Which grass is considered greener (do nikonians complain as much as canonians)?

[unfocused]

A related question: how many non-Nikon shooters go to Nikon forums to complain about Nikon?...

From what I've seen, many of the most vocal complainers on CR don't use Canon gear. Some of them used to shoot Canon. So why are they here?...CR is a great community resource, and like nearly all successful Internet forums, it attracts a few incessant complainers. Look on the bright side – they provide some entertainment on slow rumor days...

I've never figured this out. It happens with almost any product. I'll see an article about a new iphone and most of the posts are from people criticizing it. If I see an article, post, forum, etc. related to a product I don't want, use, or have an interest in, I don't read it, let alone leave negative comments. What's up with these people?

Agree...But, a fair number of the complainers seem to also be Canon users who are disgruntled for any number of reasons.

What's striking to me is why anyone would buy a product (and in another thread one of the most vocal complainers said he spent $25,000 on Canon gear) they don't like. And, if they bought something they didn't like, why would they choose to take their dissatisfaction to a forum, which is about the most ineffective way imaginable to complain. Just return the product, or sell it and chalk up any loss to experience.

I once knew a very wealthy land developer. He said that whatever he bought became more valuable once he bought it. It might not have been totally true, but it was a mindset. "If I own this, it's because it is valuable to me."

That's always seemed to me to be a very good way to approach buying things. If I buy something, it's usually because I want it. And, once I've bought it, I don't beat myself up over alternatives. I wanted it. I bought it. Now I get to enjoy it.

Call me a fan boy, I really don't care. I'd much rather be happy with my purchases than complaining because I think somewhere, somehow, someplace, someone else might own something better. You know what? There will always be someone who owns something better.

Finally, let's for once all be honest about something. There isn't a nickel's worth of difference between Nikon and Canon anyway.

 

[Lawliet]

What's striking to me is why anyone would buy a product (and in another thread one of the most vocal complainers said he spent $25,000 on Canon gear) they don't like. And, if they bought something they didn't like, why would they choose to take their dissatisfaction to a forum, which is about the most ineffective way imaginable to complain. Just return the product, or sell it and chalk up any loss to experience.

That's called vendor lock in.
For a company it has the advantage of making the cost of changing prohibitive...until the wheel turns and you have to fight an uphill battle.

 

[x-vision]

Any thoughts?

Before 2007, Nikon didn't have FF cameras.
Even their top of the line pro model, the D2X, had a DX format sensor (1.5x crop).

So, at that time, Nikon apologists were claiming that the DX format was in fact better than FF.
One of their arguments, for example, was that FF suffers from soft corners and vignetting - and hence DX was better.

But while the apologists were arguing, pros were switching en masse to Canon.
Nikon, of course, took notice and started offering FF cameras.

Today, we have Canon apologists arguing that you don't need more DR (and resolution) than what Canon is already offering.
The situation is definitely not as bad as the DX vs FF scenario of the past but bears many similarities.

And while the Canon apologists are argueing that you don't need more DR and resolution,
my bet is that Canon is hard at work addressing these - as it will cost them dearly if they are not.

Also bear in mind that the DR debate didn't actually start whith the D800.
When the 5DII was introduced, it was very well liked and received.
Very soon, however, users started complaining about shadow noise and banding.

Thus, the so called DR debate didn't have anything to do with Nikon initially.
Instead, it was about the shadow noise and banding of the 5DII.
The D800 only added insult to injury with its high-resolution/high-DR sensor - at a time when Canon decided to reuse the same sensor, basically, in the 5DIII.

So, go ahead and brush this off as a case of 'the grass is greener on the other side' - if that suits you better.
But it's a safe bet that DR/resolution will be addressed by Canon.

 

[unfocused]

What's striking to me is why anyone would buy a product (and in another thread one of the most vocal complainers said he spent $25,000 on Canon gear) they don't like. And, if they bought something they didn't like, why would they choose to take their dissatisfaction to a forum, which is about the most ineffective way imaginable to complain. Just return the product, or sell it and chalk up any loss to experience.

That's called vendor lock in.
For a company it has the advantage of making the cost of changing prohibitive...until the wheel turns and you have to fight an uphill battle.

Nobody put a gun to anybody's head and forced them to buy a particular brand. How about people take responsibility for their own decisions for a change?

 

[Loswr]

...while the apologists were arguing, pros were switching en masse to Canon.
Nikon, of course, took notice and started offering FF cameras.

Today, we have Canon apologists arguing that you don't need more DR (and resolution) than what Canon is already offering.
The situation is definitely not as bad as the DX vs FF scenario of the past but bears many similarities.

The difference – which completely obviates any similarities – is that neither pros nor consumers are switching en masse to Nikon.

 

[Lawliet]

How about people take responsibility for their own decisions for a change?

In the context of system decisions that would be a a valid suggestion if, and only if, there are binding roadmaps - otherwise making informed decisions is impossible.
Have you seen one?

