Reading mode: Light Dark

Answer from Nikon to III

Go to last post
Sam Jones wrote:
snip -
Sam Jones said:
Getty have given preferential deals for 'bulk purchases'. Canon
also loan Getty equipment. A multi miliion pound company like
Getty can secure the 'loan' of 'additional' super telephoto lenses
for a 'three month' cricket tour - there again Getty may be
providing Canon, in return, with images for Canon's use - a lot of
back scratching goes on behind the scenes.
Click to expand...
I've noticed it for a while now.
Scary stuff.
--
Rudi -
15 years in Blade Runner Tokyo - back in Sunny Sydney now
 
Blackbone said:
"Many Nikon pros will have been forced to switch..."

If your equipment is doing what you want it to, and mine is doing
what I want it to, and countless others are getting the results
they want to, what in the world makes you think any Nikon users
will be "forced to switch"? You're caught up in the hype, now get
out there and take pictures.
Click to expand...
Because it does make a difference. I was out in a wood yesterday photographing insects, and most of the pictures were rejects due to wind vibrations. A few turned out, which was a relief, though one was not as sharp as I would have liked. But if I had a couple more stops to play with in the ISO, I could have a much lower reject rate, and the creative possibilities would be greater. I could stop down even more, and experiment even more. Simllarly for bird photography, though in this case the reduced teleconverter effect of a larger sensor partially offsets the advantages.

Of course you could say "Wait for a wind free day", but then again, why should I be confined indoors due to limitations of the equipment.

But mirror lock up on canon gear is completely asinine.
 
David Martin said:
..as no-one on the Canon forum knows or even has heard of anyone
getting free gear from Canon - they get to try out early models and
so on, and CPS does loaner services if you need a lens at a sports
event, but those free cameras seem to exist on the Nikon forum and
no-where else - since Canon do not appear to do too badly anyway in
the pro market, why give away many thousands of pounds worth of
gear?
Click to expand...
Isn't Art Morris sponsored by Canon? Although he might not get free gear, he must surely get preferential servicing, and payment for doing canon 'gig's. Given how hard it is to make money as a nature photographer, that money must be welcome. (Though Morris does not have trouble making money is my guess.)

There must be other Canon sponsored pros too.
 
Agreed, Nikon has beeter flash control and the D2Xs for that kind of use is king.
larrygiubilo said:
bikinchris said:
Using a flash is not allowed for most sporting events. Strobes in
the ceiling are allowed for some events, but trying to stobe a
baseball field would be funny as well as a football or soccer
field! Personally, I will say it again- I will wait for Nikon. I
have no problem with my D2H bodies performance. I am discussing
others, not me.
Click to expand...
oh, yes, sporting events... right, as today 80% minimum of
photographers use Canon gear to shoot.
Another example: come to Italy for the Milanovendemoda (fashion
Fair) and you will see much more Nikons than Canons... In the
fashion/glamour world of photography, where hi-ISO is not
necessary Nikon rule.
I think there are more pages about fashion in magazines than about
sports....
Click to expand...
--
Chris, Broussard, LA
 
"Unfortunately, the manufacturer let us down, and now we let you down...I hope you understand that such situations are beyond our control...We will of course rush to ship it as soon as we receive it. Please be assured we are constantly following up with the manufacturer to get your backorder shipped out...We'd be sorry to lose your order, but we'd be sorrier to lose you as a customer."

if you have not guessed yet, I'm on the waiting list for 2 MKIII bodies :)

--
Julia
 
Companies give away equipment all the time. It gets charged to advertising expenses. Not just camera companies. Nikon did it, why not Canon? It in and of itself is not an evil thing to do. It is smart marketing.

Now, the grey area is when you advertise those people who switched for money and/or equipment as being loyal Canon shooters in advertising spreads. They are not "loyal" any more than Lance is loyal to Trek or Shimano for his seven Tour de France victories. His Trek bike was just like a uniform for any other employee. He can't race without it. Just like those company shooters can't shoot their own equipment. The company expects them to use the supplied equipment.

There are exceptions- (bike analagy again)Pascal Richard raced the 1996 Atlanta Olympics on a Fondriest bike that was a repainted Serotta. But painting your Canon camera with a Nikon logo just will not work well.
David Martin said:
ASD said:
After watching Joe Buissink's "Defining the Momenrt" (wedding
photographer) he was using 3 Nikon bodies, many lenses, and showing
what he does at weddings. Last year he switched to Canon. At WPPI
this year he was sponsered by Canon-as one of the new members of
"Explorers of Light". I was curious as to why he switched, as he
has been shooting for sometime in LA, he is one person that stands
out in the industry, and he has the eye and also the gear to make
it happen. I then emailed Kevin Kobota who I respect and his
comment was to the effect of " Canon has lots of money for PR and
Canon gets more converts by supplying photographers $$ + cameras to
use their system. At any given seminar that Joe speaks at, he just
has to mention that his gear is Canon and the audience will follow
that lead which in turn brings in more sales to Canon vs the cost
to supply systems to these photographers. I honestly don't think
Joe's shooting is better because he switch to Canon, he was already
good before that switch and he did it with NIKON! I am wondering if
Mike Colen is next to be bought.It's not the Camera that makes the
shot, it's the one behind the lens.
Click to expand...
--
Regards,
DaveMart

'Just a wildebeest on the plain of life'
Please see profile for equipment
Click to expand...
--
Chris, Broussard, LA
 
Funny that people are saying that nikon lost the Pro journalism/sports/whatever market. When I look at stuff that Black an Peterson shot I don't see any difficulties with Nikon shortcomings. Their stuff looks amazing.... Sure alot of Pro's shoot Canon, but also alot of them still shoot Nikon and will continue to do so because it works. I don't think that Black missed an action shot because he didn't have an 10 fps camera... or that Peterson didn't sell a shot because it was shot with his D2hs. There is more to pictures than 10fps @ 10mpix.
 
rutgher said:
Funny that people are saying that nikon lost the Pro
journalism/sports/whatever market. When I look at stuff that Black
an Peterson shot I don't see any difficulties with Nikon
shortcomings. Their stuff looks amazing.... Sure alot of Pro's
shoot Canon, but also alot of them still shoot Nikon and will
continue to do so because it works. I don't think that Black missed
an action shot because he didn't have an 10 fps camera... or that
Peterson didn't sell a shot because it was shot with his D2hs.
There is more to pictures than 10fps @ 10mpix.
Click to expand...
True. But if you get more keepers, or even get pictures you would not otherwise have got, then commercial sense is to go with the better tool.

The 1DIII is the 2Dx killer IMO.
 
Some of that comes from being established as a pro. I recently shot the Tour of California on spec. At the same time Casey Gibson and Graham Watson were there. If I shot the same image as they did, I would sell NOTHING. In fact, I think I got several good shots, but no bites from the meida who serve bicycle racing. I am not trying to say any of my images were better than either of those guys in any way. I am saying I think I got good images of key moments of the race.
rutgher said:
Funny that people are saying that nikon lost the Pro
journalism/sports/whatever market. When I look at stuff that Black
an Peterson shot I don't see any difficulties with Nikon
shortcomings. Their stuff looks amazing.... Sure alot of Pro's
shoot Canon, but also alot of them still shoot Nikon and will
continue to do so because it works. I don't think that Black missed
an action shot because he didn't have an 10 fps camera... or that
Peterson didn't sell a shot because it was shot with his D2hs.
There is more to pictures than 10fps @ 10mpix.
Click to expand...
--
Chris, Broussard, LA
 
go through Dave Black's shots and see how many are at ISO 1600.

He uses major strobes in indoor arenas and 4-18 (yes, you read that number right) speedlights held by 1-2 assistants for his non strobe work, the rest is in strong available light.

A better comparison for the value of high ISOs in this new camera would be the work of an AP or Getty guy covering an indoor event without access to strobes, or a night baseball game, trust me 95% already shoot Canon as Nikon sucks in this dept. and if you think that % won;t increase with the Mk III you are out of touch.

Nikon WAS ALREADY 2 stops behind, now they are 3 or 4?

It sucks to be a PJ/sports shooter and use Nikon right now.
 
There are, I'm sure, more than a few scenarios in which the D2h would be a better tool than the 1DMkIII, and the converse as well is true. Perhaps the distinction you intended to make is that the 1DMkIII is the more versatile tool, which I don't think many would argue.
Slough said:
rutgher said:
Funny that people are saying that nikon lost the Pro
journalism/sports/whatever market. When I look at stuff that Black
an Peterson shot I don't see any difficulties with Nikon
shortcomings. Their stuff looks amazing.... Sure alot of Pro's
shoot Canon, but also alot of them still shoot Nikon and will
continue to do so because it works. I don't think that Black missed
an action shot because he didn't have an 10 fps camera... or that
Peterson didn't sell a shot because it was shot with his D2hs.
There is more to pictures than 10fps @ 10mpix.
Click to expand...
True. But if you get more keepers, or even get pictures you would
not otherwise have got, then commercial sense is to go with the
better tool.

The 1DIII is the 2Dx killer IMO.
Click to expand...
--
- -
Kabe Luna

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kabeluna/
 
Kabe Luna said:
Slough said:
True. But if you get more keepers, or even get pictures you would
not otherwise have got, then commercial sense is to go with the
better tool.

The 1DIII is the 2Dx killer IMO.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
And those would be? As I understand it the 1DIII has lower noise, higher frame rate, more resolution, probably more dynamic range, probably a larger LCD, probably a faster more accurate autofocus, and maybe other advantages too.

