NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Camera Talk => Topic started by: JKoerner007 on April 17, 2018, 14:47:42
-
According to Petapixel (https://petapixel.com/2018/04/16/the-cameras-that-shot-the-winning-photos-of-world-press-photo-2018), Nikon reversed Canon's lead and was the clear professional's choice.
(https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2018/04/brands.jpg)
- Nikon = 51.5%
- Canon = 29.9%
- Sony = 2.1%
Even Fuji cameras beat Sony ... 2x over ...
Another interesting phenomenon:
(https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2018/04/cameras.jpg)
The top 3 cameras were the Nikon D5, D810, and Canon 5D Mk III (all tied at 11 entries).
Of The Top 10 camera brands used, 6 were Nikon, 4 were Canon, 0 were Sony.
Just as interesting, considering the "DSLR vs. Mirrorless" concern:
(https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2018/04/types.jpg)
83.5% of the winning entries were DSLR-shot, only 11.3% were taken with mirroless.
-
I would have guessed: More Leica, but not
-
There is a catch. The data are not for the 73,044 images submitted, but only for the 97 of the 129 winners for which exif is available. So it is not surprising there would be changes from year to year, and the missing data could turn the result on its head.
-
There is a catch. The data are not for the 73,044 images submitted, but only for the 97 of the 129 winners for which exif is available. So it is not surprising there would be changes from year to year, and the missing data could turn the result on its head.
Not really.
History doesn't remember the losers. The "bottom" 72,000+ don't really matter.
The world already knows Nikon is #2 in 'overall camera sales,' Canon #1, and Sony #3.
With that in mind, it is quite significant IMO for Nikon to have more of the Top 100 professional press images than Canon, Sony, Fuji, Olympus, and Leica put together ...
-
No, Sony 5,1, Fuji 6,2%. With the low number sampled this is hardly significant.
-
No, Sony 5,1, Fuji 6,2%.
Okay, still Fujis outsell Sonys by 5% but had 200% more successful placement.
With the low number sampled this is hardly significant.
Your opinion.
As mentioned, the world already knows Nikon is #2 in 'overall camera sales,'worldwide, but worldwide sales figures include novices, recreational use, etc.
I think it is quite significant that, while #2 in 'overall' camera sales, in a professional competition of best-vs.-best reportage 'moments captured,' Nikon cameras produced more top results than all the rest put together.
You can disagree, but I will disagree with you forever.
I think these results show either
1) what the most discriminating 'action' photographers rely on to capture the most critical of fleeting moments;
2) what gear is most likely to produce perfect captures of these critical moments; or
3) BOTH.
-
What is interesting to me is that all four of Nikon's D8xx models are represented but none of Canon's high res models.
-
Some more interesting data: OVERALL BREAKDOWN OF PARTICIPATING UNITS:
2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015
- Nikon: (2018) 52.0%; (2017) 30.6%; (2016) 27.2%; (2015) 18.4%
- Canon: (2018) 30.2%; (2017) 55.5%; (2016) 63.6%; 2015-60.5%
- Fujifilm: (2018) 5.2%; (2017) 8.3%; (2016) 2.3%; (2015) 0.0%
- Sony: (2018) 5.2%; (2017) 0.0%: (2016) 2.3%; (2015) 0.0%
For discriminating professionals, Nikon has done a judo throw to Canon, a complete reversal from last year, tossing Canon on their heads and taking the lead. For professionals at least, who know what they need, Canon appears to be the brand on the steady decline, while Nikon is on the steady rise, due to their technological leads, in everything that is most important, when live and impromptu:
- Critical AF Acquisition;
- Extreme High Iso capability;
- Extreme Base Iso Capability;
- Lens Excellence (no adapter needed) and Selection;
- Ruggedness and proven reliability;
- Pro Support.
All the rest is fluff, really. Mirrorless has some fluff, but essentially there's nothing solid to the mirrorless offerings at this point, with their minimal professional representation confirming this point. Just a smattering of a gimmick or two, while lacking a solid platform for those whose entire livelihood depends on uncompromising results. "Novices" and "fanciers" may not know the difference, but those who put their heart and soul into what they do, notice.
Anyway, the D5 and D810 figured prominently in the statistics ... but the D850 (being a shoe-in for G.O.A.T.) was unavailable until the year's end ... so next year's results should be even more telling ;)
Could we be seeing a New Era for Nikon ... one where professionals re-embrace the class leader? (The consumer herd will surely follow.)
If we're to believe the writings of this article (https://medium.learningbyshipping.com/nikon-versus-canon-a-story-of-technology-change-45777098038c), Nikon (while being the innovation leader in many respects) made some strategic vision blunders, losing its overall sales leadership role to Canon.
For the last 10 years, however, Canon has basically wallowed in technological mediocrity, while Nikon (again-and-again) has led the way in extreme performance. (I know, because I personally dumped all my Canon gear to move forward with Nikon).
It appears that many professionals are now doing likewise. That's my take on what the numbers represent.
-
I agree with Les .. the numbers are meaningless.
Without those 32 'no data' entries, the results don't really help with any understanding of the market in any way.
All it does is tell us that THIS YEAR .. those that won something used those cameras/brands.
Really? .. who cares(other than fanbois, pixelpeepers and internet jockeys?
What would be more interesting as a data set is the 72+K pool of users.
Winners come and go, partially dependent on luck, timing, and skill.
The data presented above would make more sense if it were averaged over a number of years rather than on a year by year basis.
That is the last 5 years of data would be more interesting, as it takes the luck out of the equation.
What this data definitely doen't give us is an insight into this being a 'new era' for Nikon .. that's for sure!
-
What is interesting to me is that all four of Nikon's D8xx models are represented but none of Canon's high res models.
I have used Canon's 5DSR.
While it offers more pixels, it is hard work to get good colors and good tonality out of it especially at anything over base ISO.
It demands good light and subjects without much dynamic range.
Files from the Df are much better in marginal conditions.
-
All it does is tell us that THIS YEAR .. those that won something used those cameras/brands.
Actually, the most-recent post shows more than that: the trend over the last 4 years.
Really? .. who cares(other than fanbois, pixelpeepers and internet jockeys?
If you don't care, why post at all?
What would be more interesting as a data set is the 72+K pool of users.
Which is the post right above yours.
The data presented above would make more sense if it were averaged over a number of years rather than on a year by year basis.
That is the last 5 years of data would be more interesting, as it takes the luck out of the equation.
What this data definitely doen't give us is an insight into this being a 'new era' for Nikon .. that's for sure!
I don't think you read the posts very well. I also don't think "averaging everything" would flush-out the current trend like the above statistics do.
If you read before you type, you would notice that only Nikon has been steadily gaining (in professional use, if not in global use).
What would be interesting, to me, is if there were a way to measure "wildlife use" and "sports use" as well.
Overall consumer use isn't as interesting IMO.
-
I agree with Les .. the numbers are meaningless.
Without those 32 'no data' entries, the results don't really help with any understanding of the market in any way.
All it does is tell us that THIS YEAR .. those that won something used those cameras/brands.
Really? .. who cares(other than fanbois, pixelpeepers and internet jockeys?
What would be more interesting as a data set is the 72+K pool of users.
Winners come and go, partially dependent on luck, timing, and skill.
The data presented above would make more sense if it were averaged over a number of years rather than on a year by year basis.
That is the last 5 years of data would be more interesting, as it takes the luck out of the equation.
What this data definitely doen't give us is an insight into this being a 'new era' for Nikon .. that's for sure!
Sample sizes are pretty small. Pretty hard to draw conclusions about this when it is just the difference between 7 people or 11 people.
-
Canon has been lagging behind lately. their cameras aren't really "wow-ing" anybody in recent years unlike the D750, D850, D800, D500 and the D5 when they were released :o :o :o
Their releases only have incremental upgrades in recent years. fuji is actually making more progress than them to be frank specially in the gimmicks aspect.
-
....
If you don't care, why post at all?
.....
LOL! awesome answer dude!! ::)
I didn't realise that the internet was reserved solely for your usage and opinion!
-
Last weekend I started the racing car season. And traditionally I’m taking a “photography of the photographers” at the end of the race and do some camera counting: I believe there are more Nikon’s than the year before: I guess around 50/50 (Nikon / Canon) where last year I would have evaluated the Nikon share to 45%. And like last year: no hybrids, no Sony’s.
-
Last weekend I started the racing car season. And traditionally I’m taking a “photography of the photographers” at the end of the race and do some camera counting: I believe there are more Nikon’s than the year before: I guess around 50/50 (Nikon / Canon) where last year I would have evaluated the Nikon share to 45%. And like last year: no hybrids, no Sony’s.
Canon used to be very dominant in the 90s up till the 2000s as you mostly see white lenses :o :o :o
that was the scene at the box when I go and watch sports ::)
-
- Nikon: (2018) 52.0%; (2017) 30.6%; (2016) 27.2%; (2015) 18.4%
- Canon: (2018) 30.2%; (2017) 55.5%; (2016) 63.6%; 2015-60.5%
- Fujifilm: (2018) 5.2%; (2017) 8.3%; (2016) 2.3%; (2015) 0.0%
- Sony: (2018) 5.2%; (2017) 0.0%: (2016) 2.3%; (2015) 0.0%
While the sample size is small compared to total user base, the prized entries of a prestigious competition do tell us something about what some successful photojournalists have used in the previous year.
I think Nikon's success in these numbers may have a simple explanation: autofocus.
The new autofocus module (Multi-CAM 20k) was introduced in 2016 (in the D5 and D500) and it takes some time for gear to get into the field and be used, so an increase in usage by successful photojournalists may reflect increased trust in Nikons in this type of work. I've updated my FX Nikons regularly and feel the AF had issues in some 2010-2012 launches where the pixel density increased by AF consistency got worse (whereas the 2007-8 launched cameras were well received in AF). The D810 from 2014 has very accurate AF and the D5 is incredible in AF performance. Those two cameras popped at the top of this competition's gear list which is probably not a coincidence.
-
Without those 32 'no data' entries, the results don't really help with any understanding of the market in any way.
Why? There is no reason to believe, for example, that the users of a specific camera removed EXIF prior to submission any more than users of other cameras.
What would be more interesting as a data set is the 72+K pool of users.
Obviously not. Why would anyone want to know what camera was used to take an unremarkable photograph?
Winners come and go, partially dependent on luck, timing, and skill.
Skill, yes. And the skillful often can recognize when a camera works well or not, and choose their kit accordingly. In photographing many one-of-a-kind situations,the reliability of the gear is of key importance.
That is the last 5 years of data would be more interesting, as it takes the luck out of the equation.
No, it wouldn't. The D800/D800E AF had issues and partly because of that Nikon lost their users' trust (the D600 also contributed to that, but perhaps not so much in professional photojournalism). Even with D4, some users stuck with D3s likely because of the same reasons. I believe the D810 and later the D5/D500/D850 have restored some of the trust that was lost.
What this data definitely doen't give us is an insight into this being a 'new era' for Nikon .. that's for sure!
What it tells us that successful photojournalists use gear that works well for them (in any given period) and I believe there is a disconnect between the general camera-buying public and the Nikon products' current quality. But eventually the word gets out and old mistakes are forgotten.
-
LOL! awesome answer dude!! ::)
I didn't realise that the internet was reserved solely for your usage and opinion!
You seem to consistently fail at inferences, and your grades must have been F in logic.
Aside from deftly avoiding my main counter-points, the statement, "If you don't care, why post at all?," had nothing to do with 'me' ... but rather your own hypocrisy in posting/commenting on a topic where you claim not to care (i.e., those who truly don't care, don't bother.)
Anything else you need spelled-out for you?
-
While the sample size is small compared to total user base, the prized entries of a prestigious competition do tell us something about what some successful photojournalists have used in the previous year.
I think Nikon's success in these numbers may have a simple explanation: autofocus.
The new autofocus module (Multi-CAM 20k) was introduced in 2016 (in the D5 and D500) and it takes some time for gear to get into the field and be used, so an increase in usage by successful photojournalists may reflect increased trust in Nikons in this type of work. I've updated my FX Nikons regularly and feel the AF had issues in some 2010-2012 launches where the pixel density increased by AF consistency got worse (whereas the 2007-8 launched cameras were well received in AF). The D810 from 2014 has very accurate AF and the D5 is incredible in AF performance. Those two cameras popped at the top of this competition's gear list which is probably not a coincidence.
Indeed, which is why AF headed the list I made (http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,7360.msg118844.html#msg118844) for reasons for the turnaround. High ISO capability is also important, where again Nikon leads.
Your personal, long-term experience in this regard is appreciated, and we agree the steady rise in Nikon's use among the most discriminating users for "once-in-a-lifetime" moments is not a coincidence. With Nikon currently setting the standard for creating the features most likely to prevail in challenging conditions makes owning their gear a virtual necessity, not a luxury.
-
Obviously not. Why would anyone want to know what camera was used to take an unremarkable photograph?
Agree with all your responses to Arthur, save a nitpick on this one.
The 72,000 represent photojournalists worldwide, so a sampling of "what cameras they used" would represent 72,000 of the most discriminating professionals who rely on cameras for their livelihood, in particular their ability to nail a once-in-a-lifetime moment, during a fleeting window of opportunity.
That 51.5% of the top 100 individual entries from this pool used Nikon cameras is great; however 52% of the 72,000 did as well.
Meanwhile only 5.2% of the total 72,000 professional journalists used Sony, while only 2.1% of the top 100 came from Sony.
Thus while the leading post of this thread showed the breakdown of what cameras made "the top 100," this post here (http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,7360.msg118844.html#msg118844) showed the total breakdown of the 72,000. This second post actually provided the very information Arthur sought, but apparently failed to read (or comprehend). His wanting to "merge" all this date together for "an average" would muddy the very point that listing the figures chronologically underscores: Nikon is moving up in the world among professionals.
The chronological figures in the linked post show that Nikon's usage among discriminating fanciers has nearly tripled in 4 years, steadily rising each year, while the usage of Canon gear by the same professional pool has been cut by more than half, steadily declining each year. (Meanwhile Sony gear has been a virtual afterthought, fluctuating between being used by ~5% of journalistic professionals to not being used at all.)
-
You seem to consistently fail at inferences, and your grades must have been F in logic.
Aside from deftly avoiding my main counter-points, the statement, "If you don't care, why post at all?," had nothing to do with 'me' ... but rather your own hypocrisy ... in posting/commenting on a topic where you claim not to care. (I.e., Those who truly don't care, don't bother.)
Anything else you need spelled-out for you?
LOL! I'm not totally sure what your personal issues are in finding a need to turn a conversation into a personal attack .. but yes, all my grades at school were F's from grade one all the way into high school, and then into uni!
F's all the way, 'without fail' .. other than total failure in education.
Does that help you feel more important now?
If so, then all the more power to you, and hopefully you can now sleep a lot easier at night.
There is one very obvious clue in those statistics, which stood out like a sore thumb .... clearly shows why those statistics are irrelevant and meanignless as to how they relate to the uptake of Nikon cameras by professionals.
Why? There is no reason to believe, for example, that the users of a specific camera removed EXIF prior to submission any more than users of other cameras.
Obviously not. Why would anyone want to know what camera was used to take an unremarkable photograph?
....
So by this reasoning, the gear used to capture 'the unremarkable shot' is not worthy of being counted?
I'm assuming that CIPA take this into account when they do their sales/shipment reports on the state of the camera business too?
....
Anything else you need spelled-out for you?
If I sound a bit simple, maybe its due to my F's in logic .. so you may have to explain the reason that the title of the thread doesn't seem to relate to the topic of the thread?
title says Nikon is the most used camera in the World Press Photo 2018, and yet the only data presented is that Nikon cameras were predominant amongst the WINNERS of the contest.
They are two vastly different concepts.
We have over 72K of no data, which in almost all likelyhood will change the outcome of the usage pattern of 'the most used camera brand' in the competition.
