V8Beast said:
Agreed..........
A 1DX with a 400mm f2.8 IS MkII and a trip to Manhattan beach doesn't make you a surf photographer.
Upvote
0
Just for Jrista: 2014 Market Data
- Thread starter Woody
- Start date
Agreed..........
A 1DX with a 400mm f2.8 IS MkII and a trip to Manhattan beach doesn't make you a surf photographer.
... and this is part of the point, isn't it? Great images are great images, regardless of the equipment used.
If we were honest with ourselves we'd realize that without EXIF data it's nearly impossible to tell which camera and which lens made which image.
Yes, I'm like everyone else who wants to make sure that what we own is sufficient to the task. I might spend too much time thinking and researching the topic. Yet, once that decision is made, great images come from the mind and heart of the artist, as expressed through the equipment they use. Equipment sitting there on the table, while brilliant by all human measures, can't produce a brilliant piece of work without serious human intervention.
If we were honest with ourselves we'd realize that without EXIF data it's nearly impossible to tell which camera and which lens made which image.
Yes, I'm like everyone else who wants to make sure that what we own is sufficient to the task. I might spend too much time thinking and researching the topic. Yet, once that decision is made, great images come from the mind and heart of the artist, as expressed through the equipment they use. Equipment sitting there on the table, while brilliant by all human measures, can't produce a brilliant piece of work without serious human intervention.
V8Beast said:
Upvote
0
Here in Norway, camera sales went down 43% in the first half of 2014. Compacts went down 43%. In the ILC market DSLRs fell with 49% vs only 5% fall of mirror less. Mirror less reached 31% of the ILC market.
Of course Norway is a small market and is the only country in Europe with such a fall according to the article, but I find it interesting nonetheless.
Source if anyone care:
http://www.tu.no/t2/2014/09/16/intet-land-i-europa-opplever-samme-fall-i-kameramarkedet-som-norge
Of course Norway is a small market and is the only country in Europe with such a fall according to the article, but I find it interesting nonetheless.
Source if anyone care:
http://www.tu.no/t2/2014/09/16/intet-land-i-europa-opplever-samme-fall-i-kameramarkedet-som-norge
Upvote
0
My guestimate for the market as a whole would be that those customers that have cheaper P&S's, or a newbie model with few lenses, are more prone to do brand-jumping. Look at how people change or update their phones nowadays - the producers don't expect a certain model to last more than 18 months. And many customers change phone model more often than that.
It would be very hard to please these customers all the time, if you were a producer such as Nikon or Canon. I think they expect to lose some in the low-end segment, and aim at getting long-term customers in the higher segments. Right now there's a dip - new things happen on the market with cameras in cell phones becoming more competent - but I would expect an upswing when the economies around the world gets a little more stable again.
The companies that have done their best to predict the markets future will be best suited to survive. Some of them will have a new product-portfolio aimed at a different type of customer, others will perhaps purify what they already do to become better.
I hope some of this makes any sense. I don't intend to write a short novel, so I might have skipped too much to be properly understood.
It would be very hard to please these customers all the time, if you were a producer such as Nikon or Canon. I think they expect to lose some in the low-end segment, and aim at getting long-term customers in the higher segments. Right now there's a dip - new things happen on the market with cameras in cell phones becoming more competent - but I would expect an upswing when the economies around the world gets a little more stable again.
The companies that have done their best to predict the markets future will be best suited to survive. Some of them will have a new product-portfolio aimed at a different type of customer, others will perhaps purify what they already do to become better.
I hope some of this makes any sense. I don't intend to write a short novel, so I might have skipped too much to be properly understood.
Upvote
0
It's also because being a "pro" doesn't mean anything. there's really no standardization, so anyone can be one.
Upvote
0
Etienne said:
I'd take issue with that, many keen amateurs can take as good or better images than many pros, but as with most self employed professions, taking images is a very small, though important, part of the job.
Upvote
0
This entire thread is hilarious.
Conflating the needs of the masses as reflected in the sales figures with the needs of enthusiasts and pros - a completely disparate population.
Controlling for nothing, like brand name, education level, etc.
Therefore none of these numbers should be drawn into *any* conversations re: technologies that (1) enthusiasts/pros care about, (2) said technologies that don't have much impact on market share, (3) said technologies that *could* help even laypeople but since the use-cases are not communicated well enough to be ever used, end up being irrelevant to even those use-cases (a failure of many of you here, but mostly of the review/educational sites around the world).
But all that doesn't mean that those new technologies couldn't be used in groundbreaking ways, amongst many people, if iterated on and then taught appropriately.
And honestly, being on here for years, that whole 'teaching part' is never going to happen here. B/c everyone else is far too holed up in their own ways to even consider that someone else coming along might, just might, have a point.
