Цитата:от: OlegV
Цитата:от:SergeSmArt
Вы имели ввиду - "с отсутствием ДЕНЕГ на нормальную оптику Канон" ?? 
Нет, не имел. Я имею ввиду, что мне как любителю, не нужны эти большие белые трубы. Мне нужны компактные красиво рисующие фиксы. У кэнона есть конечно 35/1.4 и 135/2, но все параметры, которые я перечислил - мимо кассы.
Подробнее
Я вас понимаю.. но давайте-ка порассуждаем:
"Большие белые трубы" - это результат стратегии Канона на рынке фототехники - он в ПЕРВУЮ ОЧЕРЕДЬ выбил Никона из самого ВЫСОКООПЛАЧИВАЕМОГО сегмента рынка... а Никон увлеченный своим обслуживанием свадебных и портретных фотографов и занятый лишь своей "резкостью" и "вспышками" не заметил опасности.. и ОТСТАЛ.. это все началось еще ДО цифровой эпохи .. и весь дутый авторитет Никоновской фототехники только на этих двух китах и держался - т.к. как раз для свадебных бомбил и портретистов пресловутые резкость и пышки - самое главное для коммерческого успеха.. и у народных масс сложился стереотип - "Все профи снимают Никонами"
....но с наступлением цифровой эры все изменилось - и своевременные капиталовложения в СОБСТВЕННОЕ производство сенсоров дало Канону второй уровень преимущества - ФОРМАТ кадра и УРОВЕНЬ ШУМОВ .. и в результате уже и с портретной фотографии Никон стремительно вытесняется... осталось совсем немного - По причине постоянного увеличения фотогов переползаюших на Канон, что особенно резко усилилось с выходом Пятерки, Канону ПРИДЕТСЯ уделить больше внимания оптике ШИРОКОГО и СРЕДНЕГО диапазона... так что я НЕ сомневаюсь, что новые стекла в этой нише ПОЯВЯТСЯ.. я и лично с представителем Канона об этом говорил.. и знаю их настрой.. :)
Если интересно - есть мнение .. и вовсе НЕ одного, а многих фотогов .. которые перешли на Канон с Никона - что пресловутое "суперкачество оптики Никкор" - МИФ :) ..
Не верите? :)
Вот ветка с ДПртевью...
ВОПРОС:
"Why so many Canon's by pro shooters?"
I was wondering...what is it about the Canon line that makes them so popular with pro photogs? Everytime I see another Angelina Jolie pic I see tons of white lens all pointed at her etc.
Full Frame? Number of pixels? Lens choices? I know any camera can take a great picture but I am interested in whats behind Canon's complete dominance with that group of photographers.
--------------------
и ОТВЕТЫ:
Image quality...
----
..both AP and Reuters converted (from Nikon to Canon )when the 1DmkII came out and they took it to the Olympics.
----
My hometown paper, formerly owned by Knight Ridder, switched to Canon when the 1D mk II hit the stores....
----
Every large photo organisation (ie; press) in Australia either use Canon or plan to switch soon...
---
Why ? The same reasons that I switched in 1998 from Nikon (I was with Nikon/Hasselblad gear for 20+ years)...
Canon gives better results, better performance, better resolution, and they are on TOP of the revolution of having state of the art product releases, years ahead of the competition. Nikon still does not have a full frame imager. Nikon will edventually catch up, but it will still be a number of years... And I don't think many of us are going back to the "Johnny come lately Nikon" with our investments in Canon lenses.
----
Nikon are repeatedly lagging behind Canon in developing new cameras.
Whilst the offerings from Nikon consisted of the four year old 6MP D100 and the 4MP D2H, Canon shooters were shooting with the 11.8MP 1Ds and the 1D Mark2.
Also Canon has a pretty compelling line up of image stabilised, weatherproof telephotos and tilt/shift lenses.
Nikon have closed the gap a bit now but still lag behind Canon in their top end lineup.
That is the reason that so many professionals switched to Canon. By the time it was D2H vs 1D mark2 it was game over for Nikon.
------
The one thing people are forgetting is the lenses that Nikon is lacking that are the bread and butter of sporting events. Nikon has NO 400mm, 500mm or 600mm primes that can compete with Canon. None of Nikon's offerings other than the 300mm f/2.8 have image stabalization. The Nikon 500mm f/4 AFS lens is a whopping $7000 while the Canon 500mm f/4 L WITH Image Stabalization is $5400.......PLUS, ANYWHERE YOU GO, you can't even find the Nikon lenses in stock. They are unavailable like the D200. All of Canon's telephoto primes are CHEAPER than Nikon and they have IS, Nikon does not. If you were a company which covered sporting events, it would be a no brainer to go with Canon. Much better image quality at high iso, much better sporting lenses which happen to be way cheaper. When you have to buy several of these lenses, you are talking about thousands of dollars less than Nikon.
-----
Pros starting switching to Canon en mass a long time ago.
First of all, there was autofocus. Canon started introducing autofocus supertelephotos back in the late '80s. They could do so because Canon had chosen to put their autofocus system inside the lens using a purely electronic interface between the lens and body. Their first AF telephoto was the 300/2.8L with USM, in 1987 Other brands chose to put the autofocus motor inside the camera body, driving the lens from there. That's fine for smaller lenses, but inadequate for bigger, longer lenses. As a result, Nikon would not introduce their first autofocus supertelephoto until 1993, some 5 YEARS after Canon. And it wouldn't be until 1996 that Nikon would introduce supertelephotos with AF-S (their version of USM), 10 YEARS after Canon. So Nikon's lateness in introducing autofocus to their supertelephoto lenses is a major reason why you see so many Canon lenses along the sidelines of major sporting events than Nikon. Years ago, given the choice between shooting a sporting even with autofocus or manual focus telephotos, most pros chose autofocus; most pros chose Canon because only Canon offered it.
And while we're on telephoto lenses, Canon introduced IS years before Nikon. Canon introduced their first IS lens back in 1995. They quickly added IS to their supertelephoto lenses. Nikon would not introduce their first VR lens until 5 years after Nikon. And they would not introduce their first VR lens longer than 200mm until 2003, with the 200-400/4 VR. But they still don't have VR in anything longer than 400mm. Canon, on the other hand, has had IS in lenses up to 600mm since the 1990s. And on top of that, Canon priced their IS supertelephotos hundreds of dollars less than Nikon's supertelephotos without VR. For example, to this day, the Canon 500/4 IS sells for $ 5,499.95, while the Nikon sells for $ 7,199.95! Same lens, no IS, and $1700 more!!! So given this choice, again, most pros chose Canon because only Canon offered it-- and for a lot less money, too.
Then came the issue of camera bodies. Again, talking about sports pros, Nikon had the 2.7mp 5fps Nikon D1H, while Canon had the 4mp 8fps Canon 1D. Given the choice between shooting at 2.7mp at 5fps, versus 4mp at 8fps, most pros chose 4mp and 8fps. Again, Canon came out the winner. In fact, the Canon 1D was such a pivotal body, offering the best option for resolution and speed at the time, that Sports Illustrated heavily went to Canon at the time.
Excerpt:
"The switchover began in earnest in the second half of 2002, and it was Canon's EOS-1D that really made it possible, says Phil Jache. That camera provided the combination of framing rate and image resolution necessary for the magazine's day-in, day-out demands, and the large majority of SI's staff images are made with it."
It wasn't until about 3 years later that Nikon finally introduced their answer to the 1D, with their D2H which finally offered 4mp at 8fps. But by then, Canon was replacing their 1D with the 8mp 8.5fps Canon 1D MKII. Not only was the 1D MKII of higher resolution, but it handled high ISO better too. So again, given the choice between Nikon with their D2H or Canon with their 1D MKII, most pros chose Canon.
You also have to remember that Nikon didn't break the 6mp barrier in their pro DSLRs until March 2005 with their D2X! Their previous highest resolution pro body was the D1X, introduce way back in 2001, with only 5.4mp. Canon had introduced the 11mp Canon 1Ds back in 2002. They had introduced the 8mp Canon 1D MKII in 2004. They had introduced the 8mp Canon 20D in 2004 also. And on top of that, they replaced the 11mp 1Ds with the 16.7mp 1Ds MKII in 2004 also! At the higher resolution levels, waiting until 2005 to get past 5.4mp was a big mistake for Nikon. So if you wanted a pro body with more than 6mp, for years only Canon offered it.
Then there's the FF thing. Canon's been offering FF since 2002. That's a long time. If you want FF, again, only Canon offers it.
Canon also has much faster update cycles than Nikon. Nikon took 4 years to replace the D1X. They took 4 years to replace the D100. They took 3 years to replace the D1H. Canon's pro bodies are generally replaced in less than 3 years. The 1Ds was introduced in September 2002, replaced by the 1Ds MKII in September 2004. The 1D was introduced in December 2001, replaced by the 1D MKII in April 2004. So with much longer update cycles, a lot of Nikon users simply lose patience and move to Canon.....
Хватит? :) .. а то там еще много :) ...