I have no idea as to how those 72K of non data will affect the outcome of most used camera, but the obvious clue I noticed would indicate that this is almost certain to be true.
-
LOL! I'm not totally sure what your personal issues are in finding a need to turn a conversation into a personal attack .. but yes, all my grades at school were F's from grade one all the way into high school, and then into uni! F's all the way, 'without fail' .. other than total failure in education.
Does that help you feel more important now?
If so, then all the more power to you, and hopefully you can now sleep a lot easier at night.
Actually, a quick review of this tragic dialogue shows you turned this personal (jumping in here and speaking pejoratively of 'fanbois, pixelpeepers and internet jockeys'), while I and everyone else were discussing the data.
There is one very obvious clue in those statistics, which stood out like a sore thumb .... clearly shows why those statistics are irrelevant and meanignless as to how they relate to the uptake of Nikon cameras by professionals.
I have serious doubts about your qualifications regarding 'clues' ...
So by this reasoning, the gear used to capture 'the unremarkable shot' is not worthy of being counted?
I'm assuming that CIPA take this into account when they do their sales/shipment reports on the state of the camera business too?
It's clear you don't actually read before you type.
If I sound a bit simple, maybe its due to my F's in logic ..
I'm sure of it.
In addition to being simple, you're also a narcissist, forever attempting to turn a discussion of Nikon and current professional usage results into a discussion about 'you.'
title says Nikon is the most used camera in the World Press Photo 2018, and yet the only data presented is that Nikon cameras were predominant amongst the WINNERS of the contest.
They are two vastly different concepts.
Not so.
Again, since you don't actually read before you type, you wouldn't know the difference.
We have over 72K of no data, which in almost all likelyhood will change the outcome of the usage pattern of 'the most used camera brand' in the competition.
I have no idea as to how those 72K of non data will affect the outcome of most used camera, but the obvious clue I noticed would indicate that this is almost certain to be true.
The only matter we agree on is that you "have no idea" ... but, hey, at least that's some sort of common ground.
-
I'm afraid I can't descend to the same self serving depths that you seem so eager too.
If you can't critically analyse your own writing and take notice of at least one of the clues (that you pointed too), at least you seem to have fun in your malformed view.
-
here's a hug from me to both of you :o :o :o
-
A friendly warning for contributors: Do heed Forum Guide Lines. They are put there for a reason. Personal attacks are a violation of those rules and action will be taken if members cannot control themselves.
-
"Without those 32 'no data' entries, the results don't really help with any understanding of the market in any way."
Why? There is no reason to believe, for example, that the users of a specific camera removed EXIF prior to submission any more than users of other cameras.
"What would be more interesting as a data set is the 72+K pool of users."
Obviously not. Why would anyone want to know what camera was used to take an unremarkable photograph?
There is no need for users of any specific camera to be systematically more likely to have removed the EXIF. There were, eg, 11 users of Canon 5D III, and 11 users of D5 and D810. If only 5/39 images with no EXIF were taken with a 5DIII that would be clearly number one camera. Is it so implausible that the judges might be biased toward images of (say) civil conflict, and that (say) Leicas are best suited to that context, and the photographers did systematically remove those EXIFs to avoid endangering the people portrayed?
Plus there were two sub-categories in each of the four genre categories, "singles", and "stories" with up to 10 images. It is illegitimate to treat the multiple images in the "stories" as independent and add up the total number of "prize-winning images" for each camera. The correct metric is cameras used by prize-winning photographers. (So, yes, the images with no exif could be from three or four cameras, in which case they would not have a large impact on the results).
I am sure the judges would be pleased by your vote of confidence, but equating prize-winning with "remarkable" and not prize-winning with "un-remarkable" is unjustified. Even if you knew what criteria were used to judge, why would you care? It isn't the cameras used for the best images you care about, it is the cameras used for the images that are best in regard to things cameras make a difference to. If there was a category for "Best Photo Needing Fast AF" I might be interested in which cameras were used, but there isn't. If you look at the collection (https://www.worldpressphoto.org/collection/photo/2018) you can see that the success of some of the images may have depended on the camera - eg, the Photo of the Year, where faster and more accurate AF might have made some difference, although positioning - by luck or choice - was more important. I have no idea which camera was used for that image, but it is of no interest to know what camera was used unless the excellence of the picture is due to something the camera contributed. For many of the winning images, there is no question that any camera would have done as well, so the camera used is irrelevant.
This is not to say that data from the whole pool would be useful: I don't see why I would care what cameras any number of photojournalists find best suited to their work, any more than I care what motor vehicles taxi drivers find best suited to theirs.
-
I studied Statistics at Uni among other disciplines as I was trying to get to grips with the laws of Probability in relation to manipulating the Roulette casino game with a formula.
Three takes from Statistics studies:
1- The Law of Probability where x and y meet at Infinity
2-Laurenz Chaos Theory
3- The validity of Surveys
and here lies the rub. Stats are as relevant as the formulation method and objective.
As for the result of the data shared by Jkoerner. It so happens that I agree based on my personal experience where I was surprised and almost shocked as of last month to see a sea of Nikon straps among the media and press scrum.
No Sony in sight........ever.......as well as Fuji - Olympus to that matter.
Now back to your scheduled programming......
-
Last weekend I started the racing car season. And traditionally I’m taking a “photography of the photographers” at the end of the race and do some camera counting: I believe there are more Nikon’s than the year before: I guess around 50/50 (Nikon / Canon) where last year I would have evaluated the Nikon share to 45%. And like last year: no hybrids, no Sony’s.
I forgot to add the picture. My "body count" is approximately 50/50 :) This dates from last Sunday (Le Castellet, France). And no Sony's of course ...
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/833/39768757630_718547e973_b.jpg)
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/835/39768867530_8842bed28a_b.jpg)
and this is what's all about: AF, VR, etc.
Nikon D5
Nikkor 70.0-200.0 mm f/2.8E FL
ƒ/14.0 70.0 mm 1/40s ISO 100
-
....
2-Laurenz Chaos Theory
....
I think there is a slight misspelling: Edward Lorenz (1917-2008) 🦋
-
I think there is a slight misspelling: Edward Lorenz (1917-2008) 🦋
Let's be anal about it: Edward Norton Lorenz May 23, 1917 – April 16, 2008 ;D
-
... and the photographers did systematically remove those EXIFs to avoid endangering the people portrayed?
The contest itself is actually sponsored by Canon.
What's interesting, to me, is that if you click on the individual images of World Press Photo entries of yesteryear (2017 and younger), the camera brand is listed for each photo in the EXIF.
In this year, however, where Canon lost its lead, when you click on the individual photos, yes the EXIF is still there (ss, f-stop, etc.) ... however the camera brand is not ;)
If you look at the collection (https://www.worldpressphoto.org/collection/photo/2018) you can see that the success of some of the images may have depended on the camera - eg, the Photo of the Year, where faster and more accurate AF might have made some difference, although positioning - by luck or choice - was more important. I have no idea which camera was used for that image, but it is of no interest to know what camera was used unless the excellence of the picture is due to something the camera contributed. For many of the winning images, there is no question that any camera would have done as well, so the camera used is irrelevant.
It's true many of the photos didn't really require fast AF or incredible ISO performance ... but many of them did.
It's important to remember that, because a reportage photographer's vocation relies on absolutely, positively nailing the shot, the following adage applies: "It's better to have something, and not need it, than to need something, and not have it."
With this in mind, while there may be certain reportage moments that might not require incredible AF speed/accuracy or high ISO performance ... this doesn't change the fact that there will be such moments where these photographers will have to rely on these features. If reportage is your vocation, recognizing you won't always need these features doesn't change the realization that you will want to have these features available at-the-ready for those moments when you do need them.
This is not to say that data from the whole pool would be useful: I don't see why I would care what cameras any number of photojournalists find best suited to their work, any more than I care what motor vehicles taxi drivers find best suited to theirs.
Invalid comparison IMO.
At no time is incredible speed, or incredible handling, required for a cab driver to do his job ... like incredible AF speed and incredible ISO handling are sometimes required for a press photographer to capture fleeting moments.
