18 ms·

Sad to see them go - photography's such a great hobby and having competition in the space is healthy. There's a few brands out there still, but there is a notic

Sad to see them go - photography's such a great hobby and having competition in the space is healthy. There's a few brands out there still, but there is a noticable stigma in the professional community around equipment that isn't Canon. If you're not using L-glass, it feels like you get the same kind of judgement that Android users experience when they show up with green texts in iMessage. As a matter of principle, I've been buying exclusively Nikon for almost my entire time in the hobby. I always saw Canon as a large conglomerate who tacked on photography as another arm of their company, where to me Nikon feels more focused on optics as a primary business line. Honestly, I should almost start buying more Pentax gear. I worry we're slowly approaching a monoculture in photography, but it's hard to convince folks outside of the hobby to care.

chrisseaton 6y ago
> There's a few brands out there still, but there is a noticable stigma in the professional community around equipment that isn't Canon Really? I had no idea (as an outsider.) I thought Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fujifilm, etc were all pretty much equal in terms of serious quality. I thought their DLSs all looked pretty much the same. Is that not the case?
- renewiltord 6y ago
  Huh, it's funny. I didn't know this either as someone who only dabbles. The only reason I bought Canon is that the community has aftermarket firmware. Honestly, I wouldn't buy Nikon or Pentax or whatever just because no aftermarket firmware.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Sony doesn't have aftermarket firmware but the firmware up to the A7ii has been hacked so you can run Android apps and control the camera that way. As far as photography is concerned there's no need for flashed firmware beyond that.
    - renewiltord 6y ago
      Oh interesting, thanks for sharing that.
    - tomduncalf 6y ago
      Have you got a link for more info on the hacked firmware? Hadn’t heard of it before. Thanks!
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        https://github.com/ma1co/Sony-PMCA-RE https://github.com/ma1co/Sony-PMCA-RE Here you go. You can edit the firmware to change read-only settings and install Andrioid apps, with an API to access the viewfinder and to take pictures with various settings as well as access them, and the network.
        tomduncalf 6y ago
        Oh wow, I had no idea this existed. Interesting, I have a RX100m3 and A6000 that can probably run it. On my RX10m4, they removed the apps feature, which I think was probably a good move for Sony despite restricting the feature set - they are really clunky to use (each app takes over the camera and has its own set of settings, takes ages to start up etc.) and the functionality they provide would make more sense either built into the firmware or as a phone app.
        tomduncalf 6y ago
        There are a few projects on Github wrapping the API which the PlayMemories mobile app uses (so you can take photos, access the viewfinder etc), which may be of interest to some: https://github.com/Bloodevil/sony_camera_api https://github.com/Bloodevil/sony_camera_api for example (I’ve not tried any of these)
- rckclmbr 6y ago
  I agree with you, Canon and Nikon seem like the "Costco" brands so maybe while he pointed them out. But Sonys mirrorless are top of the industry. Fujifilm has great cameras. And you cant forget Leica
  - easygenes 6y ago
    Leica is using Sony sensors, so them as a selection is mostly for the name and aesthetic. The UI is more limited and shooting RAW negates anything to do with “color science” selections for the default in-camera JPG encoders.
    - weinzierl 6y ago
      > Leica is using Sony sensors Do you have a source for that? As far as I remember they have been very secretive about their sensor supply chain.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        Some Leicas use CMOSIS, others used Sony sensors. In any case, Sony makes the best sensors by a mile.
    - dllu 6y ago
      They are not using Sony sensors. They are using CMOSIS sensors (which has been acquired by ams). Fujifilm, Nikon, and Panasonic are using Sony sensors, however.
    - lb1lf 6y ago
      -Name, aesthetic and UI. Rangefinder cameras do have their purpose still - being able to see what is going on outside the frame is a great aid, as is its ease of focusing in low light. And, to a lesser extent now that mirrorless cameras are a thing - their unobtrusiveness.
    - greyswan 6y ago
      - Each company has unique glass. - Each company has unique physical control schemes and software UX. - Color profiles allow you to apply the color science to RAW files. Some apps will automatically apply the color profile you select while shooting when you are processing later.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Of course, they are all almost equal, and lately Sony has really been killing it, though the others are getting good at mirrorless too.
- akersten 6y ago
  Past a certain price point, kit from any brand delivers photos and photographic performance that one would have a hard time finding technically wrong or inferior to that of another brand. So by all accounts, we should see a lot of variety in the cameras and lenses that are used professionally. However, take a look at articles like this[0] to see just how prevalent Canon gear is at professional events. Apparently, they even have relations with a lot of press outfits to have them exclusively shoot with their equipment. [0]: https://www.shutterbug.com/content/battle-canon-vs-nikon-super-bowl-canon-runs-score https://www.shutterbug.com/content/battle-canon-vs-nikon-sup...
  - brendoelfrendo 6y ago
    A lot of my friends from school were photo students, and Canon was far and away the platform that they were taught on, as well. Some did shoot on Nikon cameras as a matter of personal preference, but almost all of the school's gear was Canon (until you got to specialized stuff like Hasselblad medium-format cameras).
    - geerlingguy 6y ago
      Almost all photojournalists I knew used Canon (70%) or Nikon (30%) exclusively up until 5 or so years ago. And when you're talking about camera systems, the camera itself (which is where Sony currently has the lead in mirrorless) is not the biggest factor in choosing a brand. Canon and Nikon both have tons of specialist lenses that are still not available (or only have one flavor specializing in one space, at one very high price point) on newer mirrorless platforms. And if you've invested $50k-100k in lenses (e.g. for a photography department) are you going to turn on a dime and dump that gear for new fancy Sony equipment that costs more than your old glass? Likely not. And many PJs still need some of the qualities that you can really only get in top-end Canon or Nikon DSLRs (as someone else said, ability to drive nails with the camera, and huge grip). As a concrete example, imagine if you were tasked with taking footage or stills of one of the protests at night. Would you rather bring a rock-hard large-gripped body that could even be used for protection? Or a smaller body with a screen that would break from a minor scuffle and cheaper plastic, less waterproof construction?
- lb1lf 6y ago
  -Oh, it is about more than just quality - say, a pro DSLR should be able to double as a hammer if you need to drive in a few nails to hang your backdrop from. Also, autofocus should be instantaneous, and should be able to lock on a bat in a coal mine. (It is a bonus if the high-ISO performance of the sensor is capable of freezing said bat in flight using only natural light.) Obviously, I exaggerate for effect - but a pro body should first and foremost be utterly reliable no matter what it is subjected to... (Oh, and it should be compatible with the lenses you already have - as they can easily be a few thousand dollars a piece. Now, that's some serious lock-in!)
  - ISL 6y ago
    For me, the biggest questions are: Can I leave the camera powered on, always? and Can I handle it effectively with gloves on in the snow? Those two questions drive as much of my camera choice as do technical concerns.
