to harry and the other folks who claim that the company's peripherals, like financial status and marketing strategy, dont matter:
The two companies who make the best glass out there are Zeiss and Leica. Who here shoots Zeiss or Leica digital cameras? I would guess no one does. Zeiss (as far as I know) no longer produces cameras, and Leica's digital cameras are sub-par as far as quality goes (in their electronics) and not up to scratch in terms of quality (in comparison to their film rangefinders). If Leica was producing digital in the manner of Canon or Nikon, then thye would hands down beat both of those companies in terms of quality. Unfortunately, they are out of the game because they have one toe out of recievership.
For the folks who invested a lot in Leica during the film days, then they will have to switch to canon or nikon, or buy an epson digital rangefinder with some leica glass and accept the limitations in that system.
This is why iots important for a company to stay healthy. If I had been buying equipment back in the 80s, I would probably have bought one of the R series. And right now, I would be screwed.
On a side not, to those who claim that canon's success in things like photocopiers means that they are not a "real" camera company, I would like to note that I stopped by the Leica geosystems booth at the concrete show in vegas, and checked out their survey equipment. Nice lasers.
I bet you really like those Bud Light commercials too. Mm mm, urine.
Actually in my older age I find wine more appealing, but back in the day - Corona was mighty tasty (yes that's foreign but with a little lime mmmmmm ) or Michelob.
Greg "Tis better keep your mouth shut and be thought of as an idiot than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"
This is why iots important for a company to stay healthy. If I had been buying equipment back in the 80s, I would probably have bought one of the R series. And right now, I would be screwed.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
to harry and the other folks who claim that the company's peripherals, like financial status and marketing strategy, dont matter:
The two companies who make the best glass out there are Zeiss and Leica. Who here shoots Zeiss or Leica digital cameras? I would guess no one does. Zeiss (as far as I know) no longer produces cameras, and Leica's digital cameras are sub-par as far as quality goes (in their electronics) and not up to scratch in terms of quality (in comparison to their film rangefinders). If Leica was producing digital in the manner of Canon or Nikon, then thye would hands down beat both of those companies in terms of quality. Unfortunately, they are out of the game because they have one toe out of recievership.
For the folks who invested a lot in Leica during the film days, then they will have to switch to canon or nikon, or buy an epson digital rangefinder with some leica glass and accept the limitations in that system.
This is why iots important for a company to stay healthy. If I had been buying equipment back in the 80s, I would probably have bought one of the R series. And right now, I would be screwed.
On a side not, to those who claim that canon's success in things like photocopiers means that they are not a "real" camera company, I would like to note that I stopped by the Leica geosystems booth at the concrete show in vegas, and checked out their survey equipment. Nice lasers.
I didn't say it didn't matter I said it was boring. :snore As far as I can see Nikon's financial staus is fine and I don't see myself with an orphan system in the future.
When I choose a camera I don't look at the the company's profit margin I look at the camera. If I like the camera I buy it.
If you want the company with the most $ buy Canon. In fact let's all buy Canon so there's only one company out there. Lets eliminate all competition because Canon is so profitable. I'm sure Canon's committment to its customers is so strong that it doesn't need competition to motivate it. :bs
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
In fact let's all buy Canon so there's only one company out there. Lets eliminate all competition because Canon is so profitable. I'm sure Canon's committment to its customers is so strong that it doesn't need competition to motivate it. :bs
Being a Mac guy, I like this argument. I know where innovation comes from in the computer world, and it's mostly Apple. Canon is certainly innovating, but what would happen if they didn't feel any real competition? Having a diverse ecosystem is important, even if it's just cameras.
Hey grumpy, go drink a Corona, eh? You're forgetting the spirit of this thread!
Grumpy? Me? Never!
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
to harry and the other folks who claim that the company's peripherals, like financial status and marketing strategy, dont matter:
The two companies who make the best glass out there are Zeiss and Leica. Who here shoots Zeiss or Leica digital cameras? I would guess no one does. Zeiss (as far as I know) no longer produces cameras, and Leica's digital cameras are sub-par as far as quality goes (in their electronics) and not up to scratch in terms of quality (in comparison to their film rangefinders). If Leica was producing digital in the manner of Canon or Nikon, then thye would hands down beat both of those companies in terms of quality. Unfortunately, they are out of the game because they have one toe out of recievership.
For the folks who invested a lot in Leica during the film days, then they will have to switch to canon or nikon, or buy an epson digital rangefinder with some leica glass and accept the limitations in that system.
This is why iots important for a company to stay healthy. If I had been buying equipment back in the 80s, I would probably have bought one of the R series. And right now, I would be screwed.
On a side not, to those who claim that canon's success in things like photocopiers means that they are not a "real" camera company, I would like to note that I stopped by the Leica geosystems booth at the concrete show in vegas, and checked out their survey equipment. Nice lasers.
All right. I've been avoiding this thread because it generally annoys me, but it keeps showing up in the "new stuff." Now, having made the mistake, I have to reply. This is the second time today that I've read about Nikon's possible demise (the other one was more specific, predicting that Canon will have Nikon 'stuffed and mounted' by year's end).
Did you go in and read Nikon's report that Patchy posted? Does anyone actually have financial data to support these statements? I looked, and as far as my engineering mind can tell, Nikon looks to be a healthy company that is not going out of business anytime soon. I know this forum is dominated by Canon users, but let's try to keep some sense of perspective?
Zeiss and Leica have, wisely or unwisely, taken the route of being part of an expensive niche market. Appealing to the masses isn't part of their game. Please don't try to tell me that Nikon is going down that road; they are coming out with extremely competitive gear oriented towards the same market segments as Canon. Nikon isn't Zeiss or Leica. Although Nikon owners will soon be able to use Zeiss lenses! Take a good hard look at the D200, its reviews and its price point, and tell me Nikon isn't very much in the game.
If you have a financial data analysis that shows Nikon is going down the tubes, please post it. If so I want to sell my stuff. But save the innuendo. I mean, it's like you can't even count on the Internet anymore for factual information! What is the world coming to?
My point about comparing Nikon's and Canon's relative revenue really wasn't meant as a pro Canon argument at all. I'm just a nerd and I was invited to compare and contrast Canon vs Nikon.
So here is another nedrly question. Does Canon have it's own fab? I dug around with google and couldn't figure that out. I don't think Nikon does have a fab, but I could be wrong. Although both Canon and Nikon are large manufacturers of equipment for semiconductor fabrication, Nikon a bit small to play this game itself.
Of course, you don't need your own fab to design great cmos products. But having a fab business does opens options.
My point about comparing Nikon's and Canon's relative revenue really wasn't meant as a pro Canon argument at all. I'm just a nerd and I was invited to compare and contrast Canon vs Nikon.
So here is another nedrly question. Does Canon have it's own fab? I dug around with google and couldn't figure that out. I don't think Nikon does have a fab, but I could be wrong. Although both Canon and Nikon are large manufacturers of equipment for semiconductor fabrication, Nikon a bit small to play this game itself.
Of course, you don't need your own fab to design great cmos products. But having a fab business does opens options.
Harry, hope you are loving this.
:snore
:booze
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
My point about comparing Nikon's and Canon's relative revenue really wasn't meant as a pro Canon argument at all. I'm just a nerd and I was invited to compare and contrast Canon vs Nikon.
....
Didn't take it that way, Rutt. You looked at the report and offered analysis. Nothing wrong with that.
Oy, Canon vs. Nikon, how on earth did I actually post here? :hide
Did you go in and read Nikon's report that Patchy posted? Does anyone actually have financial data to support these statements? I looked, and as far as my engineering mind can tell, Nikon looks to be a healthy company that is not going out of business anytime soon. I know this forum is dominated by Canon users, but let's try to keep some sense of perspective?
speaking of my father's old Leica rangefinder, I think fondly of it when the birds HEAR my Canon go clunk and the bird looks at me and goes thataway, too fast to photograph.
sure wish they had put sound dampening on the Canon 20D.
I am sure you all know that Henri Cartier Bresson sat in his cafes sipping coffee/tea/whatever and snapping away at unsuspecting people with his LEICA rangefinder.
And he could because it made NO noise! (and it was small like a canon elph, but it was black...........kind of like invisible and silent)
(I am sure there is no noise at all out of those more expensive Canons........and certainly none out of the top of the line Nikons!) But they are largish!
I am sure you all know that Henri Cartier Bresson sat in his cafes sipping coffee/tea/whatever and snapping away at unsuspecting people with his LEICA rangefinder.
He never "snuck" around. For the most part, his subjects knew he was there, and shooting
I just read Weegee's book Naked City and it's amusing how different his approach was. He used this huge (by modern standards) Speed Graphic press camra and almost always used a flash (costing a bulb for every exposure.) So that was very very obvious, but from what he says, that's the way he liked it. He wanted his subjects to be aware of him and to interact with him. The only times he didn't use that flash was when he used a technique called "invisible light" which might have been some sort of trade secrect of his since he doesn't describe the details (and he does describe a lot of other technical details.) He used invisible light to take pictures of lovers on the beach at Coney Island at night, for example.
Weegee also liked to use "guess focus". He had some pretty simple rules of thumb about focus and used a very small aperature (f/16 or even f/32) to get DOF and a lot of slack for not very accurate focus. Since he was using a flash that worked well to focus attention on his subjects who were well exposed while his backgrounds were very dark.
It's an interesting picture of how a photographer's very recognizable style was strongly related to his technique and equipment. And the contrast with HCB who was almost is contemporary is striking.
On the other hand, consider Margaret Bouke-White, who used pretty much the same equipment as Weegee. Compare her beautiful work with Weegee's direct powerful and unsubtle work.
[Moderators: now we are very off topic. So do your worst. But maybe if we leave it here, we'll succeed in our larger mission of boring Harry, since it has notihing to do with birds or Nikons.]
[Moderators: now we are very off topic. So do your worst. But maybe if we leave it here, we'll succeed in our larger mission of boring Harry, since it has notihing to do with birds or Nikons.]
Right, cuz we were so on topic and serious from the beginning.
Why think that? Nikon is only about a $6B company and the kind of fab they would need to push the sensor envelope would be about a $1B investment. They could still design for TSMC or Toshiba or Samsung or someone and not need to do this. Or they could use Sony sensors. I don't actually know what they do and couldn't google the answer.
Canon, on the other hand is easily big enough to have a fab and as so many synergistic businesses that it coudl easily justify it. I belive (but haven't really been able to google up the proof) that Canon's sensor inovation is at least partly enabled by the fact that the do have their own fab(s). So they pioneered cmos sensors, full frame sensors, interesting pixel well shapes.
Ginger: a "fab" is a semiconductor factory. They are very expensive ($1B) to build and the damn thing about it is that they don't take that long to become obsolete. So you need a lot of business to be able to justify having your own. An advantage of having one, though, is that you can tweak it for just your own needs. CMOS sensors are very different from memory or processors, so their really is an advantage for having specialized fabs for them.
I just read Weegee's book Naked City and it's amusing how different his approach was. He used this huge (by modern standards) Speed Graphic press camra and almost always used a flash (costing a bulb for every exposure.) So that was very very obvious, but from what he says, that's the way he liked it. He wanted his subjects to be aware of him and to interact with him. The only times he didn't use that flash was when he used a technique called "invisible light" which might have been some sort of trade secrect of his since he doesn't describe the details (and he does describe a lot of other technical details.) He used invisible light to take pictures of lovers on the beach at Coney Island at night, for example.
Weegee also liked to use "guess focus". He had some pretty simple rules of thumb about focus and used a very small aperature (f/16 or even f/32) to get DOF and a lot of slack for not very accurate focus. Since he was using a flash that worked well to focus attention on his subjects who were well exposed while his backgrounds were very dark.
It's an interesting picture of how a photographer's very recognizable style was strongly related to his technique and equipment. And the contrast with HCB who was almost is contemporary is striking.
On the other hand, consider Margaret Bouke-White, who used pretty much the same equipment as Weegee. Compare her beautiful work with Weegee's direct powerful and unsubtle work.
[Moderators: now we are very off topic. So do your worst. But maybe if we leave it here, we'll succeed in our larger mission of boring Harry, since it has notihing to do with birds or Nikons.]
Actually this was pretty good. It was about that photography thing I keep hearing about. And here I had just read a detailed analysis of Nikon's capital additions and was ready to weigh in. Drats, I don't get no breaks . :cry
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Comments
Kinda like swapping to a foreign Beer - good at first then find out it gives you the squirts
Sorry to hear about your misfortune, hopefully things will turn around for ya and don't forget the "Pepto" while shooting Nikon.
"Tis better keep your mouth shut and be thought of as an idiot than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"
moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]
The two companies who make the best glass out there are Zeiss and Leica. Who here shoots Zeiss or Leica digital cameras? I would guess no one does. Zeiss (as far as I know) no longer produces cameras, and Leica's digital cameras are sub-par as far as quality goes (in their electronics) and not up to scratch in terms of quality (in comparison to their film rangefinders). If Leica was producing digital in the manner of Canon or Nikon, then thye would hands down beat both of those companies in terms of quality. Unfortunately, they are out of the game because they have one toe out of recievership.
For the folks who invested a lot in Leica during the film days, then they will have to switch to canon or nikon, or buy an epson digital rangefinder with some leica glass and accept the limitations in that system.
This is why iots important for a company to stay healthy. If I had been buying equipment back in the 80s, I would probably have bought one of the R series. And right now, I would be screwed.
On a side not, to those who claim that canon's success in things like photocopiers means that they are not a "real" camera company, I would like to note that I stopped by the Leica geosystems booth at the concrete show in vegas, and checked out their survey equipment. Nice lasers.
Actually in my older age I find wine more appealing, but back in the day - Corona was mighty tasty (yes that's foreign but with a little lime mmmmmm ) or Michelob.
"Tis better keep your mouth shut and be thought of as an idiot than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"
(and so does Corona :puke1)
moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]
:rambo
:slosh
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
I didn't say it didn't matter I said it was boring. :snore As far as I can see Nikon's financial staus is fine and I don't see myself with an orphan system in the future.
When I choose a camera I don't look at the the company's profit margin I look at the camera. If I like the camera I buy it.
If you want the company with the most $ buy Canon. In fact let's all buy Canon so there's only one company out there. Lets eliminate all competition because Canon is so profitable. I'm sure Canon's committment to its customers is so strong that it doesn't need competition to motivate it. :bs
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]
Being a Mac guy, I like this argument. I know where innovation comes from in the computer world, and it's mostly Apple. Canon is certainly innovating, but what would happen if they didn't feel any real competition? Having a diverse ecosystem is important, even if it's just cameras.
Dgrin FAQ | Me | Workshops
Grumpy? Me? Never!
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
All right. I've been avoiding this thread because it generally annoys me, but it keeps showing up in the "new stuff." Now, having made the mistake, I have to reply. This is the second time today that I've read about Nikon's possible demise (the other one was more specific, predicting that Canon will have Nikon 'stuffed and mounted' by year's end).
Did you go in and read Nikon's report that Patchy posted? Does anyone actually have financial data to support these statements? I looked, and as far as my engineering mind can tell, Nikon looks to be a healthy company that is not going out of business anytime soon. I know this forum is dominated by Canon users, but let's try to keep some sense of perspective?
Zeiss and Leica have, wisely or unwisely, taken the route of being part of an expensive niche market. Appealing to the masses isn't part of their game. Please don't try to tell me that Nikon is going down that road; they are coming out with extremely competitive gear oriented towards the same market segments as Canon. Nikon isn't Zeiss or Leica. Although Nikon owners will soon be able to use Zeiss lenses! Take a good hard look at the D200, its reviews and its price point, and tell me Nikon isn't very much in the game.
If you have a financial data analysis that shows Nikon is going down the tubes, please post it. If so I want to sell my stuff. But save the innuendo. I mean, it's like you can't even count on the Internet anymore for factual information! What is the world coming to?
http://cusac.smugmug.com
So here is another nedrly question. Does Canon have it's own fab? I dug around with google and couldn't figure that out. I don't think Nikon does have a fab, but I could be wrong. Although both Canon and Nikon are large manufacturers of equipment for semiconductor fabrication, Nikon a bit small to play this game itself.
Of course, you don't need your own fab to design great cmos products. But having a fab business does opens options.
