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!
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.