    - numpad0 6y ago
      I have a Nikon dSLR that seizes up electrically if left with 70-300 VR attached for weeks. Fixes itself if left with a fresh battery and an 18-55. I wonder how often that will happen with other brands like Alpha.
      - vladvasiliu 6y ago
        I used to have a Canon 40D with a 17-40/4 and later a 17-55/2.8. That camera would only be off when the battery was in the charger. Never had any problem whatsoever.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      I can personally handle my A7ii with gloves, but no you can't always leave it on. I mean, you can, but not for much more than two or three hours.
      - ISL 6y ago
- meowzero 6y ago
  Maybe it depends on the industry? I've dabbled part-time, almost went full-time. Photographers were intrigued I used a Fuji, but they didn't care beyond that. Clients didn't care either as long as you delivered results. And you're right, most high-end photos take amazing photos. There's some variance in their color science, but most can take near-identical photos. I think the main differentiator among the camera is haptics.
  - da02 6y ago
    How come you didn't go into pro photography full-time? What did you do instead? Any downsides to using Fuji ecosystem?
    - meowzero 6y ago
      I was a fashion photographer. I lived in a small market. To take the "next step" I would've needed to move to NYC or another big market. Also, I was getting paid a lot in my day-job to make that type of sacrifice. And it wasn't like I hated my day-job. I'm also risk adverse and not in my 20's to make that huge leap in my life. I also hustled hard and got burnt out. I stopped and started phasing out my clients. I didn't see any downsides to using the Fuji ecosystem. I loved it. Every time I found something that might be disadvantageous in my line of work, they fixed it (eg. Capture One support). In fact, if I were to have upgraded, I would've gotten their medium format camera.
- reaperducer 6y ago
  When I was in journalism, one of the city's big newspapers shot all on Nikon gear, and the other big newspaper shot all on Canon gear. Anything else, and you were a blogger. As a point of humor, the Nikon paper was the working man's paper for city dwellers. The Canon paper was for suburban commuter suits.
mc32 6y ago
The advantage of cannon and Sony is that they are conglomerates and have the resources to develop new tech in-house. With the transition to digital that burden is high for the independents so they’re always playing catch up. If I were buying today I’d likely buy Sony (or perhaps canon), I don’t see a future for the rest. That said I think Canon and Nikon had some kind of IP agreements and shared some technologies, or I may be wrong.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Nikok does have agreements with Sony to manufacture their sensors with some of their tech.
sersi 6y ago
I somehow always had the feeling that serious photographers use Canon and Nikon to a lesser measure for professional work but a lot use fuji for fun :)
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
PascLeRasc 6y ago
I just do analog, but isn't mirrorless the trend right now? All my friends who got into digital photography are using Fuji/Sony/Olympus setups now. Canon/Nikon took years to produce competition there and I really still haven't heard much about them, they seemed pretty underwhelming.
- caconym_ 6y ago
  I love my Fuji gear and I think I get great results with it, but I'm an amateur and while some of it is fantastic by any measure (e.g. the 50-140mm f2.8), I think the performance of the bodies falls short of the higher-end Nikon/Canon/Sony gear, and there seems to be less diversity in high-end lenses with optical performance comparable to the one I mentioned. On the other hand, for "prosumers" who have high standards for image quality but don't want to shell out for a top-of-the-line full-frame setup and don't need extreme AF or low-light performance, I think it's great because you don't end up buying bodies that are compromised in stupid arbitrary ways just to fit neatly into their appointed place in the product lineup. My X-Pro2 cost like $1700 new and it has all the best tech Fuji had to put in a camera at the time. I actually think it's great for people like me that they decided to go all-in on APS-C, and I hope they stick around. My X-Pro2 is probably my favorite camera I've owned in my life and I've had quite a few. My second favorite would probably be my Olympus XA. :(
  - greyswan 6y ago
    I will be so sad if the same thing happens to Fujifilm. Hopefully they have carved out a sustainable niche by focusing on APS-C.
    - da02 6y ago
      They have a diversified set of revenue sources, including pharmaceuticals and makeup (https://www.fujifilm.com/products/skincare/ https://www.fujifilm.com/products/skincare/). Their medium-format cameras are also doing very well from what I've heard on Youtube. I also heard the Angry Photographer (Ken Wheeler) say they are coming out with a theX-H2 next year. It seems FujiFilm will be competing in the ASP-C market for a long while.
noncoml 6y ago
> there is a noticable stigma in the professional community around equipment that isn't Canon. If you're not using L-glass, it feels like you get the same kind of judgement that Android users experience when they show up with green texts in iMessage. Especially for Cameras and Lenses that's solely on user's mind. Your photos speak for themselves. You absolutely don't need Canon or L glass. BTW, maybe you are not up to date with the current developments, but Canon gets a lot of hate and is looked down because of their mirrorless systems. The new king is Sony
- dllu 6y ago
  > Canon gets a lot of hate and is looked down because of their mirrorless systems. The new Canon RF lenses are pretty amazing (albeit expensive) though, and the new Canon mirrorless bodies such as the R5 are shaping up to be highly competitive products.
  - noncoml 6y ago
    Maybe, but your reply only makes my argument stronger, that is that Canon is not the king anymore, as it used to be for DSLRs.
    - dllu 6y ago
      Yes, I am not disagreeing with you. Sony's mirrorless bodies are presently the best and the Sony GM lenses also have the best-in-class image quality, surpassing DSLR lenses. For example the Sony GM 135mm f/1.8 is the sharpest available 135mm lens [1] and the Sony GM 24mm f/1.4 is the sharpest available 24mm lens [2]. Sony's ecosystem also has many amazing third-party lenses. A personal favourite of mine is the Voigtlander Apo Lanthar 65mm f/2. [1] https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/03/sony-fe-135mm-f1-8-gm-early-mtf-results/ https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/03/sony-fe-135mm-f1-8-... [2] https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/08/some-new-wide-angle-lens-mtf-tests-sony-24mm-f1-4-gm-sony-35mm-f1-8-tamron-35mm-f1-4-sp/ https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/08/some-new-wide-angle...
      - 6y ago
foldr 6y ago
No-one who's serious about photography will stigmatize you for the gear you're using. All modern cameras and lenses are more than good enough.
- slantyyz 6y ago
  But a lot of people who self-identify as being serious about photography will stigmatize you for the gear you're using.
  - foldr 6y ago
    Indeed. What usually happens is that trends develop for photos that can only be taken using expensive gear. So for example, when I was a kid and everyone was shooting "full frame", no-one gave too much of a toss about background blur -- beyond the obvious fact that some (easily achievable) degree of it is often useful for softening distracting backgrounds. Now people obsess over paper thin DoF because it's a sign of expensive gear. I suspect it will go out of fashion again in a few years, once smartphones perfect computational blurring.
    - slantyyz 6y ago
      >> I was a kid and everyone was shooting "full frame" Ok, this is a little vague, because are you referring to digital or analog? When I was a kid, everyone was shooting full frame, because, well 35mm was the de-facto standard for film. Although my first camera was a 110 format camera, which is a hair smaller than a 4/3 sensor today.