 

[Orangutan]

What's striking to me is why anyone would buy a product (and in another thread one of the most vocal complainers said he spent $25,000 on Canon gear) they don't like. And, if they bought something they didn't like, why would they choose to take their dissatisfaction to a forum, which is about the most ineffective way imaginable to complain. Just return the product, or sell it and chalk up any loss to experience.

That's called vendor lock in.
For a company it has the advantage of making the cost of changing prohibitive...until the wheel turns and you have to fight an uphill battle.

Nobody put a gun to anybody's head and forced them to buy a particular brand. How about people take responsibility for their own decisions for a change?

Have you spent much time around enterprise information systems? Vendor lock-in is a real problem, and isn't just a matter of taking responsibility. When you put out an RFP (request for proposal) for a large system you may get a number of responses. Rarely does any of them meet all your needs, but you try to discern which is growing in the direction you want. Because of the huge time and money investment to adopt, these systems are expected to last 10 years or more, so the current set of features is not as important as the direction of growth. Do we have a choice? Yes, but in some ways it's like the choice of how many times to shake the dice before you throw them on the craps table. Canon did grow in many of the ways I (and many others wanted): they improved auto-focus, expanded lens and accessory lines, etc. There are some areas in which they have not grown as some had hoped. However, it has not been bait-and-switch: Canon never promised specific sensor characteristics.

 

[jdramirez]

I always increase the green saturation when I'm using lightroom... so I don't find it to be a problem .

 

[x-vision]

The difference – which completely obviates any similarities – is that neither pros nor consumers are switching en masse to Nikon.

At the consumer level, DR is hardly a factor when choosing one brand over the other.
It does matter at the high end, though.
Also, high DR is not the entire story, mind you.

You keep claiming that Canon's market share is unaffected by the DR advantage of Sony/Nikon.
And so far this appears to be the case indeed.

The real test for Canon, though, will be the 5DIII successor.

More than high DR, Canon users actually expect to see better sensor technology from Canon.
The 5DIV (or whatever it is called) needs demonstrate real, tangible sensor improvements.
Otherwise, Canon's market share will start eroding - at least at the high end.

It's shortsighted to argue that the better DR of competing brands has not caused Canon to lose market,
implying that users don't care much.
As I said, this is not just about DR; it's about better sensor technology in general.

Many will wait it off for one generation.
But nobody is going to wait for 10 years for Canon to come up with better sensors.
If the 5DIV doesn't have a high-resolution/high-DR sensor, you can be sure that many will buy Sony/Nikon and be done with it.

 

[Dantana]

I always increase the green saturation when I'm using lightroom... so I don't find it to be a problem .

Thanks for that. I was beginning to get mad at myself for reading this thread.

 

[David Hull]

Any thoughts?

Before 2007, Nikon didn't have FF cameras.
Even their top of the line pro model, the D2X, had a DX format sensor (1.5x crop).

So, at that time, Nikon apologists were claiming that the DX format was in fact better than FF.
One of their arguments, for example, was that FF suffers from soft corners and vignetting - and hence DX was better.

But while the apologists were arguing, pros were switching en masse to Canon.
Nikon, of course, took notice and started offering FF cameras.

Today, we have Canon apologists arguing that you don't need more DR (and resolution) than what Canon is already offering.
The situation is definitely not as bad as the DX vs FF scenario of the past but bears many similarities.

And while the Canon apologists are arguing that you don't need more DR and resolution,
my bet is that Canon is hard at work addressing these - as it will cost them dearly if they are not.


Also bear in mind that the DR debate didn't actually start whith the D800.
When the 5DII was introduced, it was very well liked and received.
Very soon, however, users started complaining about shadow noise and banding.

Thus, the so called DR debate didn't have anything to do with Nikon initially.
Instead, it was about the shadow noise and banding of the 5DII.
The D800 only added insult to injury with its high-resolution/high-DR sensor - at a time when Canon decided to reuse the same sensor, basically, in the 5DIII.

So, go ahead and brush this off as a case of 'the grass is greener on the other side' - if that suits you better.
But it's a safe bet that DR/resolution will be addressed by Canon.

That is pretty much where I sit on the issue as well. Canon has always been known as a camera and optics company (despite the fact that originally their optics were made for them by Nikon). It is this brand recognition that sells their other products (copiers etc.). If one believes that Canon remains serious about the camera end of the business then you almost have to believe that they won't want to be behind the "8 ball" on performance for too long. They are selling 12 bit cameras against Sony's 14 bit cameras -- to steal the words from an old Procol Harum song, "the news is leaking out". I can't say when (cause I don't know) but, as you say, they will address this, of that, I am quite sure.

