Who's FF system will be in the best shape 5 years from now?
Osvaldo Cristo wrote:
Leonard Migliore wrote:
Camera equipment isn't an investment, it's an expense. If photography is a hobby, then you spend as much money as you can afford to dribble away. If photography is your business, you spend as much money as you need to do your work.
Cape Verdean escudos, now that's an investment.
I cannot understand why lots of amateur Photographers talk about "investments" for expenses... perhaps some kind of psychological diverting...
Good to see good sense here.
Regards,-- hide signature --
O.Cristo - An Amateur Photographer
Opinions of men are almost as various as their faces - so many men so many minds. B. Franklin
Like I said earlier, Investment is not technically the right word, that is on me. I have no expectation of a return on the direct value of the equipment, obviously. It is an expense, however I am spending a lot of capitol buying equipment for my business in the hope of making a return, by buying in to one companies system. I think it is reasonable to attempt to hedge my bets and buy in to the system that has the best chance of being supported and current in a few years time. Hence the OP.
And yes, this is for a business. I currently use an older mirrorless system that has worked well for me so far, but as I am starting to do more events and shots with kids I need something that has some form of PDAF and the ability to use more of the accessories I need for proper lighting, as well as a better standard zoom and portrait lenses then are currently available for my camera. Because of this I will most likely end up with a Canon or a Nikon, but so far this post is helping me make that final decision and ease my fear that I am buying in to a dead end due to the changes the industry is going through. "Investing" in a dead end is a great way to kill a fledgling business.
The OP asked "Who's FF system will be in the best shape 5 years from now?".
Nikon and Canon have very comprehensive systems with both APS-C and full frame cameras now. Their cameras are cost effective and provide image quality equal to or better than other companies offerings.
I don't see the same coverage of diverse needs in other maker's systems now. They cetainly don't cover my needs as well as Nikon does. The gaps might get filled in eventually but bringing our new lenses seems to be a slow process for all camera makers.
Canon's or Nikon's APS-C and full frame camera bodies might be "mirrorless" or offer some new kind of hybrid viewfinder in 5 years. If there is a genuinely better Nikon "mirrorless" body that lets me get full use out of my existing AF lenses, I'll be interested.
Nikon and Canon are weathering the downturn in digital camera sales better than Sony, Olympus or Panasonic. The other parts of those companies aren't doing well either. (For some time, Sony has been making money selling insurance and movies and losing money in consumer electronics.) It seems quite possible that one or two of those companies will be out of the digital camera business in 5 years.
Chris Dodkin wrote:
There's really no hope for you if you can't accept data from Nikon's senior management as being valid.
Didn't expect you would - but others on DPR will at least get the benefit
I see that my questions flew right over your head. Again.
Unlike you I dont take corporate word as gospel. You might trust big corporations, but I certainly do not.
|Top Gun-2783 by vbuhay|
from Action Film Titles
|Circle in Square by RJD13|
from Square (Rectangle) and Circle