      - foldr 6y ago
        I meant 35mm film.
        slantyyz 6y ago
        Ah, ok, I wasn't sure if you were and oldster like me or a youngling who grew up in the digital FF era.
ISL 6y ago
To me, the big monoculture risk is Sony's image-sensor fab. As I understand it, Sony, Fuji, Nikon and many others all rely upon the output of one company's manufacturing process. There's a good reason for it -- they appear to make the very best sensors (edit: in terms of dynamic range and noise) in the commercial-camera market. Canon makes their own sensors, which are good in absolute but not relative terms, which appears to hold them back in performance. I don't know if it is patent-related or process-related. While I use Canon imaging systems, I don't see the choice to use other brands as better or worse. Each manufacturer's line has strengths and weaknesses; you pick the best tool for the job. Essentially every camera and optical system on the market, in absolute terms, is a wonderful instrument for imaging. This reality is intensely freeing -- it means you can focus more on the image and less on the instrumentation. "f/8 and be there" is still wonderful advice.
- ksk 6y ago
  I don't think its quite accurate to say Canon sensors hold anyone back. Canon photographers continue to win awards, continue to create world-class images, etc, etc. Canon gear is very well represented in the professional photography community. They wouldn't be using the gear if they couldn't get their work done. There are several gear "measurebators" online arguing about base ISO DR and +6EV exposure recovery, who produce nothing with their cameras. We can safely ignore them :) Sony sinks tons of money in their tech because other companies use them as a factory, so that makes total business sense (and along with samsung and a few others, they do have cutting edge imaging tech). Canon is different in that its much more vertically integrated so it rarely makes sense to drop millions of dollars on sensor fab upgrades unless they're going to make the money back. They have dozens of filed patents on all the technology that the competition is using, so I don't think they're lacking on the IP front.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    >I don't think its quite accurate to say Canon sensors hold anyone back. Canon photographers continue to win awards, continue to create world-class images, etc, etc. Canon gear is very well represented in the professional photography community. I don't think photography is where the concern lies these days. All medium/flagship cameras from major brands today are more than good enough for photography, commercial, sports, landscape, advertising, editorial, or whatever... It's more about the video...
dheera 6y ago
> If you're not using L-glass I use almost exclusively lenses from 20-60 years ago and conveniently avoid all the Nikon vs. Canon vs. Sony, L vs. non-L ridicule and so on. It's kind of nice because when it comes to my equipment people don't know what to ask and then just start talking about actual photography as an art.
ptero 6y ago
I agree with 90% of your points: competition is healthy and sad to see a company go. The market today is a duopoly, with Canon and Nikon as two pillars of high-end DSLR world. This, sadly, is unlikely to change because high quality lenses are very hard to make. Development takes years and the market is relatively small. And as glass, even for a serious hobbyist, ends up being much more expensive than the camera body, the reason to pick a third party body is just not there. The 10% I disagree with is the stigma part. I have never noticed it. Unless you are shooting pro sports from a dedicated area filled with fellow photographers you are unlikely to see people who would know or care what you are shooting with. "A really big camera, much bigger than my cell phone; must be really good" is probably all they think. The reason almost everyone in the Canon world uses L glass is because it is so frigging good. My 2c.
- jagger27 6y ago
  They might control the DSLR space, but they certainly hold no candle to Sony, Fujifilm, and co in the mirrorless space. There’s no shortage of extremely high quality lenses there too. I thought mirrorless cameras were already outselling DSLRs.
  - auxym 6y ago
    Sony's A7 lineup seems to even be starting to take a large bite out of the high end DSLR market. I wouldn't be surprised to see them overtake Nikon soon.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      In terms of new units sold as far as high end cameras, I'm fairly sure Sony has passed Nikon since a good while.
  - geerlingguy 6y ago
    > I thought mirrorless cameras were already outselling DSLRs. In volume, yes. In profit, it's still close, but mirrorless has been closing the gap for a long time. And Sony used to be king of the hill with mirrorless, but Canon and Nikon have quickly caught up and the playing field is a bit more level (even as Sony holds the crown for most of the technical features). The thing is, ecosystems matter a lot past the hobbyist stage and there are still a zillion more Canon and Nikon lenses floating around that people love and use. That said, I now use both Sony (APS-C mirrorless) and Nikon (full frame DSLR), and like both for different things. But I wish I could have my Nikon lenses on my Sony (with no compromise), and wish Nikon made some of the great smaller-sensor size lenses that you can get for APS-C or micro 4/3rds.
ben7799 6y ago
Pros love Canon cause their service stomps all over everyone else, the equipment is just the cherry on top. They're more like a partner in someone's business than just a retailer. Seriously.. their service is so fantastic & easy to work with it puts you at ease shooting with their expensive stuff. I think this has more to do with it than anything to do with sensors or almost anything else when it comes to really serious photography and especially anyone who's running a business. No one is happy to see another option disappear though. I agree with the sentiment that the biggest risk is too many cameras having Sony sensors inside though. Too much of that and at some point they're all Sony, even though the design of the exterior of the camera & the ergonomics can still be major differentiators.
- jychang 6y ago
  This is the biggest factor. Canon Professional Services offer extremely good support for their cameras. Nikon Professional Services are good too, but not quite as good as Canon's. And Sony... is lagging very far behind. Canon also is known for top notch lenses, which is the real core component of a camera system. You may spend $2k-3k for a camera, but as a professional you'd spend much more money on multiple lenses you need that are all $2k+ each, and you'd be using the same lenses each time you replace the camera body. Canon cornered the professional market this way.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- x87678r 6y ago
  Still like these from the Winter Olympics Pro support. Canon: https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2018/02/09/a-look-at-canons-impressive-support-operation-at-the-winter-olympics https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2018/02/09/a-look-at-c... Nikon: https://nikonrumors.com/2018/02/10/this-is-what-heaven-looks-like-nikon-professional-services-at-the-2018-pyeongchang-winter-olympics.aspx/ https://nikonrumors.com/2018/02/10/this-is-what-heaven-looks...
- dr_zoidberg 6y ago
  Some 10 years ago, they refurbished a PowerShot A75 of mine that my father had bought in 2004. 5 years after fabrication, they identified a couple of batches that had been produced with bad sensors, and the cameras affected died a strange death. I had lost all warranty papers, but my local photography shop insisted that I contacted Canon. Had to leave the camera on the official service office, and a month later I had to go and pick it up. The camera was good as new, they even cleaned it up and fixed a few mechanical issues in the lens. No papers needed, it was a Canon camera, the issue was a manufacturing defect, they were practically honor bound to fix it. That day I decided I'd keep buying Canon for a while. Two cameras later, after buying a G12 and a G16 I decided to go for an Olympus OM-D EM-10. The camera is great and I love, but it sure stings to see them leave the market.
anta40 6y ago
> There's a few brands out there still, but there is a noticable stigma in the professional community around equipment that isn't Canon Weird. How do arrive at that conclusion? Typically pros pick Nikon or Canon FF DSLRs. It's very common at least among photojournalists & wedding photographers. Now mirrorless is the hot stuff. Sony/Fuji/Olympus started earlier, and after a few year, Nikon & Canon decided to join to camp. If you are into high end studio/gallery work, you'll use medium format equipments like Hasselblad/Phase One/Fuji/Pentax. An don't forget Leica. At least still historically relevant because their of of the pioneers of 35mm photography. Fine film cameras, but not really sure about their digital ones. I still pick Nikon as my primary system, simply because the lens compatibility: old lens from the 60's/70's work fine on their FF bodies (those pre-AI lenses need to be modified first, though, unless you shoot with a DF). Can't say the same thing with Canon, which historically have different lens mounts (FL, FD, EOS).
- slantyyz 6y ago
  Nikon's first mirrorless cameras were announced in 2011, so around the same time as Fuji's X-Pro1. While a lot of people mocked the Nikon 1 series (because of their strange form factors and handling), they were the only mirrorless cameras that had autofocus nearing DSLRs for several years. They were actually pretty good cameras.
  - csharptwdec19 6y ago
    Nikon 1 hater here. You're not wrong on any of that. They had great technology in even the early models. But... It was all so expensive. So expensive that for a while the perception was that Nikon was pricing it to protect their precious F-Mount lineup. And, maybe they were, which wouldn't have been the WORST idea, because it did keep too many people from buying into the system (which, quite frankly, may not have fared well long term anyway, once the right technology was in place for larger sensors to focus as fast as the 1 series could.) I do also know that some of the system's cost is because the small sensor size necessitated -very- good glass to get good image quality. (Smaller sensor but same MP = higher demands on glass)
arghwhat 6y ago
> I always saw Canon as a large conglomerate who tacked on photography as another arm of their company Just for reference, what is now Canon started purely as a company making camera bodies, using lenses from what is now Nikon (who didn't make cameras themselves until much later). They're a big conglomerate now, but they're a camera company at their core. I would love to support Nikon as well, but affording one good camera system is hard enough. And quite frankly, everyone is suffering. Spreading our bets for the sake of competition can also lead to no single company being sustainable.
- kenhwang 6y ago
  The irony of that statement is that Nikon is part of the biggest conglomerate family in the world (Mitsubishi), while Canon is mostly still a camera company.
notJim 6y ago
It's funny you say this about Canon, because in the circles of photography I inhabit, everyone shoots Fuji, Sony or film. It's fairly rare to even see a DSLR when I'm out hiking, say. But there's also a whole world of things like the Ricoh GR-1. I think overall photography can be larger than we realize, because most of us only spend time in a few areas of it.
_ph_ 6y ago
Important to notice: Olympus is not shutting down the camera business, it is split off into a separate entity. While the furture of that needs to be determined, the camera business stays in full operation.
adjkant 6y ago
I don't have anything constructive to add, but this struck me as too funny not to share: > to me Nikon feels more focused on optics This must be one of the few times in history that saying a company focused on optics is used in a positive way
matwood 6y ago
> but there is a noticable stigma in the professional community around equipment that isn't Canon Weird. The few other camera people I know, and a couple are pros, are all Nikon. They are the reason I went Nikon so many years ago and still use Nikon today.
- nemosaltat 6y ago
  Nikon’s commitment to backwards compatibility is incredible. I can use my father-in-law’s Nikon lens from 1970s on my D3400. Edit: manual only if that isn’t obvious
  - Bud 6y ago
    You can actually use Nikon F-mount lenses dating all the way back to 1959 on modern Nikons. Truly incredible.
    - stan_rogers 6y ago
      Only on the higher-end bodies. You pretty much need to be using a modern AF-S lens on the 3XXX and 5XXX bodies, between the focus drive and the meter coupling, and pre-AI won't work without modification on the 7XXX.
      - matwood 6y ago
        Good point. My first Nikon was a D60, and at the time I had a very cool older 50mm. I had to manual focus, which was actually fun, but no metering would be tough. That combo took some great pictures though.
asenna 6y ago
> .. there is a noticeable stigma in the professional community around equipment that isn't Canon Really? I know this was sort of true a while back but Nikon has definitely caught up. In fact Nikon's D850 smoked the competition at the time and definitely has gained respect even in the Canon community. I believe it's the video market that you might be referring to? Canon dominates this because of their AF system and Sony is now obviously established as well. Nikon and other's have usually been pretty lagging in terms of Video functionality.
lifeformed 6y ago
> it feels like you get the same kind of judgement that Android users experience when they show up with green texts in iMessage. Is this a real thing? Do people actually care about that?
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Oh yeah. Lens snobbery is definitely a thing.
- nitrogen 6y ago
  I've been called out in a group dinner invite for having a green bubble, but they may have been joking. I'm really curious where the concept originates; my guess is some supremely subtle submarine social influencer targeting by Apple marketing.
- otterlicious 6y ago
  To the extent it really did exist as not a joke it was mostly misplaced ire that should have been directed at Verizon, which didn't support regular text messages larger than 160 characters for far longer than was reasonable. (Every other carrier figured it out in the flip phone era.)
noelherrick 6y ago
This must be a pretty localized experience since so many professionals I see use Nikon, Canon, and Sony in sport, wedding, and product shoots. I would even say the opposite-the only judgement I had for camera brand was from a Nikon pro when I was renting a Sony because he knew I already owned Nikon-he tried to make sure I wasn’t considering a switch.
Wistar 6y ago
Odd. I have been shooting Canon professionally for three decades and have always felt that Nikon was the prestige brand. Much of the Nikkor glass is crazy good.
ehnto 6y ago
I see photography gear and companies as more diverse than when I first started getting into the hobby 10 years ago. Maybe I just didn't see other companies, but when I got into it, only Nikon and Canon were doing prosumer DSLRs. Now that technology has moved on and DSLRs aren't the One True Camera, I would say that Sony, Pentax, Canon, Fuji, Olympus and Nikon are all squarely in the prosumer market with a good range from low to high end. I sold all my Canon bodies and L glass to switch to the Sony mirrorless ecosystem, and haven't looked back once.
srndpty 6y ago
When digital cameras first came out everyone thought tech would take over. Then everyone realized the things that mattered about analog photography held true with digital. Lens tech trumped all. That only goes so far though. The giants now are those that had enough of a foot in both. Nikon has their optics, but they're also a major player in lithography. Sony has their Zeiss relationship, but they're also huge into tech otherwise. Keiretsu are neat. No reason to mourn here. Olympus is still big in medical imaging among other things. But even that will probably be Sony in the near future.

