Bias against Nikon?
joeinmiami
Registered Users Posts: 82 Big grins
Correct me if I am wrong. Please be aware that I am not trying to start another Nikon VS Canon debate.
My question: While reading different magazines, photo web sites, and periodicals, I seem to detect a bias against Nikon cameras. For example, on a lab test of one magazine, it said that a given Nikon camera was excellent, but the equivalent Canon model was a bit better. The rest of the magazine always pointed out the superiority of the Canon line up over the Nikon .
In a travel magazine there was an article about what cameras to take on vacations, of the DSLR mentioned, one was from Nikon, the D5100, while they listed 4 from Canon, from the Rebel to D70.
Is this my idea or there is a bias again Nikon?
What you guys/gals think?
Joe :scratch
My question: While reading different magazines, photo web sites, and periodicals, I seem to detect a bias against Nikon cameras. For example, on a lab test of one magazine, it said that a given Nikon camera was excellent, but the equivalent Canon model was a bit better. The rest of the magazine always pointed out the superiority of the Canon line up over the Nikon .
In a travel magazine there was an article about what cameras to take on vacations, of the DSLR mentioned, one was from Nikon, the D5100, while they listed 4 from Canon, from the Rebel to D70.
Is this my idea or there is a bias again Nikon?
What you guys/gals think?
Joe :scratch
www.jlm-photos.com
0
Comments
Likewise the Canon 1Ds MKIII was only reviewed long after its introduction, and a year after their "Preview" of the camera.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0708/07082009canoneos1dsmarkiii.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1dsmarkiii/
To be fair, they did offer both an explanation and an apology:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1dsmarkiii/page32.asp
"First an apology; the Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III arrived in our office well over eight months ago (when we were 'between studios') and, though we've been using it regularly every since, the avalanche of digital SLRs that arrived in January caused this review to be bumped down the queue so often that it started to develop a persecution complex"
For them to snub both of Canon's flagship models is fairly telling, in and of itself.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
In terms of camera bias, Canon pretty much nailed the technology when it comes to shooting motion (video) and Nikon has been scrambling to catch up since. I don't think it's a camera bias issue in the magazines or reviews, it's just that when the 5DII came out, that pretty much became the go-to camera for many, many pros. Nikon may have a similar camera now, but they didn't at the time of the 5D2 and that was a game changer for many pros.
Portland, Oregon Photographer Pete Springer
website blog instagram facebook g+
There was a public perception that the Canon 1D MKIII autofocus was seriously flawed, but the reality is that the AF problems were mostly limited to a range of serial numbers, not the entire production line, and the problems were situational in nature.
Indeed many professionals used, and use, the Canon 1D MKIII for professional sports applications. Vincent Laforet used 3 - 1D MKIII for the Summer Olympics in 2008 and I think they did pretty well for him:
http://www.vincentlaforet.com/Gear/large-5.html
(To be fair Mr. Laforet also used 2 - 1Ds MKIII with the same AF system.)
The original Rob Galbraith reported problems with the 1D MKIII were:
"Under certain conditions, the EOS-1D Mark III has difficulty acquiring focus initially. In a multi-frame burst, the camera will sometimes shoot three to five frames before a moving subject comes into focus, and occasionally a moving subject will not actually snap into focus before the burst is completed.
Under certain conditions, the camera is unable to properly track a moving subject. We've shot numerous sequences of 20+ frames where no more than five or six frames are in focus, even when the AF point has been on the subject throughout.
Focus can shift slightly but constantly at times when the subject isn't moving. Under certain conditions, the subject may not actually come into focus through a sequence of frames, even though the point of focus can be seen to be shifting throughout the sequence. This is true whether the camera is set to AI Servo and focus is active throughout the sequence, or when it's set to One Shot and focus is activated between each frame.
When tracking a subject that's moving somewhat erratically, the camera is far too quick to shift focus elsewhere - to the background or, with a field sport like soccer, to a player passing through in the foreground. With the first three problems, autofocus settings changes don't make things better or worse. With this problem, Custom Function III-2, AI Servo Tracking Sensitivity, does have an impact. But regardless of how this Custom Function is set, it's not possible to make the camera's tracking sensitivity be right. There's more on this ahead in the article."
(Source: http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-8740-9068)
Of these most professional sports/action only reported that they saw portions of problems, except for the cameras with serial numbers between "501001 and 546561". Those cameras did have a problem with their mirror mechanism and were recalled and repaired or, in some instances, replaced by Canon.
(Source: http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=PgComSmModDisplayAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=14999&keycode=2112&id=39707 as well as various other sources)
Prior and subsequent firmware also affected some of the issues and many, if not most, professional users are happy with the resulting 1D MKIII AF performance. Amongst the top tier sports/action photographers I have some difficulty finding truly dissatisfied 1D MKIII users after the mirror issues were repaired and after the last firmware update.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
The 1DIII has undeserved bias against it for its AF "problems." It's really a great camera.
Canon has definitely got a huge marketing department, and their advertising tactics have often taken that "bandwagon" route. (NFL / NBA etc. ads where there's a hundred white lenses, and the ad is for a D-rebel...)
