Prejudice against non-photo camera brands

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by RichA, Dec 17, 2004.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    I notice most people are buying Canon, Nikon
    cameras, with Minolta, Pentax and Olympus
    bringing up the rear, pretty much what it
    was with film cameras. Not many people mention
    owing Fuji, or HP, etc. Is this because
    there is a reluctance to deviate from traditional
    camera brands or is it due to people simply owning
    lenses for film cameras that they now use on
    digitals?
    -Rich
     
    RichA, Dec 17, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. As an SLR group, I guess regulars here avoid HP because they don't make
    SLRs. Fuji's S2 is well respected, yet ageing- hopefully the S3 will be
    remedy this.

    As for the compacts- plenty of people own Fuji- the S3500 and S5500 are
    popular, and the F810 should be more so. HP tend to borrow other people's
    tech for cameras, so they shouldn't be too bad... if you really want to deal
    the HP, that is.
     
    Martin Francis, Dec 17, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    Alan Browne Guest

    Three main camps.

    Those who have lenses and want to maintain that investment. I'm typical with 5
    high value lenses and one el-cheapo. I need the body that preserves that
    investment.

    Second camp are those who, pretty much regardless of what camera they own, have
    a kit lens with their body. They feel more free to choose whatever pleases them
    and are not particularly brand loyal.

    Third camp. New to photography or upgrading from P&S/zlr. Again free to choose
    as they're not bound by other investment.

    Cheers,
    Alan.
     
    Alan Browne, Dec 17, 2004
    #3
  4. RichA

    Todd H. Guest

    Probably a little of both. A camera is all about optics, and a
    digital camera is all about optics and sensors. Am I going to buy a
    Kodak or Fuji digital camera ever? Probably not. Unless they start
    reselling made by Nikon or Canon with the same functionality and a
    cheaper price.

    Best Regards,
     
    Todd H., Dec 17, 2004
    #4
  5. RichA

    Lisa Horton Guest

    For the same reason I'd hesitate to buy a Canon computer. Buy from a
    company that specializes in the type of product you're buying is never
    bad advice.

    Lisa
     
    Lisa Horton, Dec 17, 2004
    #5
  6. HP cameras SUCK !

    Dave



    | | >I notice most people are buying Canon, Nikon
    | > cameras, with Minolta, Pentax and Olympus
    | > bringing up the rear, pretty much what it
    | > was with film cameras. Not many people mention
    | > owing Fuji, or HP, etc. Is this because
    | > there is a reluctance to deviate from traditional
    | > camera brands or is it due to people simply owning
    | > lenses for film cameras that they now use on
    | > digitals?
    |
    | As an SLR group, I guess regulars here avoid HP because they don't make
    | SLRs. Fuji's S2 is well respected, yet ageing- hopefully the S3 will be
    | remedy this.
    |
    | As for the compacts- plenty of people own Fuji- the S3500 and S5500 are
    | popular, and the F810 should be more so. HP tend to borrow other people's
    | tech for cameras, so they shouldn't be too bad... if you really want to deal
    | the HP, that is.
    |
    | --
    | Martin Francis
    | "Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and
    | no, and yes...."
    |
    |
     
    David H. Lipman, Dec 17, 2004
    #6
  7. I should state a SWEAR BY HP printers (with or w/o HP JetDirect print-servers). As a IT
    professional all my laser and inkjet printers are HP (except a Xerox Document Center 432ST
    copier and printer).

    However I bought 6 HP Vectras They were junk. I would never get HP computers again.

    Dave



    | HP cameras SUCK !
    |
    | Dave
     
    David H. Lipman, Dec 18, 2004
    #7
  8. RichA

    fortknight Guest

    The s2 is an in-between camera. It is an extremely good performing
    camera. And excellent sensor, and the camera is quite speedy and
    feature rich.

    But it is not rugged not TRULY expensive, nor is it cheap. It is
    therefor is used quite a bit by the portrait folks.

    It is also popular by the truly geeky prosumer crowd (raises hand), that
    does other dumb things from a pocket book standpoint, like buys audio
    equipment with tubes, or speaker wire that would also be well suited for
    substation work.

    I am not getting the s3 this year, instead it is *the* 70-200 AF ED VR
    lense. costs about the same as the camera, but will actually take
    better pictures

    I also own an e550 for PS stuff, (and movies).

    The s3 will probably rock. But again will be not rugged enough for the
    journalist crowd, and not cheap enough for the prosumer masses.

    HP, wrong group.
     
    fortknight, Dec 18, 2004
    #8
  9. RichA

    fortknight Guest

    Well you know little about the s2. Nikon Body, Nikon Optics. Fuji
    Sensor (arguably better), Fuji Software (arguably better). But more
    expensive.
     
    fortknight, Dec 18, 2004
    #9
  10. RichA

    John Doe Guest

    I think it might have more to do with knowledge. I think more people assume
    that a company that has been making cameras even films ones will do a better
    job of making new camera even digital ones than a company that has little or
    no experience.

    I don't find this true myself. I used to always buy Olympus until I bought
    the crappy 3030 I then switched to a Sony CD Mavica which took far better
    pictures than the Oly. I now have a 20D which about 50% of the time I am
    sorry I bought. With the on going problems it has had thanks to Canons poor
    quality assurance it has been less than a joy to use. When it does work it
    takes great pictures when it doesn't I just hate it.

    So I don't think brand really matters. Another factor is a lot of people
    tend to buy what they know. But, they do that with things other than
    cameras. People that learned to use a computer using a Mac in school are
    probably most still Mac users. I learned on a Mac in school and wanted one
    for home, but got an Atari instead and from their it was a PC. Had I bought
    an Apple I would probably be a Mac user today.

    John
     
    John Doe, Dec 18, 2004
    #10
  11. RichA

    RichA Guest

    How long have Nikon and Canon "specialized" in CCD and CMOS sensors?
    You know who does? Kodak.
    -Rich
     
    RichA, Dec 18, 2004
    #11
  12. HP sells a wide range of products and makes none of them. They have spun
    off their high-end/high-quality/USA-manufactured products into a subsidiary
    called Agilent. HP is now like RCA (well, perhaps not quite that bad). Yet
    another once-great American trade name being used to sell. IBM personal
    computers have also joined this ignominious group. Sigh!
     
    Charles Schuler, Dec 18, 2004
    #12
  13. How long have Nikon and Canon "specialized" in CCD and CMOS sensors?[/QUOTE]

    So they buy the sensors from the electronics companies that make the
    sensors, but they have the experience in designing and building lenses
    and camera bodies.
     
    Michelle Steiner, Dec 18, 2004
    #13
  14. Nikon does (from Sony, AFAIK). Canon uses third party sensors in
    their compacts, but makes their own CMOS sensors for their DSLR
    bodies. I believe the CPU used in the newer Canon digital cameras
    (DIGIC II) is homegrown as well.
     
    Gisle Hannemyr, Dec 18, 2004
    #14
  15. RichA

    Todd H. Guest

    Indeed, Kodak has had some very smart people working that problem and
    have for quite a long time. In fact, the Bayer after whom the "Bayer
    pattern" of Cyan Magenta and yellow pixels in a single-chip sensor was
    a Kodak guy and his patent dates back to 1976:
    http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/digital/ccd/papersArticles/kacBetterColorCMY.pdf

    But, product history wise, Kodak isn't much in the way of shutters,
    glass, exposure metering, accessories, system reliability are all part
    of the rest of the picture. Unless you're one who'd run out and buy a
    Goodyear automobile or a Sears Diehard SUV if they started producing
    them.

    So, this prejudice is a hard one to overcome from a marketing
    perspective, at least among those of us serious enough to be talking
    photography here in newsgroups and dissecting this stuff. It's hard
    to compete on reputation with a company like Canon that is deep deep
    deep in consumer video and has been doing CCD and CMOS for a very long
    time too, long before anyone thought of dropping such a sensor into a
    still camera, and they have the full lineage of conventional film
    camera experience to carry forward. The image sensor is just one
    small (albeit important) piece of the camera puzzle.

    Best Regards,
     
    Todd H., Dec 18, 2004
    #15
  16. RichA

    JC Dill Guest

    Alan, can you tell us what lenses you have?

    I am shooting with a 300D. My primary lens is the 70-200 f2.8 IS USM
    L lens, I use this for taking photos of horses, you need a long lens
    to avoid having perspective distortion. I also have the kit lens
    (18-55, f3.5-5.6 I think), and the 75-300 f4.5-5.6 zoom. I'm looking
    at getting a better short lens (perhaps the 28-70 f2.8), as well as an
    overlap lens (ideally, I want an f2.8 ~35-~115 but they don't make
    one).

    jc
     
    JC Dill, Dec 18, 2004
    #16
  17. RichA

    Alan Browne Guest

    Success in the marketplace, not to mention superb image quality at APS-C and
    larger, puts Canon squarely in the lead. Nikon are doing fine too and everyone
    else is scrambling to catch up in the market.

    The groundbreaking 14n Mpix Kodak was quickly derided for its high noise at
    higher ISO's (eg: above 100), lifeless image quality and lack of antialiasing
    filters and microlenses. Kodak had intro problems galore and had to supsede the
    model shortly after (SLR/n) even offering an upgrade program (14nx) for the
    first version.

    Being first does not necessarilly mean being best.

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Dec 18, 2004
    #17
  18. RichA

    Alan Browne Guest

    20mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.7, 100mm f/2.8 macro, 300mm f/2.8, 28-70 f/2.8, 80-200
    f/2.8. All Maxxum. The el-cheapo is of course the 50 f/1.7 but it is a very
    good little lens as most 50mm f/1.8's should be.
    I did some jumping shots this past summer using mainly the 300 f/2.8 and the
    80-200 f/2.8 as well.

    I also have the kit lens
    The main problem with all of our carefully chosen film lenses is the crop factor
    when going to 1.5 cropped sensors. My 20mm becomes a strange wide angle, my
    28-70 f/2.8 becomes a viable portrait lens (but I prefer primes) the 50 f/.7 may
    turn into a portrait jewel, my 100 f/2.8 macro is now too long for its secondary
    roll as a portrait lens, the 80-200 becomes a bit too long for candid shots, but
    great for sports and nature. the 300 f/2.8 becomes a killer, esp. with the 1.4
    TC attached. 2x TC reamins to be seen...

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Dec 18, 2004
    #18
  19. RichA

    RichA Guest

    I understood that many of the problems with some cameras when it
    comes to overall image quality stemmed from processing done to the
    image in-camera. Don't most cameras allow for "raw" image storage
    now?
    -Rich
     
    RichA, Dec 18, 2004
    #19
  20. RichA

    Alan Browne Guest

    RichA wrote:

    Processing in-camera cannot compensate well enough for aliasing (if at all) nor
    can it increase the gain due to a lack of microlenses, without increasing
    noise. Noise can be smoothed, aliasing can be reduced, but the lack of the
    (more expensive) optical layers compromises the image. Having RAW is always an
    advantage, but again there is little the user can do post process to increase
    the signal or avoid aliasing.

    My take on in-camera processing is:
    Sin #1: image quality is lost when converting to JPG.
    Sin #2: scene latitude is lost when converting to JPG.
    Sin #3: in camera sharpening is overdone in some cases (including RAW).

    Cheers,
    Alan.
     
    Alan Browne, Dec 19, 2004
    #20
    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.