chrisseaton 6y ago

> There's a few brands out there still, but there is a noticable stigma in the professional community around equipment that isn't Canon Really? I had no idea (as an outsider.) I thought Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fujifilm, etc were all pretty much equal in terms of serious quality. I thought their DLSs all looked pretty much the same. Is that not the case?

renewiltord 6y ago
Huh, it's funny. I didn't know this either as someone who only dabbles. The only reason I bought Canon is that the community has aftermarket firmware. Honestly, I wouldn't buy Nikon or Pentax or whatever just because no aftermarket firmware.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Sony doesn't have aftermarket firmware but the firmware up to the A7ii has been hacked so you can run Android apps and control the camera that way. As far as photography is concerned there's no need for flashed firmware beyond that.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    Oh interesting, thanks for sharing that.
  - tomduncalf 6y ago
    Have you got a link for more info on the hacked firmware? Hadn’t heard of it before. Thanks!
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      https://github.com/ma1co/Sony-PMCA-RE https://github.com/ma1co/Sony-PMCA-RE Here you go. You can edit the firmware to change read-only settings and install Andrioid apps, with an API to access the viewfinder and to take pictures with various settings as well as access them, and the network.
      - tomduncalf 6y ago
        Oh wow, I had no idea this existed. Interesting, I have a RX100m3 and A6000 that can probably run it. On my RX10m4, they removed the apps feature, which I think was probably a good move for Sony despite restricting the feature set - they are really clunky to use (each app takes over the camera and has its own set of settings, takes ages to start up etc.) and the functionality they provide would make more sense either built into the firmware or as a phone app.
        tomduncalf 6y ago
        There are a few projects on Github wrapping the API which the PlayMemories mobile app uses (so you can take photos, access the viewfinder etc), which may be of interest to some: https://github.com/Bloodevil/sony_camera_api https://github.com/Bloodevil/sony_camera_api for example (I’ve not tried any of these)
rckclmbr 6y ago
I agree with you, Canon and Nikon seem like the "Costco" brands so maybe while he pointed them out. But Sonys mirrorless are top of the industry. Fujifilm has great cameras. And you cant forget Leica
- easygenes 6y ago
  Leica is using Sony sensors, so them as a selection is mostly for the name and aesthetic. The UI is more limited and shooting RAW negates anything to do with “color science” selections for the default in-camera JPG encoders.
  - weinzierl 6y ago
    > Leica is using Sony sensors Do you have a source for that? As far as I remember they have been very secretive about their sensor supply chain.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      Some Leicas use CMOSIS, others used Sony sensors. In any case, Sony makes the best sensors by a mile.
  - dllu 6y ago
    They are not using Sony sensors. They are using CMOSIS sensors (which has been acquired by ams). Fujifilm, Nikon, and Panasonic are using Sony sensors, however.
  - lb1lf 6y ago
    -Name, aesthetic and UI. Rangefinder cameras do have their purpose still - being able to see what is going on outside the frame is a great aid, as is its ease of focusing in low light. And, to a lesser extent now that mirrorless cameras are a thing - their unobtrusiveness.
  - greyswan 6y ago
    - Each company has unique glass. - Each company has unique physical control schemes and software UX. - Color profiles allow you to apply the color science to RAW files. Some apps will automatically apply the color profile you select while shooting when you are processing later.
sudosysgen 6y ago
Of course, they are all almost equal, and lately Sony has really been killing it, though the others are getting good at mirrorless too.
akersten 6y ago
Past a certain price point, kit from any brand delivers photos and photographic performance that one would have a hard time finding technically wrong or inferior to that of another brand. So by all accounts, we should see a lot of variety in the cameras and lenses that are used professionally. However, take a look at articles like this[0] to see just how prevalent Canon gear is at professional events. Apparently, they even have relations with a lot of press outfits to have them exclusively shoot with their equipment. [0]: https://www.shutterbug.com/content/battle-canon-vs-nikon-super-bowl-canon-runs-score https://www.shutterbug.com/content/battle-canon-vs-nikon-sup...
- brendoelfrendo 6y ago
  A lot of my friends from school were photo students, and Canon was far and away the platform that they were taught on, as well. Some did shoot on Nikon cameras as a matter of personal preference, but almost all of the school's gear was Canon (until you got to specialized stuff like Hasselblad medium-format cameras).
  - geerlingguy 6y ago
    Almost all photojournalists I knew used Canon (70%) or Nikon (30%) exclusively up until 5 or so years ago. And when you're talking about camera systems, the camera itself (which is where Sony currently has the lead in mirrorless) is not the biggest factor in choosing a brand. Canon and Nikon both have tons of specialist lenses that are still not available (or only have one flavor specializing in one space, at one very high price point) on newer mirrorless platforms. And if you've invested $50k-100k in lenses (e.g. for a photography department) are you going to turn on a dime and dump that gear for new fancy Sony equipment that costs more than your old glass? Likely not. And many PJs still need some of the qualities that you can really only get in top-end Canon or Nikon DSLRs (as someone else said, ability to drive nails with the camera, and huge grip). As a concrete example, imagine if you were tasked with taking footage or stills of one of the protests at night. Would you rather bring a rock-hard large-gripped body that could even be used for protection? Or a smaller body with a screen that would break from a minor scuffle and cheaper plastic, less waterproof construction?
lb1lf 6y ago
-Oh, it is about more than just quality - say, a pro DSLR should be able to double as a hammer if you need to drive in a few nails to hang your backdrop from. Also, autofocus should be instantaneous, and should be able to lock on a bat in a coal mine. (It is a bonus if the high-ISO performance of the sensor is capable of freezing said bat in flight using only natural light.) Obviously, I exaggerate for effect - but a pro body should first and foremost be utterly reliable no matter what it is subjected to... (Oh, and it should be compatible with the lenses you already have - as they can easily be a few thousand dollars a piece. Now, that's some serious lock-in!)
- ISL 6y ago
  For me, the biggest questions are: Can I leave the camera powered on, always? and Can I handle it effectively with gloves on in the snow? Those two questions drive as much of my camera choice as do technical concerns.
  - numpad0 6y ago
    I have a Nikon dSLR that seizes up electrically if left with 70-300 VR attached for weeks. Fixes itself if left with a fresh battery and an 18-55. I wonder how often that will happen with other brands like Alpha.
    - vladvasiliu 6y ago
      I used to have a Canon 40D with a 17-40/4 and later a 17-55/2.8. That camera would only be off when the battery was in the charger. Never had any problem whatsoever.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    I can personally handle my A7ii with gloves, but no you can't always leave it on. I mean, you can, but not for much more than two or three hours.
    - ISL 6y ago
meowzero 6y ago
Maybe it depends on the industry? I've dabbled part-time, almost went full-time. Photographers were intrigued I used a Fuji, but they didn't care beyond that. Clients didn't care either as long as you delivered results. And you're right, most high-end photos take amazing photos. There's some variance in their color science, but most can take near-identical photos. I think the main differentiator among the camera is haptics.
- da02 6y ago
  How come you didn't go into pro photography full-time? What did you do instead? Any downsides to using Fuji ecosystem?
  - meowzero 6y ago
    I was a fashion photographer. I lived in a small market. To take the "next step" I would've needed to move to NYC or another big market. Also, I was getting paid a lot in my day-job to make that type of sacrifice. And it wasn't like I hated my day-job. I'm also risk adverse and not in my 20's to make that huge leap in my life. I also hustled hard and got burnt out. I stopped and started phasing out my clients. I didn't see any downsides to using the Fuji ecosystem. I loved it. Every time I found something that might be disadvantageous in my line of work, they fixed it (eg. Capture One support). In fact, if I were to have upgraded, I would've gotten their medium format camera.
reaperducer 6y ago
When I was in journalism, one of the city's big newspapers shot all on Nikon gear, and the other big newspaper shot all on Canon gear. Anything else, and you were a blogger. As a point of humor, the Nikon paper was the working man's paper for city dwellers. The Canon paper was for suburban commuter suits.

