Market shares for 35mm SLR pro or semi-pro

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Ruman, Oct 3, 2005.

  1. Ruman

    Paul Bielec Guest

    That's what I always seem to hear from Nikon users ;-)
    Anyway, to me, choosing between Nikon and Canon is like choosing between
    Toyota and Honda. I know that Toyota is as good but I prefer Honda.
    Paul Bielec, Oct 5, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Ruman

    Paul Bielec Guest

    I like taking candid shots at a wedding. I did it for friends and
    family. They were really happy to get 200 or 300 unformal shots from
    their wedding.
    Paul Bielec, Oct 5, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Ruman

    Sander Vesik Guest

    Then AFAIC you have painted yourself into an inconvinienet corner.
    Especially if you have to make your equipment decisions based on
    what you also have (or perceive to have) to use for work.
    Sander Vesik, Oct 5, 2005
  4. Ruman

    Sander Vesik Guest

    For me it was Nikon vs Pentax choice and I'm not entirely sure how
    happy I am in the long run over having chosen Nikon.
    Sander Vesik, Oct 5, 2005
  5. Ruman

    columbotrek Guest

    So then does the argument for Canon and Digital vs another and film come
    down to whats best for the side lines of some sports show? How narrow
    and sad. My experience with photography does not include work flow,
    uploading to editors, or sports of any kind. Well maybe Air Shows. But
    its for my own pleasure and not some one else. I find that film
    supports my style and needs quite nicely. For me digital is only for
    email and ebay. For that I have a nice 3Mp Sony or I scan a neg or
    chrome to 1024 X 768 or less. This concept that I find Digital useful
    to me so all other formats are useless is very odd indeed. Not very
    open minded at all. Perhaps it helps rationalize the expenditure of
    thousands on new equipment every few years to save a few hundred on film
    and processing costs each year. Does not compute for me.
    columbotrek, Oct 5, 2005
  6. Ruman

    no_name Guest

    How is doing something that pays your bills (and lets you hone your
    skills), leaving you otherwise free to make the kind of photographs you
    want to make inconvenient?

    So I might work weekends ... leaves the weeks free to travel ... I'm
    there when the amatuers are working. That's 2 days for the customer & 5
    days for myself.

    You assume, without any supporting evidence, that my equipment decisions
    are made solely on what I might use for one facet of my work? It
    actually works the other way around; I'm look for the kinds of
    photographic work that will allow me to use the equipment I wanted anyway.

    You don't want to photograph weddings, don't. But don't look down your
    nose at those who do.
    no_name, Oct 5, 2005
  7. Ruman

    Annika1980 Guest

    Ah yes, the sports arena. That's about the only area they seem to
    Then why do you suppose that most pros (even former Nikon shooters)
    use Canon? You think those Nikon guys just ditched their old Nikons
    because of some advertising hype?
    Nope, they did it because Canon Rules and Nikon Drools.
    It has everything to do with performance, you dolt!

    As Skip points out, many old Nikon shooters still use their ugly black
    lenses in less taxing fields where any old 35mm will do.
    Annika1980, Oct 6, 2005
  8. Ruman

    Skip M Guest

    Here's an equipment decision we made based on our requirements for our
    business: We bought two Canon 5D bodies. Now, explain to me how that is
    painting us into a corner, inconvenient or otherwise.
    Skip M, Oct 6, 2005
  9. Ruman

    Ruman Guest

    Does that mean Cannon has the majority of the market share already or
    in the future?

    Tony do you have any URLs to support these? I mean don't get me wrong,
    now I think the same regarding Canon vs Nikon at least in the sports
    image area. But to prove it, we need some data sheets!
    Ruman, Oct 6, 2005
  10. Ruman

    DD (Rox) Guest

    Ayuh. They fell for the hype, hook line and sinker. I was one of them,
    but fortunately I admitted my mistake and went back to using real
    Absolutely. We've seen your "performance" a lot.
    Ugly? Jesus, is there anything uglier than a 1D with a white 70-200mm
    and a black lens hood slapped on it?

