Brand name Fanboys/girls

[Village Idiot]

so the whole "they started first" arguement doesn't work.

Yes it does. Canon & Nikon are the first manufactures that started offering Digital Single Lens Reflex cameras to consumers at an afforadable price.

Out of Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Sony, and Pentax; which of those companies can you buy a functioning DSLR body for under $300? Canon & Nikon "started first" they have several generations of technology under their belts and their used market share is humumgous in comparison to the rest of the competition due to their marketshare being so high. It's so affordable to pick up used bodies from those manufactures that it makes it hard for some people to even look at the other companies.

Not to mention, Canikon's experience in catering to professional photographers. Up until about six months ago, no other DSLR manufacture made a FF camera besides Canon. How are you, as a pro, not going to go with a camera that provides you the greatest resolution and file size along with quality between every other crop sensor camera and a MF back for only a fraction of the MF price.

 

[bahandi]

Yes it does. Canon & Nikon are the first manufactures that started offering Digital Single Lens Reflex cameras to consumers at an afforadable price.

Out of Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Sony, and Pentax; which of those companies can you buy a functioning DSLR body for under $300? Canon & Nikon "started first" they have several generations of technology under their belts and their used market share is humumgous in comparison to the rest of the competition due to their marketshare being so high. It's so affordable to pick up used bodies from those manufactures that it makes it hard for some people to even look at the other companies.

Not to mention, Canikon's experience in catering to professional photographers. Up until about six months ago, no other DSLR manufacture made a FF camera besides Canon. How are you, as a pro, not going to go with a camera that provides you the greatest resolution and file size along with quality between every other crop sensor camera and a MF back for only a fraction of the MF price.

lol... please use laymen's terms... in other words... a term that a noob like me can understand

 

[Antithesis]

lol... please use laymen's terms... in other words... a term that a noob like me can understand

FF = Full frame, or a sensor the same size as 35mm film.

MF = Medium format, 120mm sensor.

I missed TamiyaGuy's comment about Pentax having their first dSLR in 2003, I was unaware of that. In the digital market, I think Canon and Nikon certainly have an advantage, and I had never disputed that. No offense to anybody that uses another brands equipment, but I will certainly never own anything but a Nikon or a Canon as far as digital goes. Unless someone releases a worthwhile digital rangefinder that doesn't cost a gazillion dollars a la Leica.

The OP talked about film bodies, so I was stating that (in the past) it has had more to do with marketing then anything else, IMO at least.

 

[Senor Hound]

The reason I think Nikon and Canon are so popular is right now (digital market) they're really the only ones with a truly professional camera system(D3 and 1d Mark III). So that means they also they have a LARGE selection of professional lenses (not that others don't have a few, but not nearly as many), also, which is a factor for some people starting out.

The truth is, people like a camera company that professionals like. Even though product quality ranges from one camera to another sometimes even moreso than from one brand to another, they see the tons of professionals that use the big two, and think, "Well if they use it, its gotta be good!"

Its the same principle behind vehicles. The pickup truck commercials show the rugged cowboy or tough-as-nails contractor using his pickup to its very limit, which makes the guy who uses it to go to work (on the highway) think, "Well if its good enough for him, I want it!" Honda shows you commercials of their race cars whipping around at 200mph (320kph for everyone in the world that's not from the US), and then they flash to their Honda Civic. And you think, "Wow, if they are able to create a car that can go that fast, the Civics must be REALLY GOOD!


Its insanely difficult to get full-fledged professionals to change equipment, but if the non-big two companies want to increase their market share, I personally believe the battle starts there. If they can convice professionals to use their stuff, then they can say, "Our product is so good, this PROFESSIONAL photographer for (Insert magazine or newspaper here) uses it!" The rest will fall into place.

 

[elemental]

The belief that Canon is the be-all end-all camera manufacturer clearly goes back to that time when they inspired the universe itself: http://www.usa.canon.com/html/advertising/popup/111707_slr_astronomy_sm.html

In all honesty, this is the reason why people believe that Canon and Nikon are the only cameras in the world. Nikon ran a string of D40X advertisements in Time a while back- not exactly your focused photographic audience. Canon does/did similar things with their television commercials. They implant the seeds of their existence in the heads of the public, and then when they go to buy cameras, they assume Canikon point-and-shoots are better because "this company makes those big black cameras that the pros use too, so they must know what they're doing." When similar customers go to buy their first DSLR, they look for Canon/Nikon first, and in order to purchase something else, they must first be talked out of whatever they came in looking for. Shop employees tend to be Nikon or Canon users, and are generally not going to make that effort. Even for the portion of these consumers that actually become more interested in photography, that "first Nikon" or "first Canon" becomes a good reason to buy another and another- and again, no one is willing to talk them out of it when that's what they go in looking for.

This, I think, is what makes the Canon/Nikon superiority myth work as a sales strategy.

The unfortunate thing is that for many consumers, the best option is not necessarily the Canon/Nikon offering, but no one bothers to tell them.

This is also slanted towards younger consumers like myself who do not have experiences and affinities left over from film cameras of the 70s or 80s. That's a whole different ball game.

 

[Alex_B]

i think for easy light and standard situations (holiday shots, whatever) , many p&s cameras are doing an excellent job.

 

[bahandi]

The belief that Canon is the be-all end-all camera manufacturer clearly goes back to that time when they inspired the universe itself: http://www.usa.canon.com/html/advertising/popup/111707_slr_astronomy_sm.html

......

lol.. that's awesome.

ok, so maybe we can all agree that Canikon's have been promoted and marketed really well. As for me, I am overly biased to Canon, perhaps because of all the marketing done.

now that I have my Olympus, though, I am wondering if the bias was justified.

As mentioned in my original post, I am looking into a dslr. I am also the type of person that roots for the underdog, so chances are, my choice would be one of the other brands not Canon or Nikon.

Alluding to question number 2, if 2 cameras considered entry level were compared to one another, with very similar specs; what, if anything would make you pick the, say, the Sony model over the Canikon?

Ergonomics was mentioned. Less noise was also mentioned.

What are the technical advantages that would make a fanboy/girl of Canikons go to the 'dark side'?

Using another example: someone already mentioned that components are proprietary, but if Sony (again, as an example) started buying lenses, or sensors from Canon, would it then boil down to, once again, the marketing?

Whenever it is I decide to buy the dslr, whether it's Canikon or the 'other guys', i would like my conscience to be clear... haha

 

[bahandi]

Would these cameras be a good comparison?

(taken from another thread...http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=122771)

The Kodak

The Canon

They're not dslr cameras though....

 

[Joves]

Hasn't Pentax been around nearly as long as Nikon and Canon? And Leica has been around since the 20's, I think they pioneered 35mm film...

When I shot film, I had Pentax s all the time. What was great is there were so many lense manufacturers that made PK mounts. I still have my MX with the 50mm on it.
Now as far as digital, you couldnt get me to buy a Pentax at this point. Im into Dslrs now and, they dont have a great line for now, like Nikon and Canon do. I dont like Nikons P&S models now even though Im a Nikonian. I started out in digital with a P&S, the Coolpix995. It seems the close to the last of the best of their P&S line. IMO. Fanboys annoy me. If someone made a far superior slr compared to the big two, Id switch without reservation.

 

[usayit]

Huh, I never knew Pentax had been in the market for so long.

Thats an understatement..

There's a boat load of "firsts" under the Pentax name... there is a lot of basic SLR design owed to Pentax. This includes auto return mirror and even autofocus. After them, Minolta ruled for a several years with the fist to successfully market an integrated Autofocusing Body.

 

[Stillsky]

I think I'd be a fanboy of the first company to make a bare bones, fully manual DSLR of at least 6mp.

 

[usayit]

Well, Nikon was started in 1917 and Canon was started in 1930. And yes, it appears that pentax was started in 1919, so the whole "they started first" arguement doesn't work.

Yes... but you actually have to read the history of the companies. Pentax (Asahi) was the first to market a Japanese SLR. Canon and Nikon both were making only rangefinders at the time. You guys don't understand the importance Pentax's influence on the foundation of SLR design.....

But..

They lost market share because they pretty much lost their momentum in pushing technology... in the late 70s and into the 80s. This is in part to the lack of diversity in their portfolio to bring $$$ investment into R&D. First with their failed slapped together Autofocus attempt in ME-F ( I have one in my collection..) which was quickly lost to Minolta with their 7000 Maxxum bodies (also in my collection). Then later to Nikon and Canon (Fast AF performance) for sheer features incorporated into their bodies. Then into the digital age with little to no presence until *ist series. By then it was too late.... too many professionals invested in either Canon or Nikon.

It is interesting to note that Canon and Nikon have no MF presence and Pentax has the 645 (manual and AF) as well as the 67. When Pentax shelved the 645 digital project, in my mind that was one of the long line of bad decisions made since the 70s.... They could have easily taken a chunk of studio portrait market if delivered at the original price point of several thousand lower than the Hassys.

 

[usayit]

I think I'd be a fanboy of the first company to make a bare bones, fully manual DSLR of at least 6mp.

I'd be the fanboy of the company that manages to market the "digital film" concept....



btw.. a lot of professionals have told me that Canon's service extended to professionals are first rate (never had the experience myself). Under this program, they can pretty much replace any equipment anywhere in the world. I think that says a lot to Canon's size and ability to leverage it. I think that has a lot to do with their success in the market.

 

[thirrouard]

P&S cameras don't really matter, they're all the same anyway, they all have sensors smaller than your pinky fingernail, and the performance is pretty bad across the board with a few expections.


For Digital SLR's, company matters becuase everything about the camera is different. The button layout, size, sensor, lenses, everything except fot eh name on top the viewfinder.

I'm not going to say one is better than the other, becuase there is no best of the best, it's what is best for you.

For example, I don't really like the Ergonomics of Canon SLR's, especially the 1D's (2 hands to go through menu's? seriously now), Sony's give me cramps the button layout is so terrible, and I can't stand the 4/3rds aspect ratio so that rules out anything using those sensors.

If you shoot only once or twice a month with it, than it really doesn't matter, but if you shoot with it almost every day, than even the small things matter. That's why I shoot NIkon. For the most part, I love the ergonomics of my D70, and it only gets better with the D200/300 and D2/D3. The D2h is just pure joy to use becuase everything is instant, right where you'd expect the adjustments to be, and it fits amazing in the hands.

you're damn wrong about P&S... some are (far) better than others
The Canon ixus 750 IS and sucessors (800IS 850IS etc., but not the 900 Ti) are REALLY better than any other P&S I tried.
You are still very limited in low light, of course, as most DSLR are too, and the DOF is not comparable with SLR, but you can take some nice shot in good to moderate light...

But anyway, I agree, this is not really photography...

 

[thirrouard]

There are specific reasons why they don't have in-body stabilization, one being that it's not as efficient (or so they'd have us believe).

Yes, there is ONE reason in particular: they make IS lens So basically they would shot them-self in the feet if they were to do that!
Anyway, IS in the body is good in most case, eventhough it is more limited, for exemple, if you use big tele lens and relatively slow shutter speed... but well in every day use, IS is great, either in the body or in the lens...
I made some nice shot with my Minolta 7D with 50mm @1/10sec hand-helded (had to do more than one shot to take a sharp one)