me.

wishinghand 9y ago
It’s astounding to me how bad the menu systems are for most cameras. It’s a common negative quality I see in reviews for Nikon, Sony. Samsung, Olympus, and Panasonic. I haven’t read any Canon reviews so I’ll have to take your word for it that they’re an outlier.
- icanhackit 9y ago
  As someone with Canon, Nikon, Panasonic and Pentax cameras I'd say Panasonic have the best menus out there. Their app for remotely controlling cameras is also excellent. Panasonic really seems to understand software and interface design. Their Depth from Defocus and subject tracking technology is also pretty astounding (certainly for stills, though GH users might grumble about focus 'wobble') and shows that they're a technology company in the camera space and can leverage that to make their cameras do things that classical camera companies have difficulty grasping or rely on costly hardware solutions to overcome.
stevekemp 9y ago
I agree with those two reasons, and add a third: I've got smallish hands for a man, and the canon-bodies always felt better suited to me for that reason.
- robotmay 9y ago
  I have large hands and so I've always had to put battery grips on mine, but as that improves the balance with bigger lenses I never minded :D

FiveSquared 9y ago

What change? Canon or Nikon’s DSLR’s have been dropping due to a lack o “breakthroughs” in the industry. If they made a camera with a “smart” setting that adapts to the current conditions, make it easy to use, make it easy to sync with smartphones, and price it at 400-500 dollars, it could be a must-have for Instagram addicts.

CydeWeys 9y ago
Many cameras do now have the ability to sync with a smartphone over Bluetooth or WiFi, it's just unrefined and drains battery life. My camera, the Olympus OM-D E-M5 II, can do this with nothing more than an app install on Android/iOS. The battery drain is problematic, though, and it doesn't work unless you shoot in JPG or RAW+JPG! That's right, it won't auto-convert images on the fly just when requested. Since I shoot RAW only for higher burst performance, that means that I don't use this photo, and wait until I get home before posting anything.
- petepete 9y ago
  Nikon's SnapBridge app is an abomination. There was a recent upgrade that improved things, but it's still unreliable, even for providing the camera with GPS data.
SwellJoe 9y ago
The SL2 is almost exactly that (a little out of your suggested price range with a kit lens, but it's a better camera than most people need for Instagram and the like), if a DSLR is even the right choice for that demographic. Every manufacturer has something in that ~$500-$700 range that is similarly competent; I only mention the Canon SL2 because it is the most effective when it comes to being "smart" (the new autofocus system in Canon cameras is by far the best in the market; it's frighteningly good, and much faster than a human operator could be). But, 1080p (or 4k) video, good automatic settings, etc. are all pretty standard across the board from every manufacturer. It's hard to find a camera from a good manufacturer that doesn't work great. But, there are also cameras in your suggested price range that aren't DSLRs that fit the bill, probably better than a DSLR for the casual camera user. A lot of the smart tech in DSLR cameras has trickled down into point and shoot cameras, including good autofocus, white balance, etc. Lens technology has moved more slowly, but the digital part of cameras has been advancing extremely rapidly.

flavio81 9y ago

As a camera nerd owner of many of the cameras mentioned in the article: Canon F-1, New F-1; Nikon F, F2, and F3, plus some Canon EOS cameras, I can plainly say this article is ill-researched and downright silly in places. It thoroughly ignores a big part of the Canon-Nikon war, which started even before the Nikon F was introduced(1959), and attributes -like a fanboy- inventions like "electronic metering" or "Autofocus" to Nikon, where the truth is that neither Nikon nor Canon were involved in inventing such stuff. Comparing the F-1 to the Nikon F by comparing pictures of how big the system looks? That's the most idiotic camera comparison i've ever seen!! The story of Canon vs Nikon is very long, starts in the mid-50s, and in truth is a three-actors story: It is really the story of Asahi Optical (Pentax) vs Nikon vs Canon. For Canon was the direct competition to Nikon in the rangefinder era (1950s-early 1960s), and Nikon was direct competition to the established Pentax in the SLR era. For most of the early 60s, photojournalists either preferred the Nikon F (the "system") or the Pentax (spotmatic and early models). Basically, Nikon(Nippon Kogaku) was an optical manufacturer and Canon was a small shop which did the big feat of building the first japanese 35mm camera. So this first camera was first sold with Nikon lenses, since Canon(Kwanon) didn't manufacture lenses. Then, all through the 50s, Nikon brought a series of very sophisticated rangefinder cameras (& lenses) and Canon brought some very high quality rangefinder lenses. The two rangefinder systems were already competing (!) Canon, in the early 60s, considered rangefinders the better system and didn't think SLR cameras were to be strong competition, that's why in 1959 they released a half-baked effort at a SLR, the Canonflex, just to have something to show off when the Nikon F was released. The Canonflex wasn't even released with a wide angle lens, which shows how little commitment Canon had to SLR cameras. Meanwhile in the early 60s, Asahi Optical (Pentax) already had very refined SLR cameras and a whole array of SLR lenses. The first japanese wideangle lens for a SLR was released by Asahi, not Canon nor Nikon. The Nikon F was the first japanese SLR "system" camera and this head-start made them get more customers than any competitor (save Pentax). The 1971 Canon F-1 camera was the culmination of an attempt that started by Canon in the mid-60s to create a SLR that competed frontally with Nikon. This attempt started first by Canon massively increasing the R&D in camera lenses, culminating in a series of many "firsts" in japanese optics (during the 1965-71 period). Part of this long-term strategy was creating lenses of state-of-the-art performance, which often beat the (then current) Nikkor lenses at magazine reviews. An example is the Canon FL 19/3.5R (1965) which was thoroughly superior to the Nikon offering, another example was the FL-F fluorite telephoto lenses (1968). Another example was the FL 55/1.2 aspheric, the first production standard lens with aspheric surfaces. This was obviously a preparation for the release of the F-1 camera. The F-1 camera was thoroughly superior to the Nikon F and a formidable rival of the (introduced in 1971 as well) Nikon F2. It got accepted and used by professionals, however Nikon had entered that market first. Even today the high value of the F-1 in the used market is an indication of the esteem this camera is held by the collectors. The New F-1 camera (1981) was the direct competitor of the Nikon F3 as well, but that's another story!!

rb808 9y ago

Its kinda like battling about who's best as the whole boat sinks. Its rare to see a compact camera these days and SLRs are slowly disappearing too. I know I've stopped using mine. There will always be pros and some enthusiasts, but I can only see pain for these companies Canon & Nikon will probably limp along but Pentax, Ricoh, Olympus, Fuji will end up like Kodak.

nayuki 9y ago

The history of Nikon vs. Canon reminds me of the following stories. * In the "System Compatibility" section, this talks about how Canon threw out backward compatibility in 1987 (to the chagrin of existing customers), but gained an all-electronic lens mount that eased future expansion and achieved better compatibility in the long run: https://kenrockwell.com/tech/nikon-vs-canon.htm#comp https://kenrockwell.com/tech/nikon-vs-canon.htm#comp * In the "Introduction" section, this talks about how autofocus was superior on the early Canon products than the early Nikon products: https://kenrockwell.com/tech/nikon-vs-canon.htm https://kenrockwell.com/tech/nikon-vs-canon.htm * Nikon's insanely complicated matrix of body-lens compatibility: https://kenrockwell.com/nikon/compatibility-lens.htm https://kenrockwell.com/nikon/compatibility-lens.htm . Whereas on Canon, simply "if it fits, it works".

slr555 9y ago

There is a sales and marketing side to this story as well. Switching costs in photography are quite high if you are invested in a system. Changing systems means selling every lens you own at a greatly depreciated price and purchasing new equivalents at full price. Canon wanted the pro sports market and Nikon was deeply entrenched. 300mm, 400mm, and 600mm lenses that are der rigeur for the sports pro (plus a few others like the 70-200mm) are far more expensive than camera bodies. Canon heavily subsidized the switching costs for key influential pros to get the ball rolling. These incentives were strategically timed to coincide with some of the innovations mentioned in the article. Had they not primed the pump and switched all there big teles to putty gray the battle would have been much tougher. As far as the Nikon vs Canon thing, I remember a Helmut Newton documentary where a tourist hands him an instamatic camera to take a picture of the tourist with the model. Newton obliges and they show the finished shot. Which looks exactly like a Helmut Newton. It's not the hardware....

abakker 9y ago

Can I just say that what I really want is a mirrorless that is shaped more like a pistol than a traditional camera? I have a 5DSR and a bunch of lenses, and don’t get me wrong, it is a fantastic camera...but, innovation in the form factor of cameras would be a welcome change. The existing industrial design is overly informed by the constraints of a roll of film, but, is not either the most ergonomic or the most stable position to hold a camera. We could do much better if we’d give it up. Small size mirrorless bodies really show what’s wrong with the current style, too. They’re difficult to hold on to, and the buttons are virtually all dual purpose. At least the 5D has a nice grip, but with any kind of telephoto it becomes pretty awkward to stabilize. Finally, with a “pistol format” camera, you can extend the viewfinder back from the lens, which can let you keep the existing big lenses and sensors but make an overall smaller package (the components move into the grip). This shallow sensor-lens depth is the main impediment to putting full frame glass and sensors into the standard small size mirrorless bodies. As has been cited elsewhere in this thread, smaller glass with higher density sensors is not a long term solution. Big glass does have a lot of advantages for high end photographs.

coldtea 9y ago
>Can I just say that what I really want is a mirrorless that is shaped more like a pistol than a traditional camera? I can see how that would be great for taking pictures at airports and major crowded events -- especially if one is black or middle-eastern... Seriously, what would the improvement be? It would be tedious to hold pistol-like, and more shaky than current designs. And it's not like it hasn't been tried (e.g. old 8mm film cameras were like that). >As has been cited elsewhere in this thread, smaller glass with higher density sensors is not a long term solution. It has already eclipsed bigger glass. And not just smaller glass, but the tiny kind of glass in mobile phones (sub 1"). For most people, that's it, and bigger glass is only for specialists and enthusiasts (trucks vs cars -- for most people the mobile camera is their car, and pro cameras are trucks for limited people). And of course it's only gonna get better -- an major mobile phone with like 1" sensors (plus all the processing advancements inside due to the crazily better than even a pro DSLR/mirroless processor) gonna wipe out what's remaining from the compact market too.

FreekNortier 9y ago

No science behind it but I just like the way a Nikon looks and the way it feels when I hold it.