Here's the bottom lines for me:
1.) I like to root for the underdog anyways. It's more fun. I don't really get that sense of camaraderie with others, just because we own the same equipment. I do my research, I buy the equipment best suited for my purposes and preferences, and I just kinda shrug (or roll my eyes) when a Canon shooter tries to brag about their system. Even if Canon is better in many ways, I know for certain that my personal preference is Nikon.
2.) As long as "Canon bias" doesn't significantly Nikon's profits or market share, I don't really care if there is a bias or not. As long as Nikon continues to make great cameras, I'm happy. I may have to put up with a few fanboys rambling about how their camera is superior to mine, but that's a fair trade for having a camera that simply gets the job done. I pay my bills with my cameras, and I entertain my hobbies with the same cameras. I have plenty of issues that I hope Nikon will address, but I would have even more issues if I "switched"...
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
I just found it interesting the perception that one brand was being "pushed" more than the other, we should not forget that the other camera brands, Sony, Panasonic, Olympus, Sigma, etc. are lucky that they get mention at all.
They all are fine pieces of well engineered equipment and one has to select the one they feel most comfortable with.
Joe
Your professional online camera gear rental store
Follow us on Facebook
http://www.facebook.com/borrowlenses
Bias is just part of the human condition. Bias for Nikon, bias against Nikon, its just an opinion after all.
I shoot Nikon. I think the AF system is second to none. To be truthful, Canon isn't bad either. I think my 14-24 is about the finest ultra wide in existance, and Canon lags some there. I think the big, white superteles from Canon do better at infinity, and beat the nikkors at the cash register time and time again (ie cheaper). Canon has better availability, Nikon has a better flash system. Which is better???? Which?
Shoot and be happy. Both C & N offer very nice systems, and which is better is usually a personal preference.
www.spanielsport.com
Me too, I'd buy all the Canons, Nikons, Sonys, and all the mirrorless cameras
Canon *was* dominant, but Nikon really caught up in '07 with the D3. The 1D3's AF issues (the real issues, and the bias against the fixed cameras) helped Nikon get back in as well. Before '07, Canon was clearly ahead, at least in the camera body department... I wouldn't say the same today.
There is a lot of snobbery out there in our world of bodies, lenses and flashguns, I know the equipment I use is far more capable than me and I accept that. It doesn't mean by accepting it I am prepared to spend the rest of my days not striving to improve my photography. I have seen many images from peoples newly acquired all singing, all dancing top of the range, bank breaking set ups where they thought this new purchase would turn them into exceptional photographers. Sadly for many it just depleted their bank balances.
How many of us don't print out images any more, yet we all want a body with 28 zillion mega pixels whilst our images languish on a hard drive somewhere.
My only bias in all of this is against those who look down on others with respect to the equipment they use. Like riding motorbikes, it ain't what you ride, it's what you get from the ride that's important. So whatever you use, enjoy it, learn from it, then enjoy it some more.
Carpy
It's the old Chevy vs. Ford thing, which was so stupid also.
I think it's just a magazine article. But there are more Canon people than Nikon, Sony, Olympus or Pentax people
How often have you seen a review that only highlights one brands positives and another brands negatives? This does not just apply to photography, but to most every industry. That is why you have to do your own research, test your own choices and make your own decisions.
There is a lot to be said for the first mover advantage. Correct me if I am wrong, but Cannon was the first mover to the digital space. And I don't think Nikon fully embraced Digital until it was really viable for the professional. My view, for what's worth, is that Nikon has focused on what is necessary for the professional photographer (tonal qualities, auto focus capability, rugged design etc). Not that Cannon has not, but Nikon produces equipment in a more purposeful manner rather than adopt the feature de jour.
http://joves.smugmug.com/
right, and many think Canon produces equipment in a "more purposeful manner" rather than adopt "de jour" features !
..and hello everyone! Been awhile since I posted!
There's no comparison, Nikon produces a better product. I'm just saying. lol ;-)
I'll need to see your source of information.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Consolodated Annual reports show Canon spent $13.3b where Nikon spent 3.1b on SG&A. Given that consumer advertising is generally more expensive than commercial (B to
I presume you mean consumer products/items vs commercial products/items advertising, since both corporations are fairly diverse.
Please also link the sources of your information.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
what i mean to say is that yes, both companies are diverse, although canon more so. Consumer advertising is generally more expensive due to the multitude of channels by which to reach a consumer compared to a Commercial client.
you can get to the information on each companies website. Generally - Investor relations > Annual Reports> Income Statement > SGA numbers
I was pretty sure of what you meant, but wanted to be clear.
I suspect that some people certainly have a "perception" of more Canon advertising, just because of how each corporation advertises and what each individual watches, reads and listens to. I suspect that's what user "kitkos" is referencing, as opposed to published advertising costs for Canon vs Nikon.
All I found initially, which is why I was asking for your sources, were the published annual reports, like this one from Canon:
http://www.canon.com/ir/annual/2010/report2010.pdf
... and this from Nikon:
http://www.nikon.com/about/ir/ir_library/ar/pdf/ar2010/10annual_e.pdf
While both list "Selling, general and administrative expenses", I will try to search as you suggest. Thanks.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums