Canon and Nikon dominate the photo world, but I don't understand why.

Started Oct 31, 2013 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,472
Re: Canon and Nikon dominate the photo world, but I don't understand why.
In reply to peevee1, Oct 31, 2013

peevee1 wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

OpticsEngineer wrote:

It puzzles me too. I think a lot of it is that people in general just do not know how great Sony and Pentax cameras are in comparison to Canon and Nikon at the same price points.

That isnt true. While weaker brands generally offer better value in camera bodies, they offer much poorer value in lenses. It holds true even among the cheapest lenses.

For example, Canon 18-55 STM has the best IQ of all 18-55 kit lenes from every maker (possible exception of fuji, but that is a much more expensive lens, $400 as a kit vs 100 as kit for everyone else).

Oly 14-42 II is just as good if not better and usually about $50 in kit.

YEs, but it is slower.

Canon 55-250 has the best IQ of all 55-2xx kit lense of all makers. So even for the basic kit buyers, Canon still produces, ultimately, more than competitive IQ.

Oly 40-150R is just as good if not better and usually $99 together with a new camera ($149 without).

Yes, but it is also slower. and compared to 55-250, it is short.

Weather-sealed and optically great Oly 12-40/2.8 is $1000 alone (MSRP), $800 in kit. What is the MSRP of not so good 17-55/2.8?

I am not sure if 12-40 is optically good as 17-55 , but it is slower. And in any case 17-55 itself is a bit dated. Sigma 17-50 OS almost as good in every aspect for only 3/5 the price.

Weather-sealed and optically great Oly 60/2.8 macro is $500 MSRP, $400 sales price.

You should be comparing it to 60mm macro. But i agree, this oly is a good lens.

....for APS-C shooter, Canon/Nikon systems are not so good - you have to buy mostly FF lenses to fill the gaps and use them on barely 40% of their abilities while lugging all the weight - not exactly a great proposition.

40%? really? it is fairly common sense that lens' sharpness increases around the centre, and decreases as you move away. So while it is true that you dont get to use the lens you paid fully. I would say you are using it more than 40%.

But that is besides the point. Even as they are, these Canikon telephoto lenses are still pretty good value for APs-C bodies. A lot of people buy into Canon just for the likes of 70-200 F4 IS, F2.8II, 70-300L, and 400 F5.6 and use them with APs-C very happily.

Does there exist a 320mm F4.5 for m43 that is as good as the 400 F5.6?

FF OTOH is a totally different class in terms of prices, sizes, weights, attention required to keep anough DoF and corners sharp etc etc. No point to compare - if you need it, you need it and you will have to suffer

Really? because I bought D600 with 3 lenses after having had 60D with 3 lenses for 2 years, I did not suffer anything.

The lenses, for the same FOV and actual aperture, are cheaper and resulting images are better. the size and weight is about the same. But in the case of D600 + 24-85 vs 60D + 17-55, the size has gone down. I am fairly sure weight wise it is a slight drop too.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow