Just Curious

David-Stallard · June 5, 2011

Okay guys n gals here's a question for you all:

Why do the majority of photographers esp motorsports use Canon? okay there are a few Nikon shooters as well but the majority use Canon.

Is it a case of it's what 'you' start with and are happy with added to the fact that it's so expensive to change kit once you have built up a collection of glass etc?

I am a dedicated Sony a900 shooter and I'm very happy with the set up I have, I have even got over the snooty attitude that a lot of the other media guys have because I have the Sony and not another of their beloved Canons - no I can't get my head around that mentality either.

Or is there something I'm missing here?

.DAVID.

Harryb · June 5, 2011

David-Stallard wrote: »

Okay guys n gals here's a question for you all:

Why do the majority of photographers esp motorsports use Canon? okay there are a few Nikon shooters as well but the majority use Canon.

Is it a case of it's what 'you' start with and are happy with added to the fact that it's so expensive to change kit once you have built up a collection of glass etc?

I am a dedicated Sony a900 shooter and I'm very happy with the set up I have, I have even got over the snooty attitude that a lot of the other media guys have because I have the Sony and not another of their beloved Canons - no I can't get my head around that mentality either.

Or is there something I'm missing here?

.DAVID.

The answer is easy, they like their set ups. You can find snotty attitudes in any group of shooters just as you would find with car enthusiasts. I have checked in on a few Sony forums and found some snootiness there also. Its just the way some folks are.

The key here is to be happy with your choice. Sony has come out with some outstanding cameras. Their only weakness is their lens line-up which should improve as time goes by. The two wildlife shooters who I knew who used Sony ended up switching to Canon and Nikon only because of their lens offerings.

craig_d · June 5, 2011

It's historical. Nikon was the #1 choice of professional photojournalists back in the 1970s and early '80s, but when autofocus came in about 1986, that started to change. Nikon's original AF system, which used a motor in the camera that turned a screw to focus the lens, wasn't very fast. Canon's all-electronic EOS system, especially with the fast, silent USM lenses that Canon began introducing in 1987, was clearly superior. Photojournalists, especially those covering sports, switched to Canon in droves in the late '80s and early '90s. Nikon didn't start winning them back until fairly recently.

ThatCanonGuy · June 5, 2011

I don't think the majority of photographers use canon. Maybe 60-40, but not 80-20. It's probably more like 50-50. I'm guessing this because so many photographers deserted Canon and went for the D3 when it came out. If you ask me, Canon still hasn't caught up.

The other two replies also explain some of it. Nikon shooters love their Nikons, Canon shooters love their Canons, and rich pros love to switch brands for the latest and greatest (other option: wait 6 months ;~). Glass is also a big part of it. If you've got a bunch of 300/400/500 etc. lenses, you need a really good reason to switch brands

davemj98 · June 5, 2011

Not an Issue
I understand your querry, and the issue for me is where can I get those $6K lens's a lot cheaper.

craig_d · June 5, 2011

ThatCanonGuy wrote: »

I don't think the majority of photographers use canon. Maybe 60-40, but not 80-20.

Uh, 60:40 is a majority. And if that was actually the ratio between them (which I doubt), it would be pretty strong market dominance, since it would mean that Canon had 50% more users than Nikon (40 x 1.5 = 60).

ThatCanonGuy · June 5, 2011

I know 60-40 is a majority, but I think the ratio is closer than a lot of people realize. That is a very good point about 60-40 being 50% more.

basflt · June 5, 2011

arent Canons cheaper then Nikons ?

may be not an issue for majority , but still .....

i cannot believe its because of quality or speed

David-Stallard · June 5, 2011

basflt wrote: »

arent Canons cheaper then Nikons ?

may be not an issue for majority , but still .....

i cannot believe its because of quality or speed

And the majority of Sony are cheaper again, Nikon use Sony sensors (shhh don't tell them) okay the Sony 'G' glass and Ziess may not be the cheapest but the colours etc are outstanding plus with steadyshot in the body you have a huge range of the older Minolta / Konica glass to choose from.

I thought it may be because of quality / speed but looking at the spec sheets I can't pick an overall reason, as the title say's 'just curious'

Thanks for the replies so far.

.DAVID.

Icebear · June 5, 2011

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I know you will) but didn't Nikon also lag Canon in the failure to offer a decent selection of mid-range (f/4) lenses.

ThatCanonGuy · June 5, 2011

Canons aren't cheaper than Nikons. Look at the price of the 1DIV vs the D3s. The D3s is the better camera feature-wise, yet costs less than the Canon. The D700 is more than the 5DII. The D7000 may cost less than the 60D, but it's got a whole lot more features.

Oh, and Nikon doesn't only use Sony sensors. I'm pretty sure the D7000 does, but IIRC the D3100 and D5100 use Nikon-designed sensors. I think the D3, D3x, D3s, and D700 all use Nikon sensors.

ThatCanonGuy · June 5, 2011

Icebear: yes, although Nikon has the 24-120, they don't have a 70-200 f4. That's a big reason I'm with Canon (there are other reasons). I forget if they have a FF WA f4 option....

I'm not trying to downplay Nikon, as I think they're going in a better direction than Canon. But I still think the ratio is closer than most think.

Matthew Saville · June 5, 2011

craig_d wrote: »

It's historical. Nikon was the #1 choice of professional photojournalists back in the 1970s and early '80s, but when autofocus came in about 1986, that started to change. Nikon's original AF system, which used a motor in the camera that turned a screw to focus the lens, wasn't very fast. Canon's all-electronic EOS system, especially with the fast, silent USM lenses that Canon began introducing in 1987, was clearly superior. Photojournalists, especially those covering sports, switched to Canon in droves in the late '80s and early '90s. Nikon didn't start winning them back until fairly recently.

Best reply in the whole topic so far!

Well said, Craig. Honestly, don't let snobbery or attitudes in general turn you away from any system. Some systems are simply the best at certain applications. Canon has an AMAZING system for telephoto sports. Nikon's D3 and D3s have certainly caught up recently, and while I don't know about any exact 60-40 ratios, I do know that Canon will NOT be doing any more of it's ads where they show a sea of white lenses. Photos from recent olympics have shown that the playing field is much more equal now.

The bottom line is that Sony, no offense, just doesn't have a good sports system at all. The selection of lenses is limited, and the camera bodies just aren't made for it. As far as I know, there aren't any Sony cameras, let alone full-frame cameras, that can hit 8 FPS. Most are around 5-6 FPS, though I'm not even sure if their full-frame lineup goes past 3-4 FPS. Forgive me for not looking this info up, I know it would only take a few seconds. But anyways, neither are they winning any awards for autofocus speed or accuracy, as far as I know. And so on and so forth.

Sony's target "PRO" market, again NO OFFENSE, is moms who have just taken up photography and are considering going pro as casual portrait photographers. I am not making this up, just read up on google about how Me Ra Koh has helped Sony with much collaboration. I dunno if it's just marketing, or design as well, but I'm pretty sure I've read somewhere that Sony has "asked the input" of Me Rah and other ladies, in an effort to pursue a marketshare that Canon and Nikon haven't touched even though it is growing at an alarming rate...

*Ducks flying tomatoes*

=Matt=

Matthew Saville · June 5, 2011

ThatCanonGuy wrote: »

Icebear: yes, although Nikon has the 24-120, they don't have a 70-200 f4. That's a big reason I'm with Canon (there are other reasons). I forget if they have a FF WA f4 option....

I'm not trying to downplay Nikon, as I think they're going in a better direction than Canon. But I still think the ratio is closer than most think.

Yeah, f/4 is a sore subject for me as a Nikon user

. :-(

Canon had a 17-40 f/4 L, very decent sharpness, WAY before Nikon's recent release of a 16-35 f/4 VR. Sure, the Nikon is most likely better and includes stabilization, but their "slow and steady" approach sure didn't win any races. Nikon also took forever to rival Canon's 24-105 offering; the older Nikon 24-120 was effectively f/4-5.6, and all that sharp on a full-frame high-res DSLR. Again, the 24-120 f/4 was a recent development. And, last but definitely not least, (although probably the most sore subject) ...Nikon has no 70-200 f/4, period. For this reason, I still shoot with a D300 and a Sigma 50-150 2.8 when I need a telephoto zoom, even though I've finally bought a D700 ironically. Actually, for theater work in extremely dark conditions, I use the D700 and the crop-sensor 50-150, un-cropped, and it works great despite the vignetting. (A pitch-black stage hides vignetted corners very nicely!)

=Matt=

insanefred · June 5, 2011

Don't forget about camera ergonomics.'

