Why do Nikon and Canon dominate?

[KmH]

Interesting. Years ago, Nikon made some giant whack of its revenue from selling imaging gear to chipmakers. I guess things change!

I think Nikon still does make some giant whack. Sony is one of their biggest customers. But, the Japanese government imposed export restrictions.

The gear is used in the photo-lithography process of making chips. Nikon steppers have resolutions in the 35 - 40 nm range and throughput of up to 200 wafers per hour. Imagine what one of those puppies cost.
Note that Sony has made Nikon DSLR image sensors for years.

 

[Fund8329]

Thank You to all who replied.
I have been researching this for about 2 weeks now. I have read everything I could find, looked at may reviews, read as much as I could find, on this forum, and posted this thread and considered the responses I got.
After going over this in my head many times, I decided to purchase th Nikon D7100. I hope I made the right decision. I orderd from B&H this afternoon.
I figured it was time to decide and not look back.
Thanks to all again

 

[goodguy]

Thank You to all who replied.
After going over this in my head many times, I decided to purchase th Nikon D7100. I hope I made the right decision. I orderd from B&H this afternoon.
I figured it was time to decide and not look back.
Thanks to all again

Oh I am pretty sure you will not regret getting the d7100, fantastic camera, the sharpness and dynamic range on it is very impressive.
I love my D7100 and my only thing I do wish could be a bit better is its performance in high ISO which I think falls a bit behind its predesessor the D7000.

 

[Tiberius47]

You're not buying a camera. You're buying a camera system. You have to decide which system is going to give you the flexibility to upgrade to the cameras and lenses you're going to want in the future. And the best bet for that is either Canon or Nikon.

 

[usayit]

And Olympus OM-D is a trade. You trade a small camera and lenses for high prices (because despite the small sensor and the small size of the glas, good glas does NOT get much cheaper with smaller sensor size), rather not that good low light performance,

Why do people think Micro 4/3rd lenses are high priced?


12-35mm f/2.8 = $1139USD

vs

Canon 24-70 f/2.8 = $2299USD and Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 = $1186USD

AND

35-100 f/2.8 = $1498USD

vs

Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS = $2499USD and Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 = $2396USD

Granted there are expensive and affordable examples for each system BUT the trend isn't that the micro 4/3rds lenses are expensive:

For prime lovers:
12mm f/2 = $799USD
17mm f/1.8= $499USD
20mm f/1.7 = $349USD
45mm f/1.8 = $399USD
75mm f/1.8 = $799USd
25mm PanLeica Summilux f/1.4 = $529USD
PanLeica 45mm f/2.8 Macro = $719USD
60mm f/2.8 Macro = $499USD

For some zooms (in addition to the 12-35mm and 35-100mm f/2.8 already mentioned):
9-18mm f4-5.6 = $700USD
7-14 f/4 = $969USD
Panny 100-300 = $499USD
Olympus 75-300 = $549USD

For those that like fast:
Nokton 42.5 f/0.95 $999USD
Nokton 24mm f/0.95 $999USD
Nokton 17.5mm f/0.95 $1149USD

There are also really good bargains from Sigma: 30mm and 19mm f/2.8 for $199USD and a 60mm f/2.8 for $239USD

Of course you can pick and choose particular examples that may be more expensive (or cheaper) BUT in the trend isn't "more expensive". In particular the 20, 45, and 75mm are bargains compared to the equivalents in other systems. Since I switched, price has been the least of the issues with the system. Bodies start from $200 on wards up to $1500 (max).





If you asked me why Canon and Nikon dominate... because they established a channels within COMMERCIAL MEDIA groups and catered to them. When a commercial photographer runs into problems, support to get them running again is close by in a network of distributers all over the world. Once they convinced a particular group to invest, they invest for a long long time... its expensive to switch. They also continue to reinvest funds to improve their top tier and trickle stuff downwards... always staying ahead. We consumers think we in terms of investing in a "System". With commercial, they are investing not in only in a "System" but also a "Service".

Pentax and Olympus (and most camera companies) actually made most of the income in other places (medical and research etc). Olympus still does... actually its medical division is more profitable (last time I checked). Minolta, Pentax, and Olympus all did their thing... but they were often late and didn't follow through... you need a lot of convincing to pull a long invested group away from Nikon or Canon. Pentax came to the digital world LAST and failed to update their optics in support of their late entrance. Olympus has some of the best optics period... BUT they were hampered by camera body design. etc.. lots of bad decisions or good decisions too late. Minolta failed to capitalize on their existing mount and in body IS (but now do better under Sony banner.. surprised me).

 

[Solarflare]

Get a Pentax










if you want people to pick on you.

If its a Pentax 645, nobody will try. :greenpbl: