>>I couldn't agree more. While I shoot Nikon Because it is the only camera
system on the market imploying the level of technology that it does and is
therefore the only one capable of capturing those situations that exist
only for a fraction of a second and are then gone forever. <<
What technology does Nikon have that Canon doesn't have or didn't have first?
>>There is a right and a wrong tool for every job. The only problem that I
have with canon is it is not the right tool for any job, frankly. <<
That's a pretty bold statement that many of the world's most renowned
photographers would disagree with, myself included (I'm not renowned anywhere
yet :-)
>>They are
notorious for releasing technology before it is perfected, which is why
their cameras have a reputation for not working very well. I need
Professional equipment, not up scale amature junk. Durability not plastic.<<
I've been using Canon for 17 years and have yet to have one major breakdown.
I recently switched to Nikon and the F4's I was using broke down all the time,
not to mention my new SB-26's all coming apart. Canon has been named year
after year by it's peers as being one of the best companies in terms of design
and quality control. Canon may have only 1 manufacturing defect in maybe
70,000. Plastic is more resillient too. Notice the automobile trend away
from the large steel boats of the 70's to the plastic, carbon fiber,
composites of today. Are today's cars any less durable?
>>A photographer friend of mine who shoots whitewater rafting shared with me
some facts that she had discovered in her line of work. Each summer for the
past 10 years she would hire about 5 photographers to shoot the whitewater
rafting adventures and then sell the pics to the rafters at the end of
their run. The photographers that she hired who shot canon averaged 20% to
30% sharp usable photos per roll and shoot reams more film. The
photographers who shoot Nikon used little film and got 80% to 90% sharp
usable images per roll.>>
That's not really very scientific. Check out the sidelines at any major
sporting event. Count black lenses. Then count white. The entire staff of
the Dallas Morning News switched to Canon in the early 90's. Several Pulitzer
winning photographers who had previously used Nikon for tens of years made the
switch. And they haven't looked back. They've won more Pulitzers since then,
including for coverage of the Olympics. Sounds to me like the "kids" that were
hired didn't know how to use the gear. An F4 isn't even a real autofocus
camera. I can focus a long piece of glass like it's going out of style. But
I still love autofocus.
>>So lets cut it with the canon rhetoric and let the
facts speak for themselves. canon only exists because of its zealots, who
will buy any matter of junk that canon throw out at there feet and says
"take these idols and worship them" because they know that they will. canon
is all about marketing and not about photography. FYI...the word canon
means "religious order" or "ecclesiastical law"...look it up! SCARY !!!
huh? Because canon has a marketing strategy that is aimed at singling out
these types of personalities to build their consumer base. It's ALL
marketing.<<
Hmm...you could also say the same about Nikon who chooses to cling stubbornly
to outdated technologies and ideas. The F5 isn't the ergonomic equivalent of
ANY EOS camera that's ever been released. Not to mention their small line of
"S" lenses. I can get ultrasonic motors in just about every Canon lens. It's
a big advantage and certainly not a gimic or marketing. Canon glass is
sharper as well. Where's the harm in that? Toss the old mount. Get rid of
it. Heck, most of the older lenses don't even work on the F5. I took an
older 18mm f/3.5 out on assignment only to find out it doesn't work on the F5
body. What good is keeping the mount identical when the lens won't work on
the body? Who wants to swap from one TTL capable lens to a non-capable lens
in a spot news situation? Consistency is of prime importance and it's
something Nikon lacks. While Canon has designed on AF 300/2.8, Nikon has
designed three. I'd be frustrated if I had to purchase the gear myself.
Michel