    <thinks>...Maybe a Minolta.
    DD (Rox), Oct 6, 2005
  11. Ruman

    DD (Rox) Guest

    It doesn't need to be proved. It's true. I have experienced it first
    hand myself.

    When I covered my first Super 12 rugby game back in early 2002 I was
    halfway over to Canon from Nikon. I arrived at the ground with a D30 and
    a Nikon F5 with 180mm f/2.8ED. I was met by a Canon rep who provided me
    with a 35-350mm L zoom lens for the duration of the game to use on my
    D30. I only took about half a roll with the F5.

    A couple of years later I heard about Touchline Photo (a division of
    Allsports) selling off some Canon 400mm f/2.8 lenses because they had
    been issued with new IS versions from Canon. Apparently the deal is that
    they pay a low "rental" for them. Same goes for the newspaper people who
    send their own people to high-profile events.

    I also borrowed a 400mm f/2.8 from one of the producers of a local rugby
    TV show to do a game once. I asked him how he had acquired the lens and
    he told me that Canon had *given* it to him along with a 70-200mm f/2.8
    and 28-70mm f/2.8 when he was still shooting stills for sports. He just
    never gave them back.

    There are some idiots on this forum who would have you believe that the
    reason Canon are dominating in this area (sports) is because they make
    better equipment. *That* is a load of hogwash, the truth is that Canon
    have bought their way into the sports market simply because of its high
    profile advantage.
    DD (Rox), Oct 6, 2005
  12. Ruman

    Gordon Moat Guest

    I think Kodak was off the mark prior to the 14n. The 760 was the last body they
    made that really had much impact in the professional market. They were the lead
    company in the mid 1990s, though mostly only for well funded photojournalists
    and sports photographers.
    When the 600 and 700 series Kodak bodies were new, they were well regarded by
    professionals. It was Nikon with the D1, and then later Nikon and Canon bodies
    at much lower price points that really tipped the balance. What hurt the full
    frame Kodak models was the poor body design, and sending the first ones out
    into the market before the bugs were worked out. I know a few people still use
    full frame Kodak bodies for some professional work, but the purchase was likely
    more a factor of price to sensor size than a choice of ultimate image quality.
    Too much hype, and a lack of a good reputation. I wonder if they ever really
    wanted any of the professional market. I always saw those Sigma D-SLRs as aimed
    at enthusiasts.

    I find Fuji to be the confusing company. Interesting sensor concept, then
    packaged into a mid level body design.
    So you think that if Pentax and Minolta had similar MP digital SLR bodies at
    the same points in time as Nikon and Canon, and maybe at the same price point,
    that they would have a larger impact amongst working professionals? Valid
    argument, and a good "what-if" scenario, though unfortunately it did not play
    out that way.

    I do wonder what will happen with the Pentax 645 Digital body. It will be
    interesting to see if they continue in the medium format market in the future.
    Increasingly it looks more like Mamiya and Hasselblad.
    Shame that Fuji does not gut and F5 or F6, and get it right. Even an F100 base
    would be a little better. Another approach is just selling those sensors to
    someone else.

    Currently Sony is working with Konica Minolta to make an interchangeable lens
    D-SLR with the Sony name on it. Since the Nikon D-SLRs are mainly using Sony
    sensors, it makes me wonder how that will play out in the future. Maybe we will
    see a future Kodak or Fuji imaging chip inside a Nikon branded and sold body.
    When really compact portable digital cameras are hitting 8 MP, it can be tough
    to sell a 6 MP or even only 8 MP D-SLR to the public. Olympus is bleeding cash,
    and not profiting from digital imaging . . . makes me wonder how much longer
    they will keep trying to sell in this market.
    Which is a shame. At least some of the 35 mm film based Olympus gear of the
    past had some innovation, and some quality items.
    Yes, thanks for the correction. New model introductions at the high end.
    Sometimes D100 as back-up for some, or D1 series. Considering that the resale
    is terrible after three or four years, an early adopter would seem to have a
    ready back-up camera, as long as it still works. Of course, there would be some
    choosing a Nikon film SLR as a back-up.
    Sure, unless you price the new gear. Of course, if you really want something
    shocking, check digital back prices. At least a few deals are okay, like the
    bundled PhaseOne with Rollei 6008AF, or the Mamiya 645 Leaf solution.
    You might be surprised how many professionals still use large format gear.
    Namely architecture and product photographers, but there are others.
    The approach is very different. This is why the shutters last decades.
    The movements possible with the camera are what do make it superior for some
    work. Hardly the choice for grab shots, hand held imaging, sports, nor
    I know a few professionals who use Pentax gear. Nothing wrong with that choice,
    but none of them expect to find much beyond lighting as rental items.
    True, those if I only made a statement without qualifying it in some manner,
    then I would be leaving out potentially useful information that others could
    consider. The camera companies rarely break down the numbers so closely that we
    can know these things, so we are left with an educated (hopefully) guess at
    Gordon Moat, Oct 6, 2005
  13. Ruman

    Bruce Graham Guest

    True, but they started to do this more than 20 years ago and did have
    some product differentiation (first flourite teles, later EOS AF) which
    supported this market.
    Given Canon's current large market share (and white lens prices), I think
    they should be in a position to make decent money by now. Are you sure
    they are not?
    Bruce Graham, Oct 6, 2005
  14. Ruman

    Bruce Graham Guest

    mainly by having to waste time answering all these penis envy posts
    instead of taking billable pics:)
    Bruce Graham, Oct 6, 2005
  15. If you were talking politics, you would be a blind partisan. Certainly
    not all that eloquent.
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Oct 6, 2005
  16. Ruman

    Chris Brown Guest

    I think your reading comprehension needs some work. The near ubiquity of
    Canon equipment at events where photojournalists and sports photographers
    are present suggests that the claim that "Nikon is pretty much the only
    brand pro or semi-pros use" is false. It doesn't say anything about whether
    other manufacturers make similar lenses, nor does it make any claim about
    any particular field representing some sort of mainstream.
    Chris Brown, Oct 6, 2005
  17. Ruman

    Dick R. Guest

    Paul Bielec wrote:
    Hey Paul,
    I'm certainly not a pro, but I've had requests from family and friends
    to shoot their weddings. No way! I'll leave the formal wedding photos
    to those who know what they're doing. My wife and I both bring cameras
    to shoot candid shots of the bride in the dressing room, the groom
    straightening his tie, the wedding photog setting up a shot, etc.
    My daughter was recently married, and later at the reception, my
    wife captured a priceless shot of the bride dancing with her dad. :)
    Yup, I like candids also.

    Dick R.
    Dick R., Oct 6, 2005
  18. Ruman

    Skip M Guest

    You may be right.
    Oh, well, hell month commenced last weekend. Wedding last Saturday, one
    tomorrow and Saturday, engagement shoots Sunday and Monday, Wedding on the
    15th, Portfolio shoot on the 18th, engagement shoot on the 20th, wedding on
    the 21st and 22nd, plus various meetings with current and prospective
    clients scattered liberally about.
    Skip M, Oct 7, 2005
  19. Ruman

    DD (Rox) Guest

    So what exactly was your intention by making that inaccurate comment in
    the first place? I see Nikon at a lot of sporting events too.
    DD (Rox), Oct 7, 2005
  20. Ruman

    Chris Brown Guest

    The OP asked a question, I provided an answer. Furthermore, I did it without
    dressing it in the clothes of the holy-war that you so obviously want to
    fight over this. I really don't give a shit what camera you use.
    Chris Brown, Oct 7, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.