Canon or Nikon?

[shaunly]

:crickets:

Um, "all" those photographers in that picture are not using Nikon. I didn't count, but looks close to half are L and the rest are black. Of the black ones, how many can you identify as Nikon, because Canon and other mfgs make black lenses, too. :lmao:

Anyone?

I can't tell. rpm can't tell.

Bueller? Bueller?

In the late 90s the Columbus Dispatch dumped their Nikon gear and bought $100K worth of Canon stuff.

Disclaimer: I own manual focus Leicaflex cameras and lenses and have no bias between Nikon and Canon.

I never said Nikon was perfect. Every brand has their ups and down, but we're looking at the whole picture here, not off one product. The way you describe the brand make it seem like a pile of junk, and I totally disagree. Whether you agree with it or not, the fact remains that Nikon is one of the top company out there.

And since Nikon was so perfect, why did thousands of press photographers switch?

The Columbus Dispatch dumped all their Nikon gear and went to Canon some time in the 90s. I was there when they were doing the transaction. I am sure they were not alone.

I happen to work for the Columbus Dispatch. If they endorse Canon, that's just all the more reason to use Nikon. This company can't get anything right.

:lmao:

otherwise any recent Nikon lenses have been black and only back from what ive seen.

Just an example.

NIKON AF-S NIKKOR ED 80-200mm f/2.8D Light grey Exc+ - eBay (item 160452328979 end time Aug-03-10 22:00:48 PDT)

i retract my comment. but imo i feel that it looks really odd to see a nikon lens in anything but black. i understand in many aspects for canon its a good marketing scheme to have them in white but it just feels alien to see a nikon in anything other than black. maybe a very dark grey would be ok but anything bordering on white feels iffy...

I believe one of the reason they choose white is to repel heat.

Here's some more Nikon's in white/light gray:
http://ylovephoto.com/fr/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/white_nikon_d3.jpg

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photograph...kkor/AF2870mm/NikonAFZM2870mmf28DIFEDGray.jpg

http://www.jafaphotography.com/images/eq/n300w_resize.jpg

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/i...telephoto/af-s_600mmf_4d_if_2/img/pic_001.jpg

 

[Petraio Prime]

And since Nikon was so perfect, why did thousands of press photographers switch?

The Columbus Dispatch dumped all their Nikon gear and went to Canon some time in the 90s. I was there when they were doing the transaction. I am sure they were not alone.

I happen to work for the Columbus Dispatch. If they endorse Canon, that's just all the more reason to use Nikon. This company can't get anything right.

I wasn't saying anything about the Dispatch. Just pointing out they were probably typical of press.

 

[shaunly]

:crickets:

Um, "all" those photographers in that picture are not using Nikon. I didn't count, but looks close to half are L and the rest are black. Of the black ones, how many can you identify as Nikon, because Canon and other mfgs make black lenses, too. :lmao:

Anyone?

I can't tell. rpm can't tell.

Bueller? Bueller?

Don't assume all white lenses are Canon. Just because they're not available in the US doesn't mean the rest of the world don't use them.

SEAG: Football Match (Day 1) on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kieron/65077765/sizes/l/in/photostream/

 

[Aye-non Oh-non Imus]

I wasn't saying anything about the Dispatch. Just pointing out they were probably typical of press.

Anecdotal information is less than worthless.

This breeds contempt to most of your previous indulgencies. Go on....... tell me about the 1950's Nikon lens mount again. Oh wait a minute.....................................................................................................................................................................................

 

[Rekd]

Don't assume all white lenses are Canon.

LoL. So now there's no way to know what lenses are being used in that picture. Point mooted.

 

[rpm]

I believe one of the reason they choose white is to repel heat.

Here's some more Nikon's in white/light gray:
http://ylovephoto.com/fr/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/white_nikon_d3.jpg

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photograph...kkor/AF2870mm/NikonAFZM2870mmf28DIFEDGray.jpg

http://www.jafaphotography.com/images/eq/n300w_resize.jpg

http://imaging.nikon.com/products/i...telephoto/af-s_600mmf_4d_if_2/img/pic_001.jpg

omw the white D3 looks ugly!....not to mention i can imagine it starting have grey-black blotches from dust and sweat....

 

[usayit]

Nikon also make white lenses. Only on the big stuff and you have to ask for it.

I think you'll find that they are actually a light grey rather than white.

and Canon's lenses aren't really white either.. more "putty" color. I think Sony makes a truly white lens. Leica made a white M8 and Pentax made a white combo that looks like it was intended to be standard issue to Storm Troopers.

OMG... I can't freakin believe we are talking about the color of equipment now!



I think the best "color" I've seen is Titanium.... like my M6.

 

[Petraio Prime]

I wasn't saying anything about the Dispatch. Just pointing out they were probably typical of press.

Anecdotal information is less than worthless.

How so? Do you think they were the only ones?

 

[Rekd]

I think the best "color" I've seen is Titanium.... like my M6.

:addpics:

 

[Gaerek]

I wasn't saying anything about the Dispatch. Just pointing out they were probably typical of press.

Anecdotal information is less than worthless.

How so? Do you think they were the only ones?

The top local professional shooter where I'm from shoots Nikon, therefore Nikon is the best.

That is why anecdotal information is worthless. It's the Proof by Example Fallacy. You're trying to claim that because one newspaper dropped Nikon for Canon, that Nikon must not make good products. The photographer for my newspaper just switched from Canon to Nikon. Does that mean Canon is bad? I mean, according to your logic it does.

I'm a Canon shooter. I have nothing against Nikon. I think they are a great company. I have an investment with Canon, so I won't be switching, at least anytime soon. But you simply cannot dismiss what Nikon has accomplished, especially recently.

And whether the Columbus Dispatch was the only paper to switch or not is ENTIRELY irrelevant to the argument.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Anecdotal information is less than worthless.

How so? Do you think they were the only ones?

The top local professional shooter where I'm from shoots Nikon, therefore Nikon is the best.

That is why anecdotal information is worthless. It's the Proof by Example Fallacy. You're trying to claim that because one newspaper dropped Nikon for Canon, that Nikon must not make good products. The photographer for my newspaper just switched from Canon to Nikon. Does that mean Canon is bad? I mean, according to your logic it does.

I'm a Canon shooter. I have nothing against Nikon. I think they are a great company. I have an investment with Canon, so I won't be switching, at least anytime soon. But you simply cannot dismiss what Nikon has accomplished, especially recently.

And whether the Columbus Dispatch was the only paper to switch or not is ENTIRELY irrelevant to the argument.

No, not 'better', just better adapted to the needs of the press.

Looking at the photographers at sporting events over the last 20 years you see overwhelmingly big Canon lenses. This is uncontrovertable.

 

[Gaerek]

How so? Do you think they were the only ones?

The top local professional shooter where I'm from shoots Nikon, therefore Nikon is the best.

That is why anecdotal information is worthless. It's the Proof by Example Fallacy. You're trying to claim that because one newspaper dropped Nikon for Canon, that Nikon must not make good products. The photographer for my newspaper just switched from Canon to Nikon. Does that mean Canon is bad? I mean, according to your logic it does.

I'm a Canon shooter. I have nothing against Nikon. I think they are a great company. I have an investment with Canon, so I won't be switching, at least anytime soon. But you simply cannot dismiss what Nikon has accomplished, especially recently.

And whether the Columbus Dispatch was the only paper to switch or not is ENTIRELY irrelevant to the argument.

No, not 'better', just better adapted to the needs of the press.

Looking at the photographers at sporting events over the last 20 years you see overwhelmingly big Canon lenses. This is uncontrovertable.

Proof? A newspaper switching isn't proof.

Joe McNally has shot several cover stories for SPORTS Illustrated. He shoots Nikon. There! Proof! Oh wait...just using PP's logic here, sorry...

 

[vtf]

Too much of this :chatty:
Leads to this uke:

 

[Petraio Prime]

The top local professional shooter where I'm from shoots Nikon, therefore Nikon is the best.

That is why anecdotal information is worthless. It's the Proof by Example Fallacy. You're trying to claim that because one newspaper dropped Nikon for Canon, that Nikon must not make good products. The photographer for my newspaper just switched from Canon to Nikon. Does that mean Canon is bad? I mean, according to your logic it does.

I'm a Canon shooter. I have nothing against Nikon. I think they are a great company. I have an investment with Canon, so I won't be switching, at least anytime soon. But you simply cannot dismiss what Nikon has accomplished, especially recently.

And whether the Columbus Dispatch was the only paper to switch or not is ENTIRELY irrelevant to the argument.

No, not 'better', just better adapted to the needs of the press.

Looking at the photographers at sporting events over the last 20 years you see overwhelmingly big Canon lenses. This is uncontrovertable.

Proof? A newspaper switching isn't proof.

Joe McNally has shot several cover stories for SPORTS Illustrated. He shoots Nikon. There! Proof! Oh wait...just using PP's logic here, sorry...

What has he been using for the last 20 years?

 

[shaunly]

The top local professional shooter where I'm from shoots Nikon, therefore Nikon is the best.

That is why anecdotal information is worthless. It's the Proof by Example Fallacy. You're trying to claim that because one newspaper dropped Nikon for Canon, that Nikon must not make good products. The photographer for my newspaper just switched from Canon to Nikon. Does that mean Canon is bad? I mean, according to your logic it does.

I'm a Canon shooter. I have nothing against Nikon. I think they are a great company. I have an investment with Canon, so I won't be switching, at least anytime soon. But you simply cannot dismiss what Nikon has accomplished, especially recently.

And whether the Columbus Dispatch was the only paper to switch or not is ENTIRELY irrelevant to the argument.

No, not 'better', just better adapted to the needs of the press.

Looking at the photographers at sporting events over the last 20 years you see overwhelmingly big Canon lenses. This is uncontrovertable.

Proof? A newspaper switching isn't proof.

Joe McNally has shot several cover stories for SPORTS Illustrated. He shoots Nikon. There! Proof! Oh wait...just using PP's logic here, sorry...

There's no point of reasoning with him. I gave up pages ago. lol