Harry, hope you are loving this.
:snore
:booze
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Didn't take it that way, Rutt. You looked at the report and offered analysis. Nothing wrong with that.
Oy, Canon vs. Nikon, how on earth did I actually post here? :hide
Back to your regularly scheduled :deadhorse
http://cusac.smugmug.com
moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]
moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]
I am going to have to out you on at the Cafe..
I'm prolly good for a couple or three Harp (per hour). Will that be a
problem?
P.S. I think that Nikon rockz!
Ian
Sure Nikon rockz, but do they have a fab?
Good morning everyone
speaking of my father's old Leica rangefinder, I think fondly of it when the birds HEAR my Canon go clunk and the bird looks at me and goes thataway, too fast to photograph.
sure wish they had put sound dampening on the Canon 20D.
I am sure you all know that Henri Cartier Bresson sat in his cafes sipping coffee/tea/whatever and snapping away at unsuspecting people with his LEICA rangefinder.
And he could because it made NO noise! (and it was small like a canon elph, but it was black...........kind of like invisible and silent)
(I am sure there is no noise at all out of those more expensive Canons........and certainly none out of the top of the line Nikons!) But they are largish!
ginger (A 1, 2, 3 for when Leica was king)
He never "snuck" around. For the most part, his subjects knew he was there, and shooting
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
He was not obtrusive, many articles used to point out his preference for Leicas for just that reason, smile.
Good Morning!
ginger
moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]
Sid said HCB used to adjust his camera in his pocket "by feel" so he could shoot quickly. I don't know if that's true.
[imgl]http://museum.icp.org/museum/collections/special/weegee/images/wg6-97.jpg[/imgl]
I just read Weegee's book Naked City and it's amusing how different his approach was. He used this huge (by modern standards) Speed Graphic press camra and almost always used a flash (costing a bulb for every exposure.) So that was very very obvious, but from what he says, that's the way he liked it. He wanted his subjects to be aware of him and to interact with him. The only times he didn't use that flash was when he used a technique called "invisible light" which might have been some sort of trade secrect of his since he doesn't describe the details (and he does describe a lot of other technical details.) He used invisible light to take pictures of lovers on the beach at Coney Island at night, for example.
Weegee also liked to use "guess focus". He had some pretty simple rules of thumb about focus and used a very small aperature (f/16 or even f/32) to get DOF and a lot of slack for not very accurate focus. Since he was using a flash that worked well to focus attention on his subjects who were well exposed while his backgrounds were very dark.
It's an interesting picture of how a photographer's very recognizable style was strongly related to his technique and equipment. And the contrast with HCB who was almost is contemporary is striking.
On the other hand, consider Margaret Bouke-White, who used pretty much the same equipment as Weegee. Compare her beautiful work with Weegee's direct powerful and unsubtle work.
[Moderators: now we are very off topic. So do your worst. But maybe if we leave it here, we'll succeed in our larger mission of boring Harry, since it has notihing to do with birds or Nikons.]
Probably some place.
Ian
moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]
Why think that? Nikon is only about a $6B company and the kind of fab they would need to push the sensor envelope would be about a $1B investment. They could still design for TSMC or Toshiba or Samsung or someone and not need to do this. Or they could use Sony sensors. I don't actually know what they do and couldn't google the answer.
Canon, on the other hand is easily big enough to have a fab and as so many synergistic businesses that it coudl easily justify it. I belive (but haven't really been able to google up the proof) that Canon's sensor inovation is at least partly enabled by the fact that the do have their own fab(s). So they pioneered cmos sensors, full frame sensors, interesting pixel well shapes.
Ginger: a "fab" is a semiconductor factory. They are very expensive ($1B) to build and the damn thing about it is that they don't take that long to become obsolete. So you need a lot of business to be able to justify having your own. An advantage of having one, though, is that you can tweak it for just your own needs. CMOS sensors are very different from memory or processors, so their really is an advantage for having specialized fabs for them.
[Harry:
moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]
Actually this was pretty good. It was about that photography thing I keep hearing about. And here I had just read a detailed analysis of Nikon's capital additions and was ready to weigh in. Drats, I don't get no breaks . :cry
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"