 

[wsmith96]

To the OP,
I have no idea if Nikon shooters complain as much. I'm sure there are some out there that do. The trick is to determine quickly if a post is poisoned, then don't even engage it. Same as the DR debates, FF vs. APS-C debates, dogs vs. cats vs. squirrels. Blah blah blah. Afterwards you end up wondering why you wasted so much time reading the garbage rather than pursuing your passion.

Cheers

 

[eml58]

Finally, let's for once all be honest about something. There isn't a nickel's worth of difference between Nikon and Canon anyway.

Completely agree, perhaps a large part of the issue re comments on the worth/worthlessness of Nikon/Canon/Sony/Phase One etc etc on these forums, and this one in particular, is envy, boredom, vicious mindset, the list is long.

Enjoy what you have while you can, stop looking over the fence.

 

[Skulker]

Nobody put a gun to anybody's head and forced them to buy a particular brand. How about people take responsibility for their own decisions for a change?

These days it seems everyone needs someone else to blame if they are not happy. Or so it seems to this grumpy old man. And that's not restricted to photographers let alone Canon or Nikon users.

 

[helpful]

As it currently stands, in my humble opinion, the Canon world is far better than Nikon.

Although I own a lot of Nikon gear, like the D810 with the new Sigma 50mm ART, 400mm II, etc., Nikon is to me a niche market within my photography needs. Nikon has terrible customer service, a very incomplete and outdated lens lineup, etc. Canon's products are much more reliable, and although I hate to use a word which has no clear definition, Canon's products are also much more "professional."

Here are just a few of my personal experiences with Nikon:

* Nikon returned a wobbly lens purchased from B&H without being repaired because it was gray market (which is in some sense understandable, but wait for the rest of the sentence) after unscrewing and severely damaging the internal surfaces of several lens elements, then shipping the lens back to me loosely packed resulting in the lens elements shaking around freely inside the lens. In my mind, they had a customer service obligation to accept my offer to pay any price to do the repair, and they had a MORAL obligation to at least screw the lens together before shipping it back.

* Nikon broke the aperture mechanism on a $6000 lens I just sent back this summer, in the process of performing a $600 repair (replacing the AF-S motor on a supertelephoto).

* Nikon has twice sent me defective refurbished lenses (essentially worn-out junk), whereas the many refurbished lenses I have purchased from Canon have all been equivalent to new stock. Some well-regarded photographers actually consider Canon's refurbished lenses to be better than their new stock, because they are only like-new stock with an extra step of doubly careful calibration and replacement of any parts that would be the most likely to break.

* Nikon's autofocus has not caught up to the 1D X yet.

Long term, I am banking on Canon. I believe that Canon's sensor technology is going to surpass Nikon's and Sony's within a few years, in the same way that Intel's years of careful research finally paid off and began to beat the AMD processors that used to be wreaking havoc with Intel's marketshare back in 2003.

Even if the Nikon vs. Canon sensor war remains as it is, with Nikon "better" in some (but definitely not all) aspects, the Canon "grass" is still much greener with Canon's superior selection of lenses and bodies.

And even if their far better customer service was the ONLY thing going for Canon, they would still be the winner to me. Customer service is the most important thing to a customer, and that is what we are as photographers.

 

[Quackator]

Who cares about grass? I'm carnivore.

 

[jdramirez]

Who cares about grass? I'm carnivore.

Pot heads...

 

[300D]

Historically I believe; J peg files from Canon cameras have a slightly warm (red) presentation. Whereas Nikon cameras present a slightly cool, (green) cast. On that basis I suggest that it is the Nikon glass grass that is greener.

This does not stop me being very happy with the performance of my 7D and Canon lenses, despite my camera supposedly having a sensor noisier than a Vulcan bomber.

I am a hobbyist and made my decision at a point in time. I chose a Canon 300D to replace my broken Olympus OM2. Several lenses and a 7D followed locking me in to Canon. I have bought into a system that provides me with a great deal of enjoyment and more options than I currently use, it also provides me with a variety of excellent upgrade paths when my wallet and skills justify the outlay.

In the mean time I am happy honing my skills with my current gear and if I need to change the colour of the grass I’ll do that in Lightroom too. If my sense of humour seems a little odd forgive me I’m English, and it’s my friend who has the problem.

 

[V8Beast]

As a Canon users, I feel no need to go on Nikon forums and bash Nikon. If I ever switch to Nikon, I'll feel no need to go on Canon forums and bash Canon. Seriously, what's the point?

To some users on here, DR is the most important aspect of their photographic needs. If that's the case, just switch to Nikon and call it a day. IMHO, choosing to live in a perpetual state of DR discontent with excuses like "it's too much of a hassle to switch systems" or "I'd lose too much money by switching systems" ultimately means that DR is not that important to you.

My advise: Switch systems, be happy, and STFU ;D

 

[Loswr]

Who cares about grass? I'm carnivore.

Pot heads...

Isn't jrista from Colorado?

Sorry, no offense meant, just couldn't resist. 8)