So we're literally back to the same level of conversation I noticed when I participated in these forums 3 years ago. The entire reason I left. Great to see nothing's changed!
Well, except that you now accept all the claims that Risedal guy made - rather hurtfully to you pity souls - b/c ultimately he was right. But you just don't want to talk about it.
Did I get that about right? Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Oh, and here's yet another wedding image I was processing from my 5D3 that I decided to throw out b/c by the time I corrected the 3EV vignetting of my 24/1.4 and then added 1.5 stops (b/c I underexposed by 1.5 EV to save the sky/clouds above my subjects), I had this wonder junk overlaid over my image:
I don't know about you, but I just don't deliver that to clients. My D810 wouldn't have even had the smudge related with this noise, b/c it wouldn't have had any(thing but shot) noise to begin with with even a +5 EV push (that's verified; I'm not making it up).
And that's not even talking about some of the other differentiators that differentiate the low end Rebel from Nikon's Rebel competitor: for example, Nikon's Rebel competitor has 39 AF points that can accurate subject track, even detect a face (even when you're using the OVF), and focus on and track it. Will work for your kids playing sports or for your dog running around.
Rebel - can only focus on whatever's the nearest subject it can find within its 9 AF points. Good luck tracking it with those 9 points, especially if something else enters the scene at a similar plane as your kid/pet.
If even that crowd buys Rebels predominantly, then what's the point of this entire conversation? Other than that: brand names persist. Because of word of mouth. From people like you.
Conflating the needs of the masses as reflected in the sales figures with the needs of enthusiasts and pros - a completely disparate population.
Controlling for nothing, like brand name, education level, etc.
Therefore none of these numbers should be drawn into *any* conversations re: technologies that (1) enthusiasts/pros care about, (2) said technologies that don't have much impact on market share, (3) said technologies that *could* help even laypeople but since the use-cases are not communicated well enough to be ever used, end up being irrelevant to even those use-cases (a failure of many of you here, but mostly of the review/educational sites around the world).
But all that doesn't mean that those new technologies couldn't be used in groundbreaking ways, amongst many people, if iterated on and then taught appropriately.
And honestly, being on here for years, that whole 'teaching part' is never going to happen here. B/c everyone else is far too holed up in their own ways to even consider that someone else coming along might, just might, have a point.
So we're literally back to the same level of conversation I noticed when I participated in these forums 3 years ago. The entire reason I left. Great to see nothing's changed!
Well, except that you now accept all the claims that Risedal guy made - rather hurtfully to you pity souls - b/c ultimately he was right. But you just don't want to talk about it.
Did I get that about right? Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Oh, and here's yet another wedding image I was processing from my 5D3 that I decided to throw out b/c by the time I corrected the 3EV vignetting of my 24/1.4 and then added 1.5 stops (b/c I underexposed by 1.5 EV to save the sky/clouds above my subjects), I had this wonder junk overlaid over my image:
I don't know about you, but I just don't deliver that to clients. My D810 wouldn't have even had the smudge related with this noise, b/c it wouldn't have had any(thing but shot) noise to begin with with even a +5 EV push (that's verified; I'm not making it up).
And that's not even talking about some of the other differentiators that differentiate the low end Rebel from Nikon's Rebel competitor: for example, Nikon's Rebel competitor has 39 AF points that can accurate subject track, even detect a face (even when you're using the OVF), and focus on and track it. Will work for your kids playing sports or for your dog running around.
Rebel - can only focus on whatever's the nearest subject it can find within its 9 AF points. Good luck tracking it with those 9 points, especially if something else enters the scene at a similar plane as your kid/pet.
If even that crowd buys Rebels predominantly, then what's the point of this entire conversation? Other than that: brand names persist. Because of word of mouth. From people like you.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
sarangiman said:
No, you got wrong.
sarangiman said:
Yeah, sad that all those so-called professional photographers using Canon deliver their clients such crap. It's just astounding that they manage to barely stay in business, I'm sure no one using Canon is successful as a photographer.
You've proven that Canon sensors can't make a good image, much more effectively than Mikael. Great job teaching us poor yokels who are still using such incapable cameras.
Upvote
0
sarangiman said:This entire thread is hilarious.
Conflating the needs of the masses as reflected in the sales figures with the needs of enthusiasts and pros - a completely disparate population.
Controlling for nothing, like brand name, education level, etc.
Therefore none of these numbers should be drawn into *any* conversations re: technologies that (1) enthusiasts/pros care about, (2) said technologies that don't have much impact on market share, (3) said technologies that *could* help even laypeople but since the use-cases are not communicated well enough to be ever used, end up being irrelevant to even those use-cases (a failure of many of you here, but mostly of the review/educational sites around the world).
But all that doesn't mean that those new technologies couldn't be used in groundbreaking ways, amongst many people, if iterated on and then taught appropriately.
And honestly, being on here for years, that whole 'teaching part' is never going to happen here. B/c everyone else is far too holed up in their own ways to even consider that someone else coming along might, just might, have a point.
So we're literally back to the same level of conversation I noticed when I participated in these forums 3 years ago. The entire reason I left. Great to see nothing's changed!
Well, except that you now accept all the claims that Risedal guy made - rather hurtfully to you pity souls - b/c ultimately he was right. But you just don't want to talk about it.
Did I get that about right? Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Oh, and here's yet another wedding image I was processing from my 5D3 that I decided to throw out b/c by the time I corrected the 3EV vignetting of my 24/1.4 and then added 1.5 stops (b/c I underexposed by 1.5 EV to save the sky/clouds above my subjects), I had this wonder junk overlaid over my image:
I don't know about you, but I just don't deliver that to clients. My D810 wouldn't have even had the smudge related with this noise, b/c it wouldn't have had any(thing but shot) noise to begin with with even a +5 EV push (that's verified; I'm not making it up).
And that's not even talking about some of the other differentiators that differentiate the low end Rebel from Nikon's Rebel competitor: for example, Nikon's Rebel competitor has 39 AF points that can accurate subject track, even detect a face (even when you're using the OVF), and focus on and track it. Will work for your kids playing sports or for your dog running around.
Rebel - can only focus on whatever's the nearest subject it can find within its 9 AF points. Good luck tracking it with those 9 points, especially if something else enters the scene at a similar plane as your kid/pet.
If even that crowd buys Rebels predominantly, then what's the point of this entire conversation? Other than that: brand names persist. Because of word of mouth. From people like you.
Would you be prepared to share with us the whole uncropped image and the raw file ?
Upvote
0
I tend to agree with you..... being a pro means being able to market yourself/services well enough to be able to make a living. Even if you are with god-like photographic skills, if you can't market yourself well enough, you will fail as a business.privatebydesign said:
Upvote
0
docsmith said:
Yep. Just yesterday I read (on Nikon Rumors, no less - and from the great man himself) that these days Canon USA is talking to him a damn' sight more than Nikon USA is talking to him: I imagine that Canon is drip-feeding him info in order to keep him interested.
What a coup for Canon it would be if Hogan drifted into its camp; and reading between the lines, that's looking possible.
Upvote
0
Tugela said:
Both untrue and patronising.
Canon shooters stay with Canon, not through some misguided sense of loyalty (which is an asinine notion that I see very little Real World evidence of) but because Canon cameras do the jobs their owners want them to do, to the degree of quality the owners require.
Glib, snarky comments about product loyalty (which is just another way of saying "fanboyism") are a cheap and easy way to diss, but the reality is that loyalty doesn't come into it. The word you're looking for is "satisfaction": Canon users are, for the most part, satisfied with their cameras.
And that's enough.
And, in turn, why Canon sells the most cameras.
Upvote
0
Which "wonder junk" are you talking about, the noise or something else? I see several different areas, and each could have a different cause.sarangiman said:
It's hard to know that for certain without side-by-side testing, though I wouldn't dismiss the possibility. It would be great to see the before/after, or better still this area of the photo at each stage of your PP so we know where the problem comes in.
Upvote
0
Keith_Reeder said:
I always thought wedding photographers make use of reflectors to avoid such classic lighting problems? That was what my wedding photographer did to get a beautifully exposed shot with the sunburst and blue sky behind us. Oh, he was using the Canon 5D classic.
Oh, here is another example: http://www.mattgranger.com/light. Matt has mostly Nikon gear.
Upvote
0
Woody said:Keith_Reeder said:
I always thought wedding photographers make use of reflectors to avoid such classic lighting problems? That was what my wedding photographer did to get a beautifully exposed shot with the sunburst and blue sky behind us. Oh, he was using the Canon 5D classic.
Oh, here is another example: http://www.mattgranger.com/light. Matt has mostly Nikon gear.
You are absolutely right, except that generally those here suggesting the Exmor tech can do a better job don't want to be bothered with fill, they want to be able to use every ounce of the extensive latitude in the Nikon file.
They will of course will be lifting data that has recorded virtually no light, so the photographer using 'old' tech such as a 5D or D200 and sound technique will produce a much higher quality image.
So what happens if you use sound technique with both Canon and Nikon ? You get pretty much the same image. A well lit and correctly exposed image will always triumph over the same one which has been poorly lit and under exposed.
Upvote
0
