October 01, 2014, 03:25:36 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - dilbert

Pages: 1 ... 97 98 [99] 100 101 ... 199
1471
Quote
I suspect that the figures are more representative of vendor-lock-in through lenses than anything else (note that 3rd party lenses doesn't change this.) If swapping vendor was a $5 or $10 per lens penalty, things would be different.
Your 'vendor lock-in' applies to Nikon users as well. If swapping vendor was a $5 or $10 lens penalty, things would be different - for sure Nikon users will be switching to Canon just as easily.

Ah, you've not understood what I'm saying, obviously.

Let me put it another way...

People buy or have bought Canon for the lenses.

People buy or have bought Nikon for the bodies.

Quote
A lesser product, E.G. NIKON, doesn't necessarily result in it being returned and for those that buy over the Internet, the hurdle is rather high so the product needs to be obviously bad rather than just "not as good."
So what's your point?
[/quote]

Err, "A lesser product, E.G. 5D Mark III".

1472
But.....but.....Nikon is "better," isn't it?  DxOMark says so, it must be true.  What am I missing?!?  Oh, wait, I know....REALITY.

So?

Sales numbers are not and never have been an indication of quality.

Quality? You talk as if Nikon has quality and Canon is crap. Both have quality mind you. And contrary to what you think, sales figures ARE an indication of quality. Rarely would people buy crap products, especially when you can easily walk back into the store and get a refund.

I suspect that the figures are more representative of vendor-lock-in through lenses than anything else (note that 3rd party lenses doesn't change this.) If swapping vendor was a $5 or $10 per lens penalty, things would be different.

A lesser product doesn't necessarily result in it being returned and for those that buy over the Internet, the hurdle is rather high so the product needs to be obviously bad rather than just "not as good."

1473
Looks like Nikon's hard promotion and heavy discounting efforts for their DSLRs did not gain them very much in 2012 within Japan. As a matter of fact, they lost even more DSLR market shares to Canon in 2012 than 2011. Canon's 5D2 and 5D3 accounted for 3.9% market shares while Nikon's D800 and D600 merely earned 2.3%.

I would love to see a further breakdown on that, including a graph of 5D2/5D3 sales over the course of CY2012.

1474
But.....but.....Nikon is "better," isn't it?  DxOMark says so, it must be true.  What am I missing?!?  Oh, wait, I know....REALITY.

So?

Sales numbers are not and never have been an indication of quality.

True.  Betamax delivered better quality as a video recording medium.  Didn't help Sony much in the end, though, did it?   :P

Actually, it taught Sony some valuable lessons and thus BluRay beat HD-DVD.

1475
But.....but.....Nikon is "better," isn't it?  DxOMark says so, it must be true.  What am I missing?!?  Oh, wait, I know....REALITY.

So?

Sales numbers are not and never have been an indication of quality.

1476
An interesting note about Canon, if you remove the lowend of the DSLR market (Rebels, D3xxx/D5xxx), Canon’s marketshare increases. I imagine the 5D Mark III plays a big part in that, as well as the EOS-1D X.

I imagine that the still available 5D Mark II also played a part in that as it dropped to levels that made it accessible to a whole lot of new people.

The key to interpreting these numbers meaningfully is to look at change in percentage of the market that each of the respective companies had last year. Further, these numbers consider more than just DSLRs except that for Canon it only represents DSLRs.

Does anyone have the percentages for 2010 and 2011 for ILC camera sales?

1477
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Shooting With the EOS 6D Part 2: Costa Rica
« on: December 30, 2012, 06:06:41 AM »
i like the window picture

It is too big and as it is, needs to be cropped.

1478
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Is it hard not to buy 3rd party lenses now?
« on: December 26, 2012, 08:18:24 AM »
I think TomScott has a good view.  Canon lenses, at least the L series, seem to be built more sturdy than the Sigma and Tamron equivalents.  Of course that also comes with larger size and greater weight, as well as higher price.

If they're so well built then why don't Canon provide a warranty to back that up with?

1479
EOS Bodies / Re: 6D Likely Price Trend
« on: December 26, 2012, 08:07:48 AM »
Hi,

My wife is giving birth in July and I will have a 6D by then to take pics of the kid.

My only question is when to buy.  Is it likely that the 6D will drop in price from Dec. 2011 to July 2012?  If so, I will wait...
...

So when exactly are you going to buy the camera relative to the baby arrival?
A week before the due date of the baby?
The day it arrives?
A week after?

You do realise that babies can arrive both EARLY and late.

1480
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon 5D MKII Pricing Question
« on: December 25, 2012, 03:43:35 PM »
Switching over from Nikon Interested In buying a new Canon 5D MKII($1529.00) either body only or with 24-105 lens(2399.00).
I see prices on body only seem to be coming down a bit but holding steady on body & lens kit!
Do we think we will see any large price drops in the U.S. market and how long should I hold out?
Thanks In Advance

Keep holding out.

If things go well for you, now that the discontinue announcement has been made, people will start snapping them up everywhere at the current price so that no more discounts will be necessary.

Then all of a sudden it will not be possible to buy them anywhere and you'll be able to wait for the 5D Mark III to reach $2000.

1481
Lenses / Re: Announcement on January 8, 2013? New Lenses [CR1]
« on: December 25, 2012, 06:10:36 AM »

Except that you won't be able to use filters with the 14-24 because of the curved front surface.

Lee makes a filter holder for the 14-24.

Heh, sure, just try and buy a Lee filter system anywhere.

Next.

1482
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5d2 officially discontinued.
« on: December 25, 2012, 05:21:36 AM »
I still think the Canon 20D was the most influential DSLR ever. It was the first one at a reasonable price that really seemed good enough to get even many film proponents to finally give up film and go digital. I knew so few people using DSLR before the 20D and so many after.

For me, it was this line:

"With the 20D, it's my perception that, for Canon lens owners at least, the DSLR has reached maturity."

from here:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/20d-location.shtml

that told me buying the 20D was the right time to move from SLR to DSLR.

1483
Canon EOS 50
Canon EOS 20D
Canon EOS 5D Mark II
Nikon D800

(Since others are listing non-Canon, I thought I would too :-P)

1484
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Pictures taken with the humble 35 f2
« on: December 23, 2012, 10:30:59 AM »
I get fantastic results with the 35/f2. Magnificent value for money.

1485
Lenses / Re: Announcement on January 8, 2013? New Lenses [CR1]
« on: December 23, 2012, 10:07:36 AM »
I sold my 2 year old 24-70 Mk 1 for $10 less than what I paid for it last month. I am beyond excited for a 14-24, I have had a 17-40 and found the corners far too soft and cannot bring myself to get a 16-35 which is not THAT much better for the cost difference and who needs a super fast landscape lens? I need Zeiss 21 quality in a zoom.

Except that you won't be able to use filters with the 14-24 because of the curved front surface.

Pages: 1 ... 97 98 [99] 100 101 ... 199