A cab driver's job is merely to transport you safely from Point A to Point B, that's it. They never have to rely on world class automotive performance to accomplish the simple task of taking you where you want to go.
By contrast, although there may be moments when photojournalists "don't" have to rely on world-class AF or ISO performance, there will be other cases where they absolutely must have these features, in order to capture their moment, which defaults back to the adage above. This, IMO, is the reason more and more professionals are going back to Nikon: Nikon has taken the lead in offering these performance features better than the others.
-
I forgot to add the picture. My "body count" is approximately 50/50 :) This dates from last Sunday (Le Castellet, France). And no Sony's of course ...
Interesting.
Sports counts would be slightly different IMO. Aside from sponsorship, most sports are held in somewhat more controlled circumstances (provided light), even indoor sports tend toward even lighting of some kind. Reportage seems like there would be much less lighting predictability, in certain situations.
As far as Sony goes, aside from battery issues, and others, one quote that someone made (that struck me) is "Sony approaches their cameras as 'electronic devices' ... whereas Nikon (Canon) create photographer's tools that (now) have electronic components."
This could explain the overall better CaNikon ergonomic preference of professionals, who hold/use their cameras all day, versus part-time "enthusiasts" who seem to be Sony's target market.
and this is what's all about: AF, VR, etc.
Nikon D5
Nikkor 70.0-200.0 mm f/2.8E FL
ƒ/14.0 70.0 mm 1/40s ISO 100
Nice!
-
At no time is incredible speed, or incredible handling, required for a cab driver to do his job ... like incredible AF speed and incredible ISO handling are sometimes required for a press photographer to capture fleeting moments.
A cab driver's job is merely to transport you safely from Point A to Point B, that's it. They never have to rely on world class automotive performance to accomplish the simple task of taking you where you want to go.
By contrast, although there may be moments when photojournalists "don't" have to rely on world-class AF or ISO performance, there will be other cases where they absolutely must have these features, in order to capture their moment,
Photojournalists are like taxi drivers, in that both groups need their equipment to have some features, would like it to have others, and could care less about the rest. The point is not that their must haves and would likes and could care less abouts are the same, but that in both cases they are not likely to be mine. For example, for both photojournalists and taxi drivers durability is a must have, for me it is a nice to have. Taxi drivers need a car with good rear seat leg room. I don't. Photojournalists are often competing with people at the scene with phones, so they have to file the pictures immediately. I don't. For photojournalists the ability to record comments is a must have, for me it is a could care less about.
Even if some or many photojournalists have switched to Nikon, it is a naive assumption that their reason to prefer Nikon must be the same as yours.
-
Photojournalists are like taxi drivers, in that both groups need their equipment to have some features, would like it to have others, and could care less about the rest. The point is not that their must haves and would likes and could care less abouts are the same, but that in both cases they are not likely to be mine. For example, for both photojournalists and taxi drivers durability is a must have, for me it is a nice to have. Taxi drivers need a car with good rear seat leg room. I don't. Photojournalists are often competing with people at the scene with phones, so they have to file the pictures immediately. I don't. For photojournalists the ability to record comments is a must have, for me it is a could care less about.
AF acquisition is a 'must have,' probably the single most important 'must have' in nailing a key moment, without which nothing else matters if 'key moments' are your desired end.
Nikon leads here, hence its current attraction to those 'must have' it.
Even if some or many photojournalists have switched to Nikon, it is a naive assumption that their reason to prefer Nikon must be the same as yours.
On the contrary, it is a naive assumption of yours to presume I equated anything with "myself" or "my" shooting.
In point of fact, as I write, of all the lenses I own, only one is AF (the 300 PF). Every other lens I own (from 15mm to 125mm) is MF, because most of the shooting "I" do (macro, landscapes, accident investigation) doesn't require AF at all.
That said, when I do need AF (birds and other fast-moving wildlife), then "the need for AF" = "the need for AF" (regardless of target), and Nikon provides the best, most reliable AF currently available, which is attractive to those who need it, regardless of genre.
-
Photojournalists are like taxi drivers, in that both groups need their equipment to have some features, would like it to have others, and could care less about the rest. The point is not that their must haves and would likes and could care less abouts are the same, but that in both cases they are not likely to be mine. For example, for both photojournalists and taxi drivers durability is a must have, for me it is a nice to have. Taxi drivers need a car with good rear seat leg room. I don't. Photojournalists are often competing with people at the scene with phones, so they have to file the pictures immediately. I don't. For photojournalists the ability to record comments is a must have, for me it is a could care less about.
Even if some or many photojournalists have switched to Nikon, it is a naive assumption that their reason to prefer Nikon must be the same as yours.
I'm afraid you completely missed the point and had no exposure to (sport)photo journalists / journalism. Maybe your needs are remote from the ones desired by photojournalists, so be it. But this has nothing to with comfortable seats, nor smartphones (i'm using iPhones all the time, but please not for taking shots of cars passing at 150-200 mph). It's a discipline where you bottom out the capabilities of you equipment.
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/885/41544594302_bea0d36d78_b.jpg)
Nikon D5
Nikkor 70.0-200.0 mm f/2.8E FL
ƒ/11.0 175.0 mm 1/160s ISO 100
-
According to Petapixel (https://petapixel.com/2018/04/16/the-cameras-that-shot-the-winning-photos-of-world-press-photo-2018), Nikon reversed Canon's lead and was the clear professional's choice.
.....
......
Could we be seeing a New Era for Nikon ... one where professionals re-embrace the class leader? (The consumer herd will surely follow.)
....
It appears that many professionals are now doing likewise. That's my take on what the numbers represent.
So the assertion here is that the statistical data of the winning entries list somehow correlates to the press industry usage and buying patterns as a whole.
ie. that more Nikon cameras in the list = more Nikon cameras having been sold to the pro journalists.
If we break down the data in the lists on a per unit basis we see that in '18 6% of cameras used by photojournalists were D700's and that 7% of photojournalists used D800E, and we can make that 9% if you include the D800 as the D800/E twins.
In previous years the D800E didn't make the list at all, and in 2016 a solitary D800 made the count, as it did in 2015.
The data is there for all to see, you just need to read it.
So the assumption using the OPs methodology is that the D800E had not even registered on any pro journalist's camera gear radar in '15, '16, and '17 .. and then suddenly for the 2018 year they all discovered the D800E!! 6 years after initial release, no new bodies available for purchase easily ... Is this seriously an acceptable proposition?
Are we to believe that a 6 year old camera is somehow rediscovered by pro photojournalists and has seen a resurgence in sales? .. over the D810 AND D850.
D850 has been known of since early 2017, released Aug 2017 .. basically within the timeframe of the competition .. so the world of photographers, which includes pro journalists have known that Nikon was about to release the successor to the D810 .. are we are to just accept that all these pro photojournalists have all purchased the D800E in the numbers that this data is leading us to imagine!
An even less likely scnario is the now 10 year old D700!
No show in '15 and '16 and '17, and yet suddenly all those pro journalists decided that for the year 2018, the D700 is the camera to buy!
If we analyse the D810 data we see that in '15 it was the unloved child in the pool with 0 units.
It then made a strong showing(4) in '16 period, but sales dived 25%(down to 3) in '17 and suddenly again surged nearly 3 fold for '18 .. again on the news that Nikon was about to release the D850 at some point soon in 2017.
So knowing that Nikon is about to release an updated camera in the D850, with more bells and whistles than the current D810 model .. all those journalists purchased D810's in droves leading up to the release of the D850!
The presumption here is that while Nikon cameras are new, recently released items, no one seems to want to use them, and if they reach between 6 and 10 years of age, there will be strogn demand for them!
In post #7 there is an assumption that the data presented is somehow related to the 73K submitted images. That is not correct, the data in that post only refers back to the winners.
ie. in 2017, Nikon cameras featured in 30% of the winning images for the images where the data was present.
The values for that year are 45 images, 12 Nikon bodies.
We still have no data on the 73K participants which allows us an insight as to how Nikon are making inroads into the pro journalist market.
