4 ms·

> 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

by 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)
  - slantyyz 6y ago
    It was expensive initially, but prices shot way down when I got my first N1 camera, a J1. I still have a V1 and a J5 in addition to my M43 gear. The tech was pretty good right down to the end of the line. The J5 is a pretty fantastic camera. Basically a Sony RX100 (it is a Sony sensor unlike the Aptinas in its predecessors) with interchangeable lenses. I still prefer the handling of my J5 over my Micro 4/3 cameras. The J5 is what the V1 should have been on day 1. The lens ecosystem was small (I have most of the "affordable" ones), but they happened to be in the focal lengths that matched up to my favorites on my APS-C DSLR at the time. The one thing I loved about the N1 was how small they were. I could carry multiple bodies and lenses in a small bag that would be filled up by one dslr and two lenses.
- chillfox 6y ago
  I loved the Nikon 1, it was small, light, and fit easily in a small handbag with an extra lens. Yeah, it was a bit pricier than it should have been, and their marketing sucked. Instead of trying to sell it as a great camera for people who wanted something small and capable they tried to sell it as the perfect second backup camera for DSLR owners. Which is stupid because the perfect second/backup camera for DSLR owners is another DSLR with the same lens mount.
basch 6y ago
>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 It's worth noting that Sony's cameras are the descendants of Minolta, and the same applies. Any A-Mount (born 1985) lens should work, with functioning autofocus.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Technically, you can get literally any lens except Canon RF and Nikon Z to autofocus on Sony E mount using the LM-EA7 universal autofocus adapter. Though support for long focal lengths is not very good.

by anta40 6y ago

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)
- slantyyz 6y ago
  It was expensive initially, but prices shot way down when I got my first N1 camera, a J1. I still have a V1 and a J5 in addition to my M43 gear. The tech was pretty good right down to the end of the line. The J5 is a pretty fantastic camera. Basically a Sony RX100 (it is a Sony sensor unlike the Aptinas in its predecessors) with interchangeable lenses. I still prefer the handling of my J5 over my Micro 4/3 cameras. The J5 is what the V1 should have been on day 1. The lens ecosystem was small (I have most of the "affordable" ones), but they happened to be in the focal lengths that matched up to my favorites on my APS-C DSLR at the time. The one thing I loved about the N1 was how small they were. I could carry multiple bodies and lenses in a small bag that would be filled up by one dslr and two lenses.
chillfox 6y ago
I loved the Nikon 1, it was small, light, and fit easily in a small handbag with an extra lens. Yeah, it was a bit pricier than it should have been, and their marketing sucked. Instead of trying to sell it as a great camera for people who wanted something small and capable they tried to sell it as the perfect second backup camera for DSLR owners. Which is stupid because the perfect second/backup camera for DSLR owners is another DSLR with the same lens mount.

basch 6y ago

>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 It's worth noting that Sony's cameras are the descendants of Minolta, and the same applies. Any A-Mount (born 1985) lens should work, with functioning autofocus.

sudosysgen 6y ago
Technically, you can get literally any lens except Canon RF and Nikon Z to autofocus on Sony E mount using the LM-EA7 universal autofocus adapter. Though support for long focal lengths is not very good.