mc32 6y ago

The advantage of cannon and Sony is that they are conglomerates and have the resources to develop new tech in-house. With the transition to digital that burden is high for the independents so they’re always playing catch up. If I were buying today I’d likely buy Sony (or perhaps canon), I don’t see a future for the rest. That said I think Canon and Nikon had some kind of IP agreements and shared some technologies, or I may be wrong.

sudosysgen 6y ago
Nikok does have agreements with Sony to manufacture their sensors with some of their tech.

sersi 6y ago

I somehow always had the feeling that serious photographers use Canon and Nikon to a lesser measure for professional work but a lot use fuji for fun :)

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

PascLeRasc 6y ago

I just do analog, but isn't mirrorless the trend right now? All my friends who got into digital photography are using Fuji/Sony/Olympus setups now. Canon/Nikon took years to produce competition there and I really still haven't heard much about them, they seemed pretty underwhelming.

caconym_ 6y ago
I love my Fuji gear and I think I get great results with it, but I'm an amateur and while some of it is fantastic by any measure (e.g. the 50-140mm f2.8), I think the performance of the bodies falls short of the higher-end Nikon/Canon/Sony gear, and there seems to be less diversity in high-end lenses with optical performance comparable to the one I mentioned. On the other hand, for "prosumers" who have high standards for image quality but don't want to shell out for a top-of-the-line full-frame setup and don't need extreme AF or low-light performance, I think it's great because you don't end up buying bodies that are compromised in stupid arbitrary ways just to fit neatly into their appointed place in the product lineup. My X-Pro2 cost like $1700 new and it has all the best tech Fuji had to put in a camera at the time. I actually think it's great for people like me that they decided to go all-in on APS-C, and I hope they stick around. My X-Pro2 is probably my favorite camera I've owned in my life and I've had quite a few. My second favorite would probably be my Olympus XA. :(
- greyswan 6y ago
  I will be so sad if the same thing happens to Fujifilm. Hopefully they have carved out a sustainable niche by focusing on APS-C.
  - da02 6y ago
    They have a diversified set of revenue sources, including pharmaceuticals and makeup (https://www.fujifilm.com/products/skincare/ https://www.fujifilm.com/products/skincare/). Their medium-format cameras are also doing very well from what I've heard on Youtube. I also heard the Angry Photographer (Ken Wheeler) say they are coming out with a theX-H2 next year. It seems FujiFilm will be competing in the ASP-C market for a long while.

noncoml 6y ago

> there is a noticable stigma in the professional community around equipment that isn't Canon. If you're not using L-glass, it feels like you get the same kind of judgement that Android users experience when they show up with green texts in iMessage. Especially for Cameras and Lenses that's solely on user's mind. Your photos speak for themselves. You absolutely don't need Canon or L glass. BTW, maybe you are not up to date with the current developments, but Canon gets a lot of hate and is looked down because of their mirrorless systems. The new king is Sony

dllu 6y ago
> Canon gets a lot of hate and is looked down because of their mirrorless systems. The new Canon RF lenses are pretty amazing (albeit expensive) though, and the new Canon mirrorless bodies such as the R5 are shaping up to be highly competitive products.
- noncoml 6y ago
  Maybe, but your reply only makes my argument stronger, that is that Canon is not the king anymore, as it used to be for DSLRs.
  - dllu 6y ago
    Yes, I am not disagreeing with you. Sony's mirrorless bodies are presently the best and the Sony GM lenses also have the best-in-class image quality, surpassing DSLR lenses. For example the Sony GM 135mm f/1.8 is the sharpest available 135mm lens [1] and the Sony GM 24mm f/1.4 is the sharpest available 24mm lens [2]. Sony's ecosystem also has many amazing third-party lenses. A personal favourite of mine is the Voigtlander Apo Lanthar 65mm f/2. [1] https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/03/sony-fe-135mm-f1-8-gm-early-mtf-results/ https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/03/sony-fe-135mm-f1-8-... [2] https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/08/some-new-wide-angle-lens-mtf-tests-sony-24mm-f1-4-gm-sony-35mm-f1-8-tamron-35mm-f1-4-sp/ https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/08/some-new-wide-angle...
    - 6y ago

foldr 6y ago

No-one who's serious about photography will stigmatize you for the gear you're using. All modern cameras and lenses are more than good enough.

slantyyz 6y ago
But a lot of people who self-identify as being serious about photography will stigmatize you for the gear you're using.
- foldr 6y ago
  Indeed. What usually happens is that trends develop for photos that can only be taken using expensive gear. So for example, when I was a kid and everyone was shooting "full frame", no-one gave too much of a toss about background blur -- beyond the obvious fact that some (easily achievable) degree of it is often useful for softening distracting backgrounds. Now people obsess over paper thin DoF because it's a sign of expensive gear. I suspect it will go out of fashion again in a few years, once smartphones perfect computational blurring.
  - slantyyz 6y ago
    >> I was a kid and everyone was shooting "full frame" Ok, this is a little vague, because are you referring to digital or analog? When I was a kid, everyone was shooting full frame, because, well 35mm was the de-facto standard for film. Although my first camera was a 110 format camera, which is a hair smaller than a 4/3 sensor today.
    - foldr 6y ago
      I meant 35mm film.
      - slantyyz 6y ago
        Ah, ok, I wasn't sure if you were and oldster like me or a youngling who grew up in the digital FF era.

ISL 6y ago

To me, the big monoculture risk is Sony's image-sensor fab. As I understand it, Sony, Fuji, Nikon and many others all rely upon the output of one company's manufacturing process. There's a good reason for it -- they appear to make the very best sensors (edit: in terms of dynamic range and noise) in the commercial-camera market. Canon makes their own sensors, which are good in absolute but not relative terms, which appears to hold them back in performance. I don't know if it is patent-related or process-related. While I use Canon imaging systems, I don't see the choice to use other brands as better or worse. Each manufacturer's line has strengths and weaknesses; you pick the best tool for the job. Essentially every camera and optical system on the market, in absolute terms, is a wonderful instrument for imaging. This reality is intensely freeing -- it means you can focus more on the image and less on the instrumentation. "f/8 and be there" is still wonderful advice.

ksk 6y ago
I don't think its quite accurate to say Canon sensors hold anyone back. Canon photographers continue to win awards, continue to create world-class images, etc, etc. Canon gear is very well represented in the professional photography community. They wouldn't be using the gear if they couldn't get their work done. There are several gear "measurebators" online arguing about base ISO DR and +6EV exposure recovery, who produce nothing with their cameras. We can safely ignore them :) Sony sinks tons of money in their tech because other companies use them as a factory, so that makes total business sense (and along with samsung and a few others, they do have cutting edge imaging tech). Canon is different in that its much more vertically integrated so it rarely makes sense to drop millions of dollars on sensor fab upgrades unless they're going to make the money back. They have dozens of filed patents on all the technology that the competition is using, so I don't think they're lacking on the IP front.
- coldtea 6y ago
  >I don't think its quite accurate to say Canon sensors hold anyone back. Canon photographers continue to win awards, continue to create world-class images, etc, etc. Canon gear is very well represented in the professional photography community. I don't think photography is where the concern lies these days. All medium/flagship cameras from major brands today are more than good enough for photography, commercial, sports, landscape, advertising, editorial, or whatever... It's more about the video...

dheera 6y ago

> If you're not using L-glass I use almost exclusively lenses from 20-60 years ago and conveniently avoid all the Nikon vs. Canon vs. Sony, L vs. non-L ridicule and so on. It's kind of nice because when it comes to my equipment people don't know what to ask and then just start talking about actual photography as an art.

ptero 6y ago

I agree with 90% of your points: competition is healthy and sad to see a company go. The market today is a duopoly, with Canon and Nikon as two pillars of high-end DSLR world. This, sadly, is unlikely to change because high quality lenses are very hard to make. Development takes years and the market is relatively small. And as glass, even for a serious hobbyist, ends up being much more expensive than the camera body, the reason to pick a third party body is just not there. The 10% I disagree with is the stigma part. I have never noticed it. Unless you are shooting pro sports from a dedicated area filled with fellow photographers you are unlikely to see people who would know or care what you are shooting with. "A really big camera, much bigger than my cell phone; must be really good" is probably all they think. The reason almost everyone in the Canon world uses L glass is because it is so frigging good. My 2c.

jagger27 6y ago
They might control the DSLR space, but they certainly hold no candle to Sony, Fujifilm, and co in the mirrorless space. There’s no shortage of extremely high quality lenses there too. I thought mirrorless cameras were already outselling DSLRs.
- auxym 6y ago
  Sony's A7 lineup seems to even be starting to take a large bite out of the high end DSLR market. I wouldn't be surprised to see them overtake Nikon soon.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    In terms of new units sold as far as high end cameras, I'm fairly sure Sony has passed Nikon since a good while.
- geerlingguy 6y ago
  > I thought mirrorless cameras were already outselling DSLRs. In volume, yes. In profit, it's still close, but mirrorless has been closing the gap for a long time. And Sony used to be king of the hill with mirrorless, but Canon and Nikon have quickly caught up and the playing field is a bit more level (even as Sony holds the crown for most of the technical features). The thing is, ecosystems matter a lot past the hobbyist stage and there are still a zillion more Canon and Nikon lenses floating around that people love and use. That said, I now use both Sony (APS-C mirrorless) and Nikon (full frame DSLR), and like both for different things. But I wish I could have my Nikon lenses on my Sony (with no compromise), and wish Nikon made some of the great smaller-sensor size lenses that you can get for APS-C or micro 4/3rds.

ben7799 6y ago

Pros love Canon cause their service stomps all over everyone else, the equipment is just the cherry on top. They're more like a partner in someone's business than just a retailer. Seriously.. their service is so fantastic & easy to work with it puts you at ease shooting with their expensive stuff. I think this has more to do with it than anything to do with sensors or almost anything else when it comes to really serious photography and especially anyone who's running a business. No one is happy to see another option disappear though. I agree with the sentiment that the biggest risk is too many cameras having Sony sensors inside though. Too much of that and at some point they're all Sony, even though the design of the exterior of the camera & the ergonomics can still be major differentiators.

jychang 6y ago
This is the biggest factor. Canon Professional Services offer extremely good support for their cameras. Nikon Professional Services are good too, but not quite as good as Canon's. And Sony... is lagging very far behind. Canon also is known for top notch lenses, which is the real core component of a camera system. You may spend $2k-3k for a camera, but as a professional you'd spend much more money on multiple lenses you need that are all $2k+ each, and you'd be using the same lenses each time you replace the camera body. Canon cornered the professional market this way.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
x87678r 6y ago
Still like these from the Winter Olympics Pro support. Canon: https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2018/02/09/a-look-at-canons-impressive-support-operation-at-the-winter-olympics https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2018/02/09/a-look-at-c... Nikon: https://nikonrumors.com/2018/02/10/this-is-what-heaven-looks-like-nikon-professional-services-at-the-2018-pyeongchang-winter-olympics.aspx/ https://nikonrumors.com/2018/02/10/this-is-what-heaven-looks...
dr_zoidberg 6y ago
Some 10 years ago, they refurbished a PowerShot A75 of mine that my father had bought in 2004. 5 years after fabrication, they identified a couple of batches that had been produced with bad sensors, and the cameras affected died a strange death. I had lost all warranty papers, but my local photography shop insisted that I contacted Canon. Had to leave the camera on the official service office, and a month later I had to go and pick it up. The camera was good as new, they even cleaned it up and fixed a few mechanical issues in the lens. No papers needed, it was a Canon camera, the issue was a manufacturing defect, they were practically honor bound to fix it. That day I decided I'd keep buying Canon for a while. Two cameras later, after buying a G12 and a G16 I decided to go for an Olympus OM-D EM-10. The camera is great and I love, but it sure stings to see them leave the market.