Nikon 80-200mm 2.8 AF-D $1,119.95 (B&H)
Canon 70-200mm f/4 $1,281.00

Canon is smaller, and better AF. but I'd say nikon's equivalent is not bad.

ziggy53 · June 6, 2011

In addition to other comments, Canon is the only company with a crop sports/action professional level body system. The 1D series camera have a crop aspect of 1.3x which is more suited to many sports/action situations. The 1Ds was the first FF body that could also shoot sports with very short shutter lag and high shutter speeds.

Canon was also the first to use a light gray lens body color for some of its fluorite-formula lenses, and they later exploited that color as a feature for many of their best lenses. (Nikon also tried to market "white" colored lenses but I think they have given up that strategy recently.)

Canon has also traditionally had a larger presence at sporting events than Nikon and hosting lens rentals at the event. Here is the Canon lens room at the 2010 Winter Olympics:

http://j.mp/css1Ye

Add all of these things together;

First to have the faster AF of in-lens ultrasonic-wave-ring AF motor technology
First to have dual memory card storage in-camera
Crop sports/action professional grade bodies "and" FF Sports/action professional grade bodies,
Company support at more large sporting venues, etc.

... I think you can understand why many working professionals do use Canon.

Nikon also has a large consortium of sports/action users and the combination of D3 and D300 bodies was a very good success for Nikon in the sports action arena. The D3X proved that Nikon could produce a FF body with excellent "everything".

While Nikon and Canon have been locked in battle for the sports/action market, other companies, notably Pentax, Minolta/Sony and Olympus, have done fairly well in a subordinate role. Olympus has some extremely competent lenses, and bodies to support those lenses. While Olympus has not captured much of the indoor sports market, I find it refreshinging to see the E-1, E-3 and E-5 along with their top-tier SWD lenses, at some sporting events:

http://www.mcnamarareport.com/olympus-e-3-dslr-top-seed-at-the-us-open/

David-Stallard · June 8, 2011

Some good replies there - thanks guys, apart from Matt who thinks I'm a 'mom'

No offense taken Matt, I have done the back to back tests of several makes and for me the Sony FF with the G and Zeiss glass came out tops in every way (for me)

At the end of the day, its is the photographer and his/her eye that see's the picture and their skill as a photographer that makes the shot. I cannot remember who said it but I like the quote " The best camera in the world is the one you have with you...."

.DAVID.

David-Stallard · June 9, 2011

Richy, have been shooting around the circuit's in some torrential rain and also high winds in 'dusty' area's with the 70-400G and the 24-70 and have never had a problem.

You really want to see how it holds up take a quick look here>> http://www.swiatobrazu.pl/sony_dslr_a900_at_dakar_rally.html

.DAVID.

David_S85 · June 9, 2011

Perhaps you Sony users could explain what Sony might be up to with their pro-level cameras? They've made some important inroads and kicked some important spec butt lately, but this tidbit doesn't look good.

MarkR · June 9, 2011

David_S85 wrote: »

Perhaps you Sony users could explain what Sony might be up to with their pro-level cameras? They've made some important inroads and kicked some important spec butt lately, but this tidbit doesn't look good.

I think Sony's current strategy is moving to all-pellicle. (A35, A55, A77). It makes a lot of sense: eliminate their quite frankly dizzying array of similarly specced cameras, and move into markets (Pellicle and NEX) that aren't dominated by CaNikon.

Harryb · June 9, 2011

MarkR wrote: »

I think Sony's current strategy is moving to all-pellicle. (A35, A55, A77). It makes a lot of sense: eliminate their quite frankly dizzying array of similarly specced cameras, and move into markets (Pellicle and NEX) that aren't dominated by CaNikon.

However they are only addressing part of the market and their continuing problem is the glass that attaches to the bodies. LL spoke to that in this article.

rwells · June 9, 2011

It wasn't that long ago (until the D3) that the Nikon shooters were really suffering in the high ISO area. Shoot a lot of sports and your going to regularly need to shoot high ISO images. Nikon has not only caught-up in that regard, but IMHO surpassed Canon with their D3s.

But, as stated, it's tough to switch due to the money involved once you have a family of glass.

We're lucky... Canon and Nikon are both great systems

Cygnus Studios · June 9, 2011

ThatCanonGuy wrote: »

I don't think the majority of photographers use canon. Maybe 60-40, but not 80-20. It's probably more like 50-50.

According to the data compared here Canon outsells Nikon by a large margin.

Does that mean they make better cameras or are they just better at marketing?

Every photographer must determine what is the best for them. What works for me might not necessarily work best for you.

ThatCanonGuy · June 9, 2011

Keep in mind that Canon is a huge company that makes not only cameras but also office products and whatnot. Nikon is pretty much optics. Canon definitely does the better marketing, with their Rebels effortlessly shooting football players

IMHO, Nikon has had the momentum since the release of the D3 in 2007. Seems to me Canon might be about to change that with the new bodies due.

Matthew Saville · June 11, 2011

David-Stallard wrote: »

Some good replies there - thanks guys, apart from Matt who thinks I'm a 'mom' No offense taken Matt, I have done the back to back tests of several makes and for me the Sony FF with the G and Zeiss glass came out tops in every way (for me)

At the end of the day, its is the photographer and his/her eye that see's the picture and their skill as a photographer that makes the shot. I cannot remember who said it but I like the quote " The best camera in the world is the one you have with you...."

.DAVID.

Trust me, I sure do salivate over the idea of a Zeiss 135mm f/1.8, that's for sure! And certainly, if I were in various other situations, I'd pick the Sony system hands-down. (I've heard nothing but good things about the Sony's performance as a high-adventure, landscape / nature photography system...) I'm only speaking about my observations with respect to the newest, fastest-growing industry, (unfortunately) ...the "wannabe portrait / wedding pro" industry. And in that respect, Sony is targeting the "ladies with cameras" quite a bit...

;-)

=Matt=

Brett1000 · June 11, 2011

David-Stallard wrote: »

Okay guys n gals here's a question for you all:

Why do the majority of photographers esp motorsports use Canon? okay there are a few Nikon shooters as well but the majority use Canon.
.

this question has been asked (and answered) here:
http://www.sportsshooter.com

David-Stallard · June 12, 2011

Brett1000 wrote: »

this question has been asked (and answered) here:
http://www.sportsshooter.com

Well after an hour of 'eye strain' trying to read through the topics and typing in just about every variation of 'why canon for motorsports' I have given up. Any chance of a link to just that topic

.DAVID.

ziggy53 · June 12, 2011

David-Stallard wrote: »

Well after an hour of 'eye strain' trying to read through the topics and typing in just about every variation of 'why canon for motorsports' I have given up. Any chance of a link to just that topic

.DAVID.

Frankly no, you won't find a single simple answer to this particular question.

What is it you are trying to discern? Are you considering jumping from Sony to another system and wondering if there is sufficient justification for a motorsport application?

David-Stallard · June 12, 2011

ziggy53 wrote: »

Frankly no, you won't find a single simple answer to this particular question.

What is it you are trying to discern? Are you considering jumping from Sony to another system and wondering if there is sufficient justification for a motorsport application?

Afternoon sire,

It started off when I noticed the vast majority of the guys and girls shooting trackside were using Canon, then I started browsing their sites and noticed the quality of the shots 'sharpness' etc.

I am happy with the shots that I get from the a900 with the 70-400G but can't help wondering if I made the right choice as far as motor sports go - I shoot for one of the Classic sports car clubs and have media access for all their Uk races and so I want to be able to give them the best I can.

I have only been shooting the racing for a year and I know that 90% of it is down to experience and most of these guys have been doing it for years - guess I'm just impatient as well as frustrated. . .

Thanks and sorry for the moan

.DAVID.

ziggy53 · June 12, 2011

It's pretty normal to get frustrated when you aren't getting the results you see in other's images.

The Sony 70-400mm, f4-5.6 G SSM is much better than most zoom lenses and I see that you generally shoot in daylight, which should allow very nice results with that lens.

In looking at your "Petrol head" galleries you seem to be getting pretty good sharpness overall, although it would be nice to see some examples of problem images that lack sharpness at full size. (Provide links to those images.) I would suggest that your images could improve with a bit of post-processing and more careful background selection (not always possible I know).

Some of your images are actually quite good and those tend to be from more intimate crops and careful compositions.

If you'd like some suggestions for improvement I hope you will post in our "Techniques" forum where I think you'll get some targeted tips and hints to improve both acquisition and post-processing treatments. We're here to help.

Netgarden · June 13, 2011

Attitude comes with the territory, regardless of brand. Try being a girl, lolol!
I can only compare a purchase a while back of a sigma camera, and realized then how advanced Nikon and Canon were. They've just been around longer and have what you are looking for. Have to say, I considered a sony+70-400 for a mid length light weight set up for me when I had health issues. I'm not the type to run out and buy something just because someone says 'it's more expensive, so better' or 'one is brilliant and one isn't'. If it's too good to be true, then it's suspect.

Just Curious

Comments