The Fall of Nikon

[usayit]

I say it all sucks.... long live Leica... hehehe lol

btw.. I work fridays and weekends too... wth are you guys doing on here on a Saturday....

 

[sabbath999]

I call it "the fall of nikon"

I have no comment on any of the fanboy suff, but your pictures are well done.

Now go update your blog already.

 

[shorty6049]

haha, sorry, i've been procrastinating on the blog. i'll try and update it today!

 

[shundaroni]

I love this thread.

It's a beautiful example of "Shoot with what you want" gone awry. You've got the stable folks trying to mediate a volatile brand war between people who just like to banter. It's gold.

To throw in my own two cents, Sony, as a corporation, has a history of coming out of the gates at full steam and then flopping. Walkman was a great innovation--and then Sony fell tragically behind when the world went digital. Playstation 1 was revolutionary, and PS2 was great, but they came to the portable game market too late and flopped with the PSP...and the PS3 grossly overestimated it's demand. And anyone watching the Blu-Ray / HD-DVD shootout better be prepared to see Betamax part 2.

Sony has a spotty record and I've personally never had much use for them. They're somewhat generic in my opinion. Now, their cameras are really nice...I won't argue otherwise. But will they be able to overtake Nikon and Canon, considering their stigma and tendency to overestimate and fall short? I wouldn't bet on it.

I think they are simply victims of their own success. They do SO much that they have never properly focused on one single crowning achievement. They're left with a whole lot of "good" stuff but very little "great" stuff.

To add to that, what pros are going to sell their glass to buy Sony? You've got pros with $50,000 worth of Nikon or Canon lenses...unless Sony offers a camera that doubles as a time machine, good luck convincing these guys to swtich. Sony, as per usual, came to the table a bit late, and has to settle for leftovers.

 

[usayit]

Ah see there is a slight difference....

Sony keeps trying to introduce their own standards.... Memory stick versus CF, SD etc... Beta versus VHS, Blue ray, and MiniDisc. Standards that are in direct competition with already widely accepted products.

This time, we have Sony which supplies the majority of CCDs in the market (including Nikon's DSLRs and Canon's P&S) absorbing an already well known group in photography, Konica Minolta. They are not late comers.. they've always been playing but just behind the scenes.

I heard recently that Nikon's D3 now uses a sensor that is not manufacturered by Sony.. I would see this as an wise path to try since you would hope not to rely on a direct competitor for your sensors.


What you say sounds really similar to many companies/products of years past which doesn't fit as the market changes so frequently. In the 1960s what company had the majority market in photographic equipment? It wasn't Nikon... and it would have been easy to say that Nikon didn't have a chance... if you did.. you were wrong.

 

[shorty6049]

well shundaroni, i do agree with certain aspects of what you're saying, but i think that the PSP is actually selling quite well, if i remember correctly. As far as sony coming in too late, i suppose you have a point, but also, remember that every company had to start SOMEWHERE. Kodak was a pioneer in the film photography industry , and now look at them... EASYSHARE??! you would THINK that kodak would be years ahead of the competition, but instead, they seem to be just as far behind, probably even FURTHER behind than sony, as far as cameras go. Sony isnt exactly new to the camera business, as far as digital goes. DSLRs are a different ballgame, but sony has the technology, and the knowhow (some of wich they got when they aquired konica minolta) And sure, pros with tons of money in lenses probably wont switch to sony, but what about the pros 10 years from now? people who havent invested ANYTHING in cameras yet? i think its possible that THEY might choose sony. Sure, sony isnt a huge camera brand like canon or minolta. but like i said. You have to start SOMEWHERE. I just got an email saying i have another reply on this thread so i hope i'm not just restating anythign that the person above me wrote . ( i havent seen it yet)

 

[JerryPH]

i called it the fall of nikon for fun. dont take it personally

I for one found it interesting. Taken for what it is (a little fun), its cool. As far as brand wars are concerned, people that get all defensive about their brand of camera need to chill, this is suposed to be about the fun and learning of photography, not who's got the bigger... uhmm... lens! Yeah, thats what I wanted to say... lens!

You bought what you have because you liked it, so enjoy it!

 

[forceofnature]

Actually the D3 and D300 have Nikon's first in house developed sensors..... the Sony sensors are still in the D40, D40x, and D80 though.

You need to provide a facts link there buddy. You are wrong. The D3 is a Nikon design full frame sensor and D300 is still a Sony sensor but with a Nikon image processor.

 

[Buszaj]

Wow, I just read this whole thread. My only comment is that that first guy is too good to be true; hes even got knee pads.

 

[monkeykoder]

I really liked the poster kind of a fun Photoshop job to make fun of the D3 poster.

P.S. My personal preference would have been to go with Pentax but I ended up going Nikon so I could borrow my Dad's macro lens.

 

[itoncool]

shorty, as a friendship gift I'm gonna help you to get a 3rd pages thread.
Let's say from a Sony Video-Cam owner to a Sony DSLR owner. :mrgreen: :hug::

 

[shorty6049]

haha thanks ;-)