anta40 6y ago

> There's a few brands out there still, but there is a noticable stigma in the professional community around equipment that isn't Canon Weird. How do arrive at that conclusion? Typically pros pick Nikon or Canon FF DSLRs. It's very common at least among photojournalists & wedding photographers. Now mirrorless is the hot stuff. Sony/Fuji/Olympus started earlier, and after a few year, Nikon & Canon decided to join to camp. If you are into high end studio/gallery work, you'll use medium format equipments like Hasselblad/Phase One/Fuji/Pentax. An don't forget Leica. At least still historically relevant because their of of the pioneers of 35mm photography. Fine film cameras, but not really sure about their digital ones. I still pick Nikon as my primary system, simply because the lens compatibility: old lens from the 60's/70's work fine on their FF bodies (those pre-AI lenses need to be modified first, though, unless you shoot with a DF). Can't say the same thing with Canon, which historically have different lens mounts (FL, FD, EOS).

slantyyz 6y ago
Nikon's first mirrorless cameras were announced in 2011, so around the same time as Fuji's X-Pro1. While a lot of people mocked the Nikon 1 series (because of their strange form factors and handling), they were the only mirrorless cameras that had autofocus nearing DSLRs for several years. They were actually pretty good cameras.
- csharptwdec19 6y ago
  Nikon 1 hater here. You're not wrong on any of that. They had great technology in even the early models. But... It was all so expensive. So expensive that for a while the perception was that Nikon was pricing it to protect their precious F-Mount lineup. And, maybe they were, which wouldn't have been the WORST idea, because it did keep too many people from buying into the system (which, quite frankly, may not have fared well long term anyway, once the right technology was in place for larger sensors to focus as fast as the 1 series could.) I do also know that some of the system's cost is because the small sensor size necessitated -very- good glass to get good image quality. (Smaller sensor but same MP = higher demands on glass)

arghwhat 6y ago

> I always saw Canon as a large conglomerate who tacked on photography as another arm of their company Just for reference, what is now Canon started purely as a company making camera bodies, using lenses from what is now Nikon (who didn't make cameras themselves until much later). They're a big conglomerate now, but they're a camera company at their core. I would love to support Nikon as well, but affording one good camera system is hard enough. And quite frankly, everyone is suffering. Spreading our bets for the sake of competition can also lead to no single company being sustainable.

kenhwang 6y ago
The irony of that statement is that Nikon is part of the biggest conglomerate family in the world (Mitsubishi), while Canon is mostly still a camera company.

notJim 6y ago

It's funny you say this about Canon, because in the circles of photography I inhabit, everyone shoots Fuji, Sony or film. It's fairly rare to even see a DSLR when I'm out hiking, say. But there's also a whole world of things like the Ricoh GR-1. I think overall photography can be larger than we realize, because most of us only spend time in a few areas of it.

_ph_ 6y ago

Important to notice: Olympus is not shutting down the camera business, it is split off into a separate entity. While the furture of that needs to be determined, the camera business stays in full operation.

adjkant 6y ago

I don't have anything constructive to add, but this struck me as too funny not to share: > to me Nikon feels more focused on optics This must be one of the few times in history that saying a company focused on optics is used in a positive way

matwood 6y ago

> but there is a noticable stigma in the professional community around equipment that isn't Canon Weird. The few other camera people I know, and a couple are pros, are all Nikon. They are the reason I went Nikon so many years ago and still use Nikon today.

nemosaltat 6y ago
Nikon’s commitment to backwards compatibility is incredible. I can use my father-in-law’s Nikon lens from 1970s on my D3400. Edit: manual only if that isn’t obvious
- Bud 6y ago
  You can actually use Nikon F-mount lenses dating all the way back to 1959 on modern Nikons. Truly incredible.
  - stan_rogers 6y ago
    Only on the higher-end bodies. You pretty much need to be using a modern AF-S lens on the 3XXX and 5XXX bodies, between the focus drive and the meter coupling, and pre-AI won't work without modification on the 7XXX.
    - matwood 6y ago
      Good point. My first Nikon was a D60, and at the time I had a very cool older 50mm. I had to manual focus, which was actually fun, but no metering would be tough. That combo took some great pictures though.

asenna 6y ago

> .. there is a noticeable stigma in the professional community around equipment that isn't Canon Really? I know this was sort of true a while back but Nikon has definitely caught up. In fact Nikon's D850 smoked the competition at the time and definitely has gained respect even in the Canon community. I believe it's the video market that you might be referring to? Canon dominates this because of their AF system and Sony is now obviously established as well. Nikon and other's have usually been pretty lagging in terms of Video functionality.

lifeformed 6y ago

> it feels like you get the same kind of judgement that Android users experience when they show up with green texts in iMessage. Is this a real thing? Do people actually care about that?

sudosysgen 6y ago
Oh yeah. Lens snobbery is definitely a thing.
nitrogen 6y ago
I've been called out in a group dinner invite for having a green bubble, but they may have been joking. I'm really curious where the concept originates; my guess is some supremely subtle submarine social influencer targeting by Apple marketing.
otterlicious 6y ago
To the extent it really did exist as not a joke it was mostly misplaced ire that should have been directed at Verizon, which didn't support regular text messages larger than 160 characters for far longer than was reasonable. (Every other carrier figured it out in the flip phone era.)

noelherrick 6y ago

This must be a pretty localized experience since so many professionals I see use Nikon, Canon, and Sony in sport, wedding, and product shoots. I would even say the opposite-the only judgement I had for camera brand was from a Nikon pro when I was renting a Sony because he knew I already owned Nikon-he tried to make sure I wasn’t considering a switch.

Wistar 6y ago

Odd. I have been shooting Canon professionally for three decades and have always felt that Nikon was the prestige brand. Much of the Nikkor glass is crazy good.

ehnto 6y ago

I see photography gear and companies as more diverse than when I first started getting into the hobby 10 years ago. Maybe I just didn't see other companies, but when I got into it, only Nikon and Canon were doing prosumer DSLRs. Now that technology has moved on and DSLRs aren't the One True Camera, I would say that Sony, Pentax, Canon, Fuji, Olympus and Nikon are all squarely in the prosumer market with a good range from low to high end. I sold all my Canon bodies and L glass to switch to the Sony mirrorless ecosystem, and haven't looked back once.

srndpty 6y ago

When digital cameras first came out everyone thought tech would take over. Then everyone realized the things that mattered about analog photography held true with digital. Lens tech trumped all. That only goes so far though. The giants now are those that had enough of a foot in both. Nikon has their optics, but they're also a major player in lithography. Sony has their Zeiss relationship, but they're also huge into tech otherwise. Keiretsu are neat. No reason to mourn here. Olympus is still big in medical imaging among other things. But even that will probably be Sony in the near future.