Herman Surkis wrote:
Ask me how I know that Hassi's will bounce and still keep on working.

I was asking "Natural Light on Location", and how he knew the Canon AE1 would withstand a 5ft drop onto concrete, (because he asked first).
-Don

Solas wrote:

Hunger and thirst?

The taste of advertising and marketing.

Benjamin Kanarek wrote:
Not sure if your assessment is accurate. So many of the top shooters I am aware of use both the Nikon or Canon pretty evenly dispersed.

Peter Lindbergh, Steve McCurr, Gilles Bensimon amongst others use Nikon...

Dan Howell wrote:
I'm not sure that is a representative sampling. I would caution against drawing a conclusion based on that pool of photographers.

I think this is the right answer.

Andrew00 wrote:
Hey,

In virtually every fashion shoot behind the scenes video that I've seen Canon DSLR's are used 95% of the time. Typically the 5dmk3 or the 1D series.

My question is why are Canon's therefore used so much more?

Excellent observation, Andrew!

The thing is it's also true when it comes to sports events, as well.

Herman Surkis wrote:

Ask me how I know that Hassi's will bounce and still keep on working.

You designed a hassy made of rubber?

Bare Essential Photos wrote:
Excellent observation, Andrew!

The thing is it's also true when it comes to sports events, as well.

Could be something to do with Canon to sponsor the Tokyo 2020 Olympic and Paralympic Games... and prior Olympics.

I suppose if Pentax sponsored the Olympics then everyone would be buying one.

WIP wrote:
Could be something to do with Canon to sponsor the Tokyo 2020 Olympic and Paralympic Games... and prior Olympics.

I suppose if Pentax sponsored the Olympics then everyone would be buying one.

That's a strike, WIP, but that's okay.

My statement is based on my observations whenever I attend professional and college football, basketball, and baseball games, as well as track and field events.

I understand the same is true in European sporting events, as well.

WIP wrote:
Could be something to do with Canon to sponsor the Tokyo 2020 Olympic and Paralympic Games... and prior Olympics.

I suppose if Pentax sponsored the Olympics then everyone would be buying one.

Which Olympic games did you think Canon was an official sponsor? I didn't see them listed for Beijing, London or Rio as a worldwide sponsor or partner. They have certainly sponsored other events or individual teams, but it seems like the Tokyo games will be their first as a gold level sponsor--at least from what I read. Companies like Panasonic and Samsung have sponsored several Olympic games.

You might be confusing on-sight professional services with sponsorship. Both Nikon and Canon have equipment and professional services at major sporting events.

article re. London Olympics:
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/business/AJ201207260015

Dan Howell wrote:
Which Olympic games did you think Canon was an official sponsor? I didn't see them listed for Beijing, London or Rio as a worldwide sponsor or partner. They have certainly sponsored other events or individual teams, but it seems like the Tokyo games will be their first as a gold level sponsor--at least from what I read. Companies like Panasonic and Samsung have sponsored several Olympic games.

You might be confusing on-sight professional services with sponsorship. Both Nikon and Canon have equipment and professional services at major sporting events.

article re. London Olympics:
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/business/AJ201207260015

I was persuaded to buy an AE1 Canon many years ago because they were official sponsors on the 19 ?? Olympics.
They also sponsor the IAAF World Championships. Example Moscow 2013 five billion TV viewers.
Special Olympics New York from 1970 - 2013.
New York Yankees since 2000.
And many more.

WIP wrote:
I was persuaded to buy an AE1 Canon many years ago because they were official sponsors on the 19 ?? Olympics.

1980? And that relates to the OP how...?

WIP wrote:

I was persuaded to buy an AE1 Canon many years ago because they were official sponsors on the 19 ?? Olympics.
They also sponsor the IAAF World Championships. Example Moscow 2013 five billion TV viewers.
Special Olympics New York from 1970 - 2013.
New York Yankees since 2000.
And many more.

Again, I based my comments with my actual observations attending numerous events. None ot them were Olympic events or the NY Yankees.

Again, I understand the same is true in European events.

Bare Essential Photos wrote:
Again, I based my comments with my actual observations attending numerous events. None ot them were Olympic events or the NY Yankees.

Again, I understand the same is true in European events.

In my studio, I can tell you, quite definitively, NIkon cameras out number Canon cameras 3 to 1.  We have a number of guys who make their living with their camera.  All of them, except for one, shoot with Nikon.

It is factual, that Canon sells more cameras than Nikon.  When it comes to professional level DSLR's, the lead has swung back and forth.  John posted a photo of a sports event with a sea of white lenses.  That was in 2004.   When Canon came out with the 1D series, they dominated sports, until Nikon came out with the D3.  Within about a year, that sea of white lenses turned into a sea of black ones.  When Canon came out with the 1D IV, the numbers evened out.  Today, when I look at a TV sporting event, I see a lot of Canon lenses.  When I take the time to count them, there turn out to be about the same number of Nikons.  Sometimes I see a few more Nikons than Canons.  Other times I see a few more Canons than Nikons.

I have tried to stay out of this because it is another "Canon is better than Nikon" thread.  Honestly, I don't know why anyone cares.  I happen to shoot with Nikon just because I have been given a lot of them, and a lot of glass for free.  At this point, I own too much glass.  So when I buy a body myself, it is Nikon.  I used to be sponsored by Olympus.  Early on, I shot with an E-10 and then an E-1.  I loved the E-1.  They are just cameras.

The only conclusion you can draw is that you have seen more Canons than Nikons at the fashion shows you have been to.  If you want to make the statement "Most Professional Fashion Photographers Shoot with Canon," it would simply be untrue.  If you want to make the statement:  "Many Fashion Photographers Shoot with Canon," I would agree.

Bare Essential Photos wrote:
Again, I based my comments with my actual observations attending numerous events. None ot them were Olympic events or the NY Yankees.

Again, I understand the same is true in European events.

Doh may not be Olympic but Moscow IAAF 2013 five billion TV viewers. that's a lot of advertising... if it's an official camera then it has to be good.... a bit like MucDonalds as sponsors is MucDonalds burger better than prime steak burger ... don't think so.

Canon out sell Phase One cameras but I know which I'd prefer to have.

WIP wrote:
Doh may not be Olympic but Moscow IAAF 2013 five billion TV viewers. that's a lot of advertising... if it's an official camera then it has to be good.... a bit like MucDonalds as sponsors is MucDonalds burger better than prime steak burger ... don't think so.

Canon out sell Phase One cameras but I know which I'd prefer to have.

Well, that's at least 3 strikes, but everything is going to be alright, WIP.

I prefer direct observations over "out of the blue" assumptions.

Obviously, there are many others who are happy with their choice of cameras even though it may not be what you have. There's nothing wrong with that, WIP.

Robb Mann wrote:
Canon cameras are very easy to identify in those group shots - that's actually the reason L lenses are white.

Actually, those Canon lenses are white to help prevent them from getting hot in the sun. Black lenses would absorb a lot of heat and the barrels could stretch. Not much, but enough to get the glass inside out of it's tolerance range and enough to prevent sharp images.

Solas wrote:

You designed a hassy made of rubber?

It's the "Michelin", the successor to the wood covered "Lunar"!

Francisco Castro wrote:

Actually, those Canon lenses are white to help prevent them from getting hot in the sun. Black lenses would absorb a lot of heat and the barrels could stretch. Not much, but enough to get the glass inside out of it's tolerance range and enough to prevent sharp images.

I'm sick of hearing this. I'm calling bullshit.

If that was the ONLY reason, why aren't the lenses painted silver? And why not ALL lenses? Neither white nor black is the 'natural' colour, so cost is a minor issue, if any at all.

All good-quality lenses made since the 60s focus past infinity, for exactly this reason. So even before the white lenses came out, Canon had a solution to prevent heat from being a factor with prime lenses.

But let's give Canon the benefit of the doubt. Let's say white lenses really make a difference, and they're trademarked. Even though we see other white lenses. We'll pretend.

Why doesn't someone else make silver lenses? Zeiss has shown that they're willing to dedicate big R&D bucks to problems we'll never see, and make lenses that very few people will ever buy. But they're all still black.

Yes, I know M mount lenses come in silver. The manual lenses, with the most solid construction and the fewest moving parts, obviously have tighter tolerances than an Otus.

Bullshit.

White lenses are a marketing tactic, and every time someone says, 'well actually ...', all you're doing is proving that the marketing guys deserved their pay.

Zack Zoll wrote:
Why doesn't someone else make silver lenses? Zeiss has shown that they're willing to dedicate big R&D bucks to problems we'll never see, and make lenses that very few people will ever buy. But they're all still black.

Yes, I know M mount lenses come in silver. The manual lenses, with the most solid construction and the fewest moving parts, obviously have tighter tolerances than an Otus.

Bullshit.

You're just wrong on this, but more importantly this is just a useless tangent to the OP.

http://petapixel.com/2011/09/20/did-you … enses-too/

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/8 … Super.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/8 … _Lens.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/8 … _6_ED.html

http://www.apotelyt.com/photo-lens/leic … r-400mm-28
http://www.slrlounge.com/worlds-most-ex … -r-1600mm/

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/33160194

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/3 … _Lens.html

Peter House wrote:
I know plenty of fashion shooters who use Nikon. Myself included.

At the end of the day, it is just a tool. Heck, I'm considering switching to Pentax.

Really doesn't matter.

<---- Nikon User

But I've been seriously looking hard at the Pentax K3. Especially after I got to handle one at the last AZ Shootout. Don't know if I'd switch completely, but it would be a nice system to own in addition to.

I think one of the reasons Canon is more prominent is because whenever I walk into the big box stores (Wal Mart, Best Buy, Fry's Electronics, etc), I see nothing but Canon in the SLR section and only one or two lower end Nikons.

Hell, just look on Craig's List: Search Canon and you get a bunch of good stuff. Search Nikon and it's mostly their point and shoot products.

Dan Howell wrote:
You're just wrong on this, but more importantly this is just a useless tangent to the OP.

http://petapixel.com/2011/09/20/did-you … enses-too/

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/8 … Super.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/8 … _Lens.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/8 … _6_ED.html

http://www.apotelyt.com/photo-lens/leic … r-400mm-28
http://www.slrlounge.com/worlds-most-ex … -r-1600mm/

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/33160194

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/3 … _Lens.html

If you'll go back and read my original post Dan, you'll see that you've only proven my point.

I said that Canon is NOT the only company to make white lenses - just the only one to make then standard. Outside of a few Sony/Minolta lenses. And the silver lenses you mentioned were manual focus, just like the silver lenses I mentioned.

And no, it's not an off-topic rant. The OP asked why he saw more Canon, and a couple posters said that it was because the finish on their lenses made them superior. I called bullshit. If anything you've reinforced that idea, by linking to a couple of lenses that are even more highly regarded and are silver.

So no, Canon lenses are not superior based in their 'ideal heat dissipation characteristics,' because there are better ways to do it, and lots of non-Canon lenses with the same characteristics.

I'm not taking a stand for or against any brand here. I'm just saying that if the OP wants to know why Canon is better(if at all), he needs to look elsewhere for an answer.

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
Historically, there has been a major different in the color coating between Nikon and Canon lenses.

I believe that the difference is more of a cultural preference than anything else.

Japanese prefer skintones to be more neutral and white, and they shoot more photos of nature than family/people

American/Europeans prefer skin to appear more warm toned and care more for skin tones rather than nature.

Canon's glass is coated to produce skin tones that are more red/yellow

Nikon's glass is coated more to the green/blue for nature

Back in the 1980's Canon decided to go after the American and European market and started coating their lenses to a different color standard than Nikon.

Canon was my sponsor during the '80's and '90's, and this was the explanation that I was given at the time as to what the basic difference was between the two brands.

This was the primary reason I switched from Nikon to Canon while I was shooting for Playboy.

KM

Since you bring up colour, that's a huge benefit to the Canon system. Not for the individual shooters, but for the industry itself.

Currently, there are Nikon cameras that are more colour-accurate than Canon. There are also some that are worse. Every Canon is red, but not always to the same extent. But it is always red, every time. And even though the 5Dii was very possibly the reddest camera I've ever used, the important thing is that it's consistent with every other Canon. If you drop a memory card on an editor or retoucher's desk and tell them it was a Canon, the hardest part of colour correcting - figuring out what needs to be corrected - is already done before you even load the images.

They're so consistent that I can guess if a student shoots Canon with about a 90% accuracy just from seeing their images.

And in a professional industry, consistency is more important that almost anything else. Sure the D800 has better colour than the 5D series ... But the D600 doesn't, and the D750 almost does, but it's a different tint than the D800. Canon, reduce red saturation and shift them toward orange. Done. Nikon, you're going to have to screw around a little.

If Canon has a colour advantage in this day and age, where everything can be curved and masked into oblivion, that's it.

Herman Surkis wrote:
Ask me how I know that Hassi's will bounce and still keep on working.

There is no way I would want to find out what happens when a digital back lands on the concrete...or an $8,000.00 leaf shutter lens for that matter!

Makes my groin hurt just thinking about it!

Zack Zoll wrote:
One of the disadvantages to being a reactive company like Canon is that you're never the first to do anything. They didn't even make the first full frame camera(again, Kodak) ... They just made the first full frame video camera. Unless you count actual video cameras.

But the advantage is that you get to see what everybody else is doing, and then try to do it better.

This is what Apple does consistently and they do it well. Sometimes its not a bad thing to be the late comer on something new. Sometimes letting the competitor be the test dummy for new ideas can be beneficial to the wallet.

Irwin Photographics wrote:
This is what Apple does consistently and they do it well. Sometimes its not a bad thing to be the late comer on something new. Sometimes letting the competitor be the test dummy for new ideas can be beneficial to the wallet.

I would suggest that Apple isn't really a good example of "following but doing it better". 

- Take a music player and give it an graphical touch computer operating system. Then give it apps (iTouch)

- Stuff a phone into that music player with an OS and apps (IPhone). Creating the entire SmartPhone category...

- Make it much larger and lose the phone (IPad).  Although this one was more of a factor in "popularizing" tablets.

Yes, the various technologies existed but they often combined them in such radical ways!

LightDreams wrote:

I would suggest that Apple isn't really a good example of "following but doing it better". 

- Take a music player and give it an graphical touch computer operating system. Then give it apps (iTouch)

- Stuff a phone into that music player with an OS and apps (IPhone). Creating the entire SmartPhone category...

- Make it much larger and lose the phone (IPad).  Although this one was more of a factor in "popularizing" tablets.

Yes, the various technologies existed but they often combined them in such radical ways!

The iPod Touch was nothing more than a smaller Pocket PC, running a simplified OS.

Blackberry phones were also perfectly capable of playing music, and could play through a Bluetooth headset.

The tablet was another Pocket PC - this one larger, and not smaller.

The biggest leap forward was standardizing the products, so you could pick your size, and whether or not you wanted to add a phone line and a data plan to it.