There might well be some some scenarios (I am not familiar with the D2h) but those must be relatively few and far between so 'better tool' is short for 'in most cases better tool'. I'm sure that in some circumstances a Trabant would beat an F1 racing car, but I don't see Michael Schumacher joining Team Trabant any time in the near future. Maybe once they've ironed out the teething difficulties he might reconsider his future.

My understanding has been that the Nikon D2x occupied a niche, offering excellent features and performance for the money. But the 1DIII encroaches into that niche for the same sort of money.

One might expect that Nikon execs are having more frequent toilet breaks these days, but then again, I would not want to predict the movements of Japanese managers. Their culture is 'different'.
 
...of users for whom the D2h, the body itself and its sensor and integrated functions instead of the Nikon system as a whole, meets their needs quite well: excellent handling, excellent image quality, small file size and, for some, compatibility with existing lenses and accessories–which, believe it or not, for a good number of papers still means Nikon. I've seen some amazing wildlife and scenic shots from a D2h printed at 16" x 20" by a local photograher who had a booth at the same arts festival as my significant other, so I doubt everyone feels the need for more megapixels...and all the attendant upgrades in computer gear that demands. Granted, I'm not a fan of the D2h, but I'm sure there are many of folks who are, such as this user from another thread:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=23147405

--
- -
Kabe Luna

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kabeluna/
 
The basic idea behind a lot of these statements of Canon giving away equipment is that it happens enough to substantially effect the number of cameras at sports events, so Canon are buying market share.
There is not a shred of evidence for this.

No doubt that big companies who buy a couple of hundred cameras get sweeteners - this is usual business practise - and no doubt famous photogs who use the brand get to the front of some queues and so on, but the whole idea of market share being bought is not a necessary hypothesis - Nikon long glass has historically been so pricey it is an open invitation to use something else.
bikinchris said:
David Martin said:
ASD said:
After watching Joe Buissink's "Defining the Momenrt" (wedding
photographer) he was using 3 Nikon bodies, many lenses, and showing
what he does at weddings. Last year he switched to Canon. At WPPI
this year he was sponsered by Canon-as one of the new members of
"Explorers of Light". I was curious as to why he switched, as he
has been shooting for sometime in LA, he is one person that stands
out in the industry, and he has the eye and also the gear to make
it happen. I then emailed Kevin Kobota who I respect and his
comment was to the effect of " Canon has lots of money for PR and
Canon gets more converts by supplying photographers $$ + cameras to
use their system. At any given seminar that Joe speaks at, he just
has to mention that his gear is Canon and the audience will follow
that lead which in turn brings in more sales to Canon vs the cost
to supply systems to these photographers. I honestly don't think
Joe's shooting is better because he switch to Canon, he was already
good before that switch and he did it with NIKON! I am wondering if
Mike Colen is next to be bought.It's not the Camera that makes the
shot, it's the one behind the lens.
Click to expand...
--
Regards,
DaveMart

'Just a wildebeest on the plain of life'
Please see profile for equipment
Click to expand...
--
Chris, Broussard, LA
Click to expand...
--
Regards,
DaveMart

'Just a wildebeest on the plain of life'
Please see profile for equipment
 
..ie, the ones to whom small files are important - they have put in the smaller RAW which takes care of that - amazing attention to detail.

Still, that won't overcome the difficulty of legacy Nikon lenses - unless they don't mind MF! :-)
Kabe Luna said:
...of users for whom the D2h, the body itself and its sensor and
integrated functions instead of the Nikon system as a whole, meets
their needs quite well: excellent handling, excellent image
quality, small file size and, for some, compatibility with existing
lenses and accessories–which, believe it or not, for a good number
of papers still means Nikon. I've seen some amazing wildlife and
scenic shots from a D2h printed at 16" x 20" by a local photograher
who had a booth at the same arts festival as my significant other,
so I doubt everyone feels the need for more megapixels...and all
the attendant upgrades in computer gear that demands. Granted, I'm
not a fan of the D2h, but I'm sure there are many of folks who are,
such as this user from another thread:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=23147405

--
- -
Kabe Luna

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kabeluna/
Click to expand...
--
Regards,
DaveMart

'Just a wildebeest on the plain of life'
Please see profile for equipment
 
..the trouble is I usually only understand around 10% of it! :-)
Julia Borg said:
"Unfortunately, the manufacturer let us down, and now we let you
down...I hope you understand that such situations are beyond our
control...We will of course rush to ship it as soon as we receive
it. Please be assured we are constantly following up with the
manufacturer to get your backorder shipped out...We'd be sorry to
lose your order, but we'd be sorrier to lose you as a customer."

if you have not guessed yet, I'm on the waiting list for 2 MKIII
bodies :)

--
Julia
Click to expand...
--
Regards,
DaveMart

'Just a wildebeest on the plain of life'
Please see profile for equipment
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top