Having looked even deeper than just a casual observation (that some seem to think is enough) .. you won't even find the camera model that the 2018 winning entry was shot with!
You find shutter speed, focal length, aperture value and ISO .. but no body data.
From what I could locate, there is a high probability that he used a D single figure body of some type, which would add to the overall Nikon body tally for '18, as it's inclusion contributes to the 'No Data' pool
Now, I may be unintelligent and lack the ability to think logically, but this unintelligent and illogical 'black sheep' finds it impossible to believe that pro journalist are now lining up in droves to buy D800E and D700 camera bodies for use in the harsh and competitive world of pro journalism.
If we discount the anomaly that 1. you can't purchase a new D700 or D800E any longer then the only other conclusion is that they were purchased second hand .. for pro use in harsh conditions .. and even more imporobable scenario.
So removing the D800E and D700 count from the implied camera sales prediction, the Nikon body count for those WINNING images then reduces from 50 out of 97(52%) to 37 out of 84(44%).
Same goes for the Canon 5D mkIII. I highly doubt that it's sales figures are as strong as the misleading winner results seem to allude too.
It just figures strongly from '15 to '18 .. end of story.
The obvious conclusion is that the pool of 5DIII's out there in the journalist world is simply high from the outset, and for many of those journalists there is just not enough reason to change/update, and hence it's just continually used.
So, just like Les Olsen said:
.... So it is not surprising there would be changes from year to year, and the missing data could turn the result on its head.
Which it does!
I doubt that the D850 will feature in next years winner list, as I noted the trend earlier .. it seems to take Nikon pro journalist users about 6-10 years to discover the best camera to use! oe. we may have to wait till about 2023-2027 to see significant number here! :P
-
So the assertion here is that the statistical data of the winning entries list somehow correlates to the press industry usage and buying patterns as a whole.
ie. that more Nikon cameras in the list = more Nikon cameras having been sold to the pro journalists.
You have knack for stating everything incorrectly (whether deliberately, or cluelessly, I haven't decided yet). You do have a troll-like fragrance though ...
Anyway, what I said was, Nikon was the most-used camera brand (i.e., discriminating professionals are gravitating to Nikon more and more), and the numbers support this.
If we break down the data in the lists on a per unit basis we see that in '18 6% of cameras used by photojournalists were D700's and that 7% of photojournalists used D800E, and we can make that 9% if you include the D800 as the D800/E twins.
In previous years the D800E didn't make the list at all, and in 2016 a solitary D800 made the count, as it did in 2015.
The data is there for all to see, you just need to read it.
So the assumption using the OPs methodology is that the D800E had not even registered on any pro journalist's camera gear radar in '15, '16, and '17 .. and then suddenly for the 2018 year they all discovered the D800E!! 6 years after initial release, no new bodies available for purchase easily ... Is this seriously an acceptable proposition?
Are we to believe that a 6 year old camera is somehow rediscovered by pro photojournalists and has seen a resurgence in sales? .. over the D810 AND D850.
Wrong again: you used your methodology, not mine.
What I said was Nikon usage/success at the Wold Press Photo contests has steadily increased, every year for the past 4 years, while Canon's has steadily declined during that same time-frame (while Sony's presence has remained irrelevant).
Your goal here is classic reductio ad absurdum, the attempt to reduce something true into something ridiculous, which is the mark of a pettifogger.
D850 has been known of since early 2017, released Aug 2017 .. basically within the timeframe of the competition .. so the world of photographers, which includes pro journalists have known that Nikon was about to release the successor to the D810 .. are we are to just accept that all these pro photojournalists have all purchased the D800E in the numbers that this data is leading us to imagine!
An even less likely scnario is the now 10 year old D700!
No show in '15 and '16 and '17, and yet suddenly all those pro journalists decided that for the year 2018, the D700 is the camera to buy!
I'm not sure what you hope to gain by postulating so many imaginings.
If we analyse the D810 data we see that in '15 it was the unloved child in the pool with 0 units.
It then made a strong showing(4) in '16 period, but sales dived 25%(down to 3) in '17 and suddenly again surged nearly 3 fold for '18 .. again on the news that Nikon was about to release the D850 at some point soon in 2017.
So knowing that Nikon is about to release an updated camera in the D850, with more bells and whistles than the current D810 model .. all those journalists purchased D810's in droves leading up to the release of the D850!
The presumption here is that while Nikon cameras are new, recently released items, no one seems to want to use them, and if they reach between 6 and 10 years of age, there will be strogn demand for them!
What you're doing here is concentrating on "the trees" of individual Nikon cameras in an effort to take focus off of "the forest": namely that more and more photographers are incorporating/succeeding with NIKON.
Quibbling about "which" Nikons are being implemented is irrelevant to the point, namely that professionals are turning to Nikon more and more, regardless or model, which they are.
In post #7 there is an assumption that the data presented is somehow related to the 73K submitted images. That is not correct, the data in that post only refers back to the winners.
ie. in 2017, Nikon cameras featured in 30% of the winning images for the images where the data was present.
The values for that year are 45 images, 12 Nikon bodies.
We still have no data on the 73K participants which allows us an insight as to how Nikon are making inroads into the pro journalist market.
Having reviewed my original source material, I believe you got me there, so I concede this point.
Having looked even deeper than just a casual observation (that some seem to think is enough) .. you won't even find the camera model that the 2018 winning entry was shot with!
You find shutter speed, focal length, aperture value and ISO .. but no body data.
From what I could locate, there is a high probability that he used a D single figure body of some type, which would add to the overall Nikon body tally for '18, as it's inclusion contributes to the 'No Data' pool
Again, I already addressed this, and that is because Canon funds the effort ... and the winner was not taken with a Canon ... else you can best believe the camera brand would be emblazoned in the EXIF ;)
Now, I may be unintelligent and lack the ability to think logically, but this unintelligent and illogical 'black sheep' finds it impossible to believe that pro journalist are now lining up in droves to buy D800E and D700 camera bodies for use in the harsh and competitive world of pro journalism.
We agree here at least ;D
Take heart in the fact you did correct me on one point ... because, hey, even a broken clock is 'right' twice a day :P
If we discount the anomaly that 1. you can't purchase a new D700 or D800E any longer then the only other conclusion is that they were purchased second hand .. for pro use in harsh conditions .. and even more imporobable scenario.
So removing the D800E and D700 count from the implied camera sales prediction, the Nikon body count for those WINNING images then reduces from 50 out of 97(52%) to 37 out of 84(44%).
Same goes for the Canon 5D mkIII. I highly doubt that it's sales figures are as strong as the misleading winner results seem to allude too.
It just figures strongly from '15 to '18 .. end of story.
The obvious conclusion is that the pool of 5DIII's out there in the journalist world is simply high from the outset, and for many of those journalists there is just not enough reason to change/update, and hence it's just continually used.
It is quite painful to attempt to follow your 'thinking,' as you're all over the place. (As Nietzsche said, “Understand it? I'd beware of understanding it.”)
Anyway, I think there's a much simpler explanation (to give another quote, “Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability,” ~Edsger W. Dijkstra.)
The D800 was released in 2012, the D810 in 2014. These cameras marked a gradual shift from Canon to Nikon in terms of overall excellence.
Over the next 4-6 years, Nikon has held the lead, outclassing Canon's camera offerings (repeatedly and consistently), in every class of camera, year-after-year, since the D700/D800 combo.
And I believe the gradual shift in professional usage, reflected in the numbers originally provided, bears this out.
(Which 'model' Nikon the professionals use doesn't matter; the point is the professional user bought the Nikon, not the Canon.)
So, just like Les Olsen said:
Which it does!
I doubt that the D850 will feature in next years winner list, as I noted the trend earlier .. it seems to take Nikon pro journalist users about 6-10 years to discover the best camera to use! oe. we may have to wait till about 2023-2027 to see significant number here! :P
There is some truth to this. You WON'T see an immediate 'gear switch' right away, if one brand happens to edge the other on a particular year, as many professionals are already ensconced in a particular brand choice.
Now I will use "myself" as an example ...
I 'knew of' the D810 immediately after its release in 2014. For two years I waited for a new Canon offering to match it (as I had Canon glass and didn't want to make a rash decision). After repeated Canon failures to wrest the lead, I switched over completely to Nikon in 2016, after a decade's investment into Canon. It was painful selling all those lenses, and Canon-specific accouterments, but I committed myself to doing this in order to improve my gear.
I am sure many other professionals had the same lag ... 'noticing' Nikon's improvements ... but holding tight 'to see' how their brand choice would respond.
After Nikon defined and maintained the lead, year-after-year, I believe more and more professionals have taken notice ... realizing this is no 'fluke.' Nikon has been delivering the better technology (from the D600, D700, D800 and the D4 ... to their current iterations the D610, the D750, the D850, and the D5 ... as well as their ball-busting DX the D500). Nikon is simply kicking Canon's @$$ across the board in all but a very few cases. (While the other brands, essentially, remain insignificant.)
But those who truly do rely on their gear ... and earn their income thereby ... are noticing.
We can go back and forth forever, but I believe this to be the truth, based on the evidence.
As far as the D850 goes, it will prove to be an all-time record-breaker IMO.
While the Sony A7RIII is always "in stock" ... the D850 is forever "out of stock" 8)
I spoke to my NPS rep today, and she said she has never seen anything like this, in all her years with Nikon.
I believe you will see more and more D5s, D500s, and D850s over the immediate next few years, based on their overwhelming superiority to everything in their class.
Time will tell ... but this will be my last response to you.
-
It is quite painful to attempt to follow your 'thinking,' as you're all over the place.
...
Time will tell ... but this will be my last response to you.
JK, I am not sure you realize how much you come across as a zealot who must have the last word. I’m sure you are a reasonable person, and you are certainly careful in your photography, so I am thinking the reason must be miscalibration. Just as someone who has gamma on their monitor set wrong, or has a lens that back focuses, your words are coming out too strongly colored or with the wrong point of sharpness. This forum is not like many of the others which thrive (or maybe suffer) in contention. It survives on civility and is one of the most humane and helpful that I have seen. Take the same careful look at the way you interact with forum members here as you do at your spiders and birds. I think you will find your writing here to be overly sharpened and that by dialing back sharpening and contrast, the images your words convey will be all the more accurate and pleasant.
Give it a try and I think you will find new friends instead of resolving line pairs.
Sorry to editorialize and steal the thread, but it really is heading in the wrong direction. Hope you understand.
-
JK, I am not sure you realize how much you come across as a zealot who must have the last word. I’m sure you are a reasonable person, and you are certainly careful in your photography, so I am thinking the reason must be miscalibration. Just as someone who has gamma on their monitor set wrong, or has a lens that back focuses, your words are coming out too strongly colored or with the wrong point of sharpness. This forum is not like many of the others which thrive (or maybe suffer) in contention. It survives on civility and is one of the most humane and helpful that I have seen. Take the same careful look at the way you interact with forum members here as you do at your spiders and birds. I think you will find your writing here to be overly sharpened and that by dialing back sharpening and contrast, the images your words convey will be all the more accurate and pleasant.
Give it a try and I think you will find new friends instead of resolving line pairs.
Sorry to editorialize and steal the thread, but it really is heading in the wrong direction. Hope you understand.
I enjoyed reading this, Jack, even if it was at my expense :-\ ;D
Well-stated ... and I admit I do tend towards extremes ... so many stories to tell.
However, I said that would be my last post to Arthur, I won't necessarily have 'the last word.'
Anyway, I will try more to concentrate on photography, rather and 'brand disputes,' as the former is fun for all, while the latter always seems to get contentious.
I am taking my 300 PF to one of the top birding spots in the US, at the end of next week, so hope to share more, debate less.
Have a good weekend.
-
Share the birding results. It will be a great contribution I’m sure. Have a great weekend.
-
LOL! Your ability to use psuedo-selective logic is astounding!
...
Anyway, what I said was, Nikon was the most-used camera brand (i.e., discriminating professionals are gravitating to Nikon more and more), and the numbers support this.
Wrong again: you used your methodology, not mine.
What I said was Nikon usage/success at the Wold Press Photo contests has steadily increased, every year for the past 4 years, while Canon's has steadily declined during that same time-frame (while Sony's presence has remained irrelevant).
....
I know exactly what you typed. But what isn't clear, and you're just confirmed it's lack of clarity, is that more users are adopting Nikon as their brand of choice.
Your methodology is simple .. more = more . this is your method, not mine.
My method is that more may not necessarily equal more, but is simply already there .. just happened to win for this year!
oe. the D800E and D700 issue
The data clearly shows that while it is true that there are more Nikons, the specifics are that gear that is 6-10 years old makes up a large portion of this so called gravitation to Nikon.
The only conclusion is that you believe that discerning professionals are also gravitating to 6-10 year old camera tech! :o
I don't even have to concede that more D5's will obviously mean more D5s in the total pool of 73K entrants.
But by your logic that more Nikon bodies in the winners circle simply translates into more users(ie,. those 73K entrants) have bought more Nikon cameras.
What is unclear is that you brush aside the D800E /D700 issue as unimportant, because it may not fit into your 'take' on what the number represent .. but in a selective proposition you happily accept that more D810's and D5 must surely mean that more discerning users(that same 73K user group again!) have endowed themselves with more D5's and D810s!!
You can't have one set of data without the other!
Or is that what it is you actually mean.. that discerning users are adopting Nikon .. errr except in the case of the 6-10yo tech .. or .. what?
Quibbling about which Nikon bodies are in the mix is EXACTLY the point!
Look at exactly what Nikons' are in the top 100, and propose how they got in there one year, but why not in the previous one(s).
Remove the D800E/D700 and the number change significantly. D800E and D700 were only two examples. Df and D4 and even to a degree the D4s all add up in that they will no longer be added into the pool of 73K, they are older tech gear .. just like the C 5DmkIII is.
The major point is that all these cameras are in the pool, some more than others the only possible explanation that they made it into the winners list isn't just directly related to the numbers in the pool.
If that was the reason, then the D700 would surely have done much less well as it did! Old tech replaced by newer tech on the whole!
Also displayed and pointed out is the anomaly that the D810 has been known to decline in numbers of the winners circle, and you pass that off as nothing?
It should be clearly noted that you never previously introduced the concept of 'success' as a data set for the original proposition! Only usage and uptake.
Now it seems that your comment is implying that to be 'successful' you need a Nikon camera?
That is, your original idea was that more Nikon's in the winners circle directly relates to more Nikon camera being bought/used by the pool of users.
You're the one that used the term 're-embrace' .. what does this mean?
Do you have an alternate meaning for it.
But now it seems that you've changed your mind and actually meant that to be a winner you need a Nikon?
The way I read it's usage is that users stopped , and now have 're-embraced' the brand again .. yet the figures clearly show that the D800E and D700 making an appearance. Not in an insignificant volumes either.
The trees here for the discussion ARE the important clues as to what the underlying data actually represents. If you can't see that, they you've allowed yourself into a world of distorted logic.
The age of two important models in terms of numbers gives us an insight as to the brand usage. And you dismiss it as tho it's irrelevant!
Believe all your ill conceived and blinkered logic as you wish, but when broken into obvious chunks of data that has been provided, you change the topic of the discussion.
Just remember Bjorns reply .. personal attacks will not be tolerated, and yet this appears to be your only recourse, and you don't provide any insight as to the relationship between the number of D700's and D800E's suddenly appearing in the 2018 WINNERS data and how that relates to Nikons' cameras on the whole being adopted by the pro journalist community!
One thing is clearly obvious. You have no idea on how to make clear and concise conclusions, and use selective data to make illogical conclusions.
Petty, infantile, ape like chest beating personal attacks aside .. you have yet to clearly add anything resmbling coherence to the discussion!
I'm sure all the reasonably minded folks actually reading the newly presented breakdown of the individual data, now understand why the malformed logic doesn't work as it was originally presented.
At no point have I ever disputed brands. My only intent was to support previous assertions that the implied analysis was clearly mistaken.
Other than Nikon I'm basically brand agnostic ... so this should never even enter the equation.
if you've begun this personal attack on me because you assumed I was anti 'your brand' then your responses make a lot more sense now.
I now understand the circular nature that the topic has taken .. "I'm playing the ball", and you're "playing the man"
My only interest is in the data and of it's useful in some way. You're only interest is in juvenile personal attacks and retorts not just to myself but to others as well.
-
I am not sure how meaningful competitions and statistics like these are. First of all, Nikon is not in camera business, Nikon is -- like all big corporations -- in the money making business. The stock holders couldn't care less if Nikon sold little round rocks, as long as the yens keep on rolling in.
In the big picture cameras like D4 or D5 are almost meaningless to Nikon in the financial sense. Probably neither of those never made a dime. Nonetheless they are important because they are halo products, and are crucial in marketing sense. (Google brand halo effect)
D4 and D5 and the predecessors were extremely expensive to develop. We must realize that the product development is probably only a half -- if even that -- of the total cost. There's also the manufacturing plant development, new assembly lines, new testing lines and so forth. Every new camera model needs practically a new factory. Nikon uses the technologies developed in making those cameras in subsequent years in the rest of the lineup. There are things that the consumer never sees, because Nikon also develops the manufacturing process, trying to streamline it and make it more cost effective. Molding, machining, assembling and so forth. Reduced part count is important too. There are also the things that the consumer sees, like for example common mirror box and platforms used across several products, like the "family" of D600, D610, Df and D750. Also common sensors, prism assemblies and screens all lower the total cost.
Nikon makes it monies by selling millions of the mass-produced "lower tier" cameras and those are the most important for Nikon. The single digit cameras sold to a small and diminishing group of professionals are very likely loss leaders, but those serve the triple duty as new tech test beds, new manufacturing process test beds, and marketing halo products.
So the importance of these competitions? Not big. Ask any tourist you see carrying a Nikon DSLR in the street "who is Scott Kelby" and they have never heard of him, despite him having been a Nikon Ambassador for decades. Ask any tourist: who won this photo competition or that, and used which camera, and the only reply you'll get is "nerd, go take some pictures" :o
-
So the importance of these competitions? Not big.
They are important in the same way as professional sport is important to sporting goods manufacturers. It doesn't matter that most people you see in the street with Nikons have no idea who won what competition, any more than it matters that most people you see in the street wearing Nikes have never heard of Eliud Kipchoge. No one buys Nike because they think that having shoes just like Kipchoge's will make them run faster: they buy the same shoes not fin the hope of emulation but in the hope of association.
People don't see a really good photograph and think "I must buy the camera that did that" - otherwise everyone would be buying Hasselblad and Rolleiflex film cameras.
-
I am not sure how meaningful competitions and statistics like these are. First of all, Nikon is not in camera business, Nikon is -- like all big corporations -- in the money making business. The stock holders couldn't care less if Nikon sold little round rocks, as long as the yens keep on rolling in.
That's a very simplistic and cold view of companies and their motivations. Truth is that companies do what their employees do, and employees (for now) are people. People seek happiness, not money (except where the latter can help in achieving the former). Most people whom I know to work in technology-related fields are more interested in the technical achievement not the money. To be happy, a person generally needs a host of things other than money (spouse, meaningful activities, children) and only a certain amount of money is beneficial toward achieving personal happiness. In reality people also want to try to do interesting things at work and money is a bonus but not sufficient in itself.
The lower tier equipment may have contributed a large part of Nikon's income in the past but presently the entry level DSLRs are unprofitable (and the Coolpix and entry level DSLR and kit lens development seems to have ceased for the most part) and they only basically exist in the lineup to help throw people into the system, so that they may upgrade and buy something more expensive (which then allows Nikon to make a profit).
Nikon have sold poorly both in entry level and at the top, in recent years. We all know their market share has rapidly fallen.
However, the fact that Nikon is very well represented at the top of the world press photo contest suggests that those who discredited Nikon and may have been misguided, since Nikon gear seems to work fine in the hands of the top press photographers of the world.
And no, the 73K aren't the top.
-
People don't see a really good photograph and think "I must buy the camera that did that" - otherwise everyone would be buying Hasselblad and Rolleiflex film cameras.
Well I do believe it is an influencing factor. People who are looking forward to making the best photos they can are certainly influenced by contest winners - if the work seems inspiring they'll note what gear was used and subconciously it may influence their future purchase decisions. Otherwise advertising cameras and lenses with work done by top photographers would be pointless.
-
First of all, Nikon is not in camera business, Nikon is -- like all big corporations -- in the money making business. The stock holders couldn't care less if Nikon sold little round rocks, as long as the yens keep on rolling in.
Rubbish.
You don't advance to the forefront of technology by not giving a damn about your product; you get there by an absolute passion and dedication to your product and calling.
Your incredible blunder in thinking is to lump Nikon (the business), Nikon (the engineers), and 'Nikon stockholders' in the same group.
In the big picture cameras like D4 or D5 are almost meaningless to Nikon in the financial sense. Probably neither of those never made a dime. Nonetheless they are important because they are halo products, and are crucial in marketing sense. (Google brand halo effect)
1) Pure speculation on your part. The truth is you have no idea if the D4/D5 have made Nikon money or not.
2) Even if you are right in the first postulate, and the second postulate, a "halo effect" of leadership at the top making money as a trickle-down = making money.
You call yourself a 'Cunning Linguist,' but do you even know the difference between a valid argument and a sound argument? (Hint: it's a pretty important difference.)
Google that ;)
-
You don't advance to the forefront of technology by not giving a damn about your product; you get there by an absolute passion and dedication to your product and calling.
Yes, we are in agreement. Enthusiasm is essential for success. In the long run it is not enough, though. We have several examples in recent years from Japan and Korea where whole camera divisions have been axed. Enthusiasm gets you only so far, but if the money isn't there you're shut down.
1) Pure speculation on your part. The truth is you have no idea if the D4/D5 have made Nikon money or not.
2) Even if you are right in the first postulate, and the second postulate, a "halo effect" of leadership at the top making money as a trickle-down = making money.
1) Yes, we are in agreement. It is speculation and I have no knowledge of Nikon's internal accounting. I do have intimate knowledge of another field of very demanding industrial design and manufacture, and the brand halo effect is the norm. I even know of certain fields where the halo product is actually never meant to be sold, but sometimes a rich collector comes around and buys it for fun.
2) Yes, we are in agreement, and that's exactly what I meant. All sane high tech companies rely on trickle down strategy.
-
A last warning to the participants here: READ THE FORUM GUIDE LINES AND ABIDE BY THEM.
The personal attacks are poorly hidden and the Admins don't want anymore of this approach.
I have posted a warning twice in this thread and further irregularities will lead to either the thread being locked for input, member(s) banned for 3 weeks, or both.
-
Yes, we are in agreement. Enthusiasm is essential for success. In the long run it is not enough, though. We have several examples in recent years from Japan and Korea where whole camera divisions have been axed. Enthusiasm gets you only so far, but if the money isn't there you're shut down.
As a general principle, we agree.
However, other companies failing in the camera business doesn't mean Nikon is failing in the camera business. Most of the detailed data on Nikon's financial woes were its ties to its lithography business, which sandbags it cut off to be rid of them. Nikon's camera/lens business is, in fact, profitable. Like everyone else, Nikon's entry-level markets have been gobbled-up by smartphones, which is why they're concentrating on their mid-/high-end markets.
Speaking of failures, in point of fact Sony utterly failed in the DSLR business ... and so moved to mirrorless, where they are now succeeding.
Nikon has always been successful in the camera business, film and DSLR, sometimes the industry leader, sometimes #2, but Nikon is always in the forefront.
Regarding overall sales, Nikon has been in the 30th percentile overall, behind Canon in the 60th percentile, while Sony and the rest are floundering in the single-digits.
These same percentage breakdowns were similarly reflected in the previous World Press professional representations, in almost exactly the same ratio as the overall ratio.
Nikon's flipping these percentages ... achieving a 50-something percentage in the professional ranks, while Canon slipped down below the 30th percentile, IMO represents a critical shift to Nikon's favor ... that will likely translate to general user popularity. (There is a basic view that Canon has leveled to mediocrity, while Nikon continues to lead, which is pervasive ...)
As mentioned, the D850 continues to be "out of stock" ... while the Sony A7rIII (and any Canon DSLR) can always be purchased immediately ;)
In fact, the D850 has been the best-selling FF camera, since it came out, outselling both Canon and Sony counterparts ... and and there is no sign anywhere of a let-up.
It is not unreasonable to believe that Canon can lose its leadership role ... if this trend continues ... and Nikon can be the one to take over in the not-too-distant future.
1) Yes, we are in agreement. It is speculation and I have no knowledge of Nikon's internal accounting. I do have intimate knowledge of another field of very demanding industrial design and manufacture, and the brand halo effect is the norm. I even know of certain fields where the halo product is actually never meant to be sold, but sometimes a rich collector comes around and buys it for fun.
2) Yes, we are in agreement, and that's exactly what I meant. All sane high tech companies rely on trickle down strategy.
Cool, have a good one.
-
... Nikon's flipping these percentages ... achieving a 50-something percentage in the professional ranks, while Canon slipped down below the 30th percentile, IMO represents a critical shift to Nikon's favor ...
All that is pure conjecture. It is possible that Nikon's market share is significantly higher than it has been in previous years and time will tell soon enough. You seem to base your guesstimates on the success of D850 but it has not had time to make an impact in the petapixel stats, as D850 is not yet in the top 15. Moreover, businesswise it is not good for Nikon not being able to satisfy the demand for D850 because buyers are forced to other options which may not be Nikon.
I admire your enthusiastic speculations, and Nikon would be thrilled if they have been able to increase their sales because the whole camera market is diminishing. The fact that Nikon lost its #2 position in DSLR lens sales and fell completely out of top 3 in 2017 in the japanese market points to a completely opposite direction of the press awards numbers, though. While that is an actual sales figure, we still cannot make any sensible assumptions regarding the world market, nor actual camera sales.
I wholeheartedly support your right to have an opinion and your right to build speculative scenarios. Those are fun to watch and the wilder the funnier. I also want to emphasize that I am not anti-you or anti-Nikon nor even anti-speculation, so don't feel that you are forced to defend your position. I will defend it for you! My bottom line is that a press awards ranking list consisting of 32 cameras is not the same as actual and factual world market sales numbers. In the end even the real numbers won't mean anything to me beyond the fun-to-watch aspect, since I have zero dollars in Nikon stocks.
I am not here to muzzle you, and I expect the same. We have a different opinion about the significance of the petapixel numbers and that's the end of it. Are the numbers interesting? Yes. Will they cure cancer? No. Don't take this as a challenge, since a public forum is not a place where you need to prove your manliness by word-wrestling others to submission, because that will never happen. If your conjectures will prove to be wrong, will I return here to gloat "I told you so"? No.
If the opposite, will you? The answer to that question proves your manliness.
Anyway, this thread has outlived its usefulness and interest. Photokina in September is what I'm looking forward to, along with quarterly sales figures. I have nothing further to add to this conversation.
-
While I think Nikon have a strong DSLR product line, I don't think it's quite so simple to push Canon aside either in the professional or general consumer markets. Nikon is probably strongest in the enthusiast/semi-pro segment but they seem to be currently focusing resources into capturing the high end.
However, Canon have the strength that they've got a cinema camera lineup and lenses and they tend to be popular among those who want to do both stills and video. They have state of the art video autofocus technology (dual pixel AF). I think for many photojournalists video is a necessary feature if they want to be paid. The compensation for still photography is said to be too low to make a living these days with all the free pics that the media companies are sent from readers etc.
-
All that is pure conjecture. It is possible that Nikon's market share is significantly higher than it has been in previous years and time will tell soon enough. You seem to base your guesstimates on the success of D850 but it has not had time to make an impact in the petapixel stats, as D850 is not yet in the top 15. Moreover, businesswise it is not good for Nikon not being able to satisfy the demand for D850 because buyers are forced to other options which may not be Nikon.
All of anything having to do with the future is conjecture. I hadn't realized speculating was speculating, but thanks for the eye-opening tip ::)
The original thrust of my thread was the fact that Nikon reversed yesteryear's trend for the World Press, with the positive speculation that this reversal could spill into other gains. Such speculation is not unreasonable.
The D850 is not in the top 15 ... what? Cameras as a whole? Maybe,
But what about FF cameras?
There isn't a FF camera out there right now that is in the kind of demand for it that the Nikon D850 is enjoying ;)
I based my speculation on quite a bit more than the D850. Nikon's success isn't just predicated on the D850: the D500/D750 sales have been excellent also, not to mention their lenses, but the D850 is the poster child right now.
I also disagree with your allegation any buyer is 'forced' into other options due to limited availability. (I know, I just finished waiting to purchase a D850.) The thought of buying a Sony (or a Canon) never entered my mind for a second because of the wait. I want what I want, and waiting a bit to get what I want is not a big deal ... and a whole lot better result than spending $3000+ dollars to get an 'alternative' I never really wanted in the first place ... just because it's 'available now' (by virtue of not being in demand). Waiting 2 weeks didn't kill me.
I admire your enthusiastic speculations, and Nikon would be thrilled if they have been able to increase their sales because the whole camera market is diminishing. The fact that Nikon lost its #2 position in DSLR lens sales and fell completely out of top 3 in 2017 in the japanese market points to a completely opposite direction of the press awards numbers, though. While that is an actual sales figure, we still cannot make any sensible assumptions regarding the world market, nor actual camera sales.
Show me the stats to support this claim.
I wholeheartedly support your right to have an opinion and your right to build speculative scenarios. Those are fun to watch and the wilder the funnier. I also want to emphasize that I am not anti-you or anti-Nikon nor even anti-speculation, so don't feel that you are forced to defend your position. I will defend it for you! My bottom line is that a press awards ranking list consisting of 32 cameras is not the same as actual and factual world market sales numbers. In the end even the real numbers won't mean anything to me beyond the fun-to-watch aspect, since I have zero dollars in Nikon stocks.
I wholeheartedly support your right to be arrogant and patronizing, made all the funnier by you're believing yourself to be in the position to do so.
I am not here to muzzle you, and I expect the same. We have a different opinion about the significance of the petapixel numbers and that's the end of it. Are the numbers interesting? Yes. Will they cure cancer? No. Don't take this as a challenge, since a public forum is not a place where you need to prove your manliness by word-wrestling others to submission, because that will never happen. If your conjectures will prove to be wrong, will I return here to gloat "I told you so"? No.
If the opposite, will you? The answer to that question proves your manliness.
For a self-proclaimed 'cunning linguist,' your bait tactics are pretty transparent. (I won't get into your other play on words ;))
Suffice it to say that if you truly believe 'manliness' is predicated on whether 'to type on a computer' ... or not ... you need to get out more often ;D
In the end, my wish for Nikon's success has absolutely nothing to do with 'you' ...
Anyway, this thread has outlived its usefulness and interest. Photokina in September is what I'm looking forward to, along with quarterly sales figures. I have nothing further to add to this conversation.
Your responses have been anything but useful, just thinly-veiled attempts to insult, undermine, patronize, etc.
Our common ground lies in that we both are looking forward to seeing Nikon's sales figures.
However, we disagree that you have 'added' anything to this conversation; it's pretty clear your goal was to subtract from it.
-
Enough is enough.
Consequences follow accordingly.
-
Without those 32 'no data' entries, the results don't really help with any understanding of the market in any way.
...but what if those 32 "no data" entries were paranoid film SLR users? That would be significant!
Dave Hartman
...Alas we will never know. :(
[Sorry: I thought some comic relief was needed. I didn't notice that there was a third page.]
-
[Sorry: I thought some comic relief was needed. I didn't notice that there was a third page.]
We can always use comic relief... which is relief from comics, right? :)