You Wrote >Many of you may recall that Pop Photo conducts annual photo contests and >publishes the winners in their January issue. I have been following this >contest from a few years and looking at the tech data I could gather that >more wining photographs have been taken by Nikon than any other camera. >Canon is the next highest and rest are far behind. The following are the >figures for three years. >1997: Nikon - 26; Canon - 19; Others not recorded but less compared to these >two >1998: Nikon - 26; Canon - 18; Minolta -10; Others not recorded but far less >compared to these three >1999: Nikon - 30; Canon - 13; Minolta -6; Pentax: 5; Rest all put together 8 >(total 62) I have long noticed this trend in the Pop Photog contest and others. I also have noticed that a large percentage of the winners are taken with the Nikon 80-200 2.8 and 105 micro lenses. I think people are mistaken about the so-called trend by pros to Canon. It is likely that a larger percentage of newspaper photo-journalists are now using Canon than once was the case (remember when Nikon was THE ONLY pro camera?) but the F-5 and F-100 may turn that around. Canons were for a time cheaper, and offered specialized models like the RT that uses a pellicle mirror and had faster transports. Canon did gain the momentum for awhile. But there are many Professional photographers who don't work for newspapers and I believe Nikon has always dominated and continues to dominate with these. Why would this be the case? Well, the two lenses above might be one reason. Sports and other photojournalists liked the idea they could get faster shots but, on the other hand, almost anything is sharp enough to be printed at newspaper print resolution. In the meantime, Canon's reputation for lens sharpness has improved and Nikon has increased the number of frames per second their top line cameras can shoot. So there you go. Richard
