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

Started 10 months ago | Discussions thread
Old Listener
Regular MemberPosts: 211Gear list
Like?
Re: Canon and Nikon dominate the photo world, but I don't understand why.
In reply to peevee1, 10 months ago

peevee1 wrote:

InterestedParty wrote:

jidery wrote:

...

Canon and Nikon are just boring compared to Sony, Olympus, Pentax, Panasonic, and Fuji. I don't understand why Canon and Nikon dominate with their lack of innovation.

Their huge selection of fabulous lenses?

For FF, but not for their crop formats. Sure, you can mount their FF on their crop cameras, but they have wrong FL, wrong size, wrong price, wrong sharpness distribution (not sharp enough in the middle for APS-C pixel density)... compromise every step of the way.

And even for FF - the "huge selection" shows its age and does not look so fabulous anymore. And the new ones, more appropriate for modern pixel densities, suddenly double in price.

The top of the value, "plastic fantastic", is suddenly f/4 and not f/1.8 if you want any semblance of sharpness appropriate for 12 mpix digital sensor (let alone 36 mpix) and not old grainy ISO 800 film.

Theoretically the lenses are there... but you can get the same sharpness (or rather lack of) with a point-and-shoot and a lot of noise reduction.

Your post seems to have little relevance to the real world of using APS-C bodies.

Wrong focal length?  Multiplying the nominal focal length by 1.5 or 1.6 is a pretty simple skill.  I'm sure that most photographers do the math when shopping for lenses.

Wrong price? That 1.5 or 1.6 factor can reduce the cost for a telephoto lens.  My Nikon 300mm f4 lens is effectively 450mm on a Nikon DX body.  It cost $ 1100 used (and can be had new for that price now.)  It is very sharp and reasonably light at a bit over 3 lbs.  That's far more cost effective and far lighter than a 400mm f4 lens that would have the same reach on a Nikon FX body.

People who photograph birds like the extra reach of APS-C bodies.  For my needs, a full frame body would be steps backward.

Wrong sharpness distribution? Did you just make that criteria up?  I want a lens to be sharp enough all over.  I really don't care if it is equally sharp everywhere.

In a perfect world, Nikon and Canon would offer smaller, lighter, cheaper APS-C versions of their full frame lenses with the same quality.  That hasn't happened but a Nikon or Canon APS-C camera seems a very high-quality, cost effective solution to a lot of photographer's needs.

I have no idea what the "plastic phantastic" rant was about.  Is this specific to one cheap Canon lens? No explanation for the graphs and no references.  I'm careful with my money so I do my consumer research before I buy camera bodies or lenses.  No need to buy a lens that won't do what I need it to do.

The Nikon DX world gives me lots of choices to fit my needs and my budget.  The Canon APS-C world probably has similar choices.  I don't see nearly as much choice in the mirrorless worlds.

 Old Listener's gear list:Old Listener's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ50 Nikon D5000 Nikon D7000 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G6 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR +7 more
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)
LOLNew
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow