[mpksuhas]

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

I use the 70-300mm vr 80% of the time.

Thanks for the suggestion. Saw the pics in non Auto image thread and also in your blog .Decided to go for 70-300.

[SPARKled]

Originally Posted by R2D2

Sigh..it's the same here. I've been using Nikon since 1996 (17 years now) and I cant think of getting or learning another system. The F601 that I have belongs to the early-mid 90s with the same slug like AF that put people off Nikon. The situation improved exponentially by the late 90s in the F90, F100 and the star of that decade the F5. It is these 3 cameras' AF performance that actually saved Nikon from the dustbin of AF history.

The thing is, with digital cameras have entered into a very different realm. Previously one kept a film camera, that cost a fraction of todays digital bodies, for several years. Product lifecycles are short and technologies progress at an enormous pace. When you pay big bucks as you would for a digital body expectations are set high and sometimes even unrealistic.

Of course there are owners who are frustrated with Canon as well. I get the feeling that these 2 companies may be competitors but they march in lock step with each other - each introducing similar products with just the right amount of differentiation to make them relatively unique. They are a duopoly.

Thom Hogan is one of the most experienced Nikon professionals (IIRC he started off in the early 1980s...when I was still in school ) and it would do good if Nikon heeded his advice. People criticise him because he gets on Nikon's case. Yes he does get on their case but it's only with good intentions and for the benefit of Nikon. They can disregard his views but that may be detrimental to them in the long run.

A majority of people switch systems coz they find that their needs are not being fulfilled by a particular system and IMHO familiarity with a system is not such a big deal compared to investment in the system that really makes switching such a difficult decision. Canon is not really that different that can make someones switch such a big deal. Ergonomics is a personal decision but I have not heard of someone not making a switch especially in the mid 90s and mid 2000s because they prefered the ergonomics of a Nikon over a much better IQ and ISO performance of a Canon or their IS teles. If that was the case not many would have switched from Nikon to Canon in those years. If good ISO and AF and IS in the teles were important to an advanced amateur and a professional they would have definitely switched. So personally IMHO 'familiarity and easy with a particular system is not a reason that a majority of people stick to a particular system. Its more of an emotional and a personal decision. I mean cmon we all knew Canon was a much better system for a working professional from mid 90s to almost 2007 around when the D3 was released. So the bottomline is if your life depended on a particular system, to hell with familiarity and ergonomics and getting used to, you have to switch to a better system to keep that bread and butter on your table.

Thom Hogan now is too busy reviewing gear, commenting on m4/3 stuff and selling his books that its almost become irrelevant what he thinks or predicts now. Most of his recent predictions have been duds and let's not even talk about Ken Rockwell who also reviews cars and audio equipment now. I personally don't think any one serious about photography follows him too keenly except for occasional amusement.

As of today Nikon has an upper hand on Canon and really someone switching today really has no compelling reason to switch as comapared to the reasons that were present before 2007.

Well if I were making money from photography when I joined the digital bandwagon in 2005 there is no doubt that Canon was simply a better system then and not switching could have caused a lot more harm than good. But then I am just an advanced amateur who loves to shoot birds and animals with a camera so not switching systems was very easy. BTW I just upgraded a from D50 purchased in 2005 to a D800E about 2 weeks back

[R2D2]

Originally Posted by SPARKled

A majority of people switch systems coz they find that their needs are not being fulfilled by a particular system and IMHO familiarity with a system is not such a big deal compared to investment in the system that really makes switching such a difficult decision. Canon is not really that different that can make someones switch such a big deal. Ergonomics is a personal decision but I have not heard of someone not making a switch especially in the mid 90s and mid 2000s because they prefered the ergonomics of a Nikon over a much better IQ and ISO performance of a Canon or their IS teles. If that was the case not many would have switched from Nikon to Canon in those years. If good ISO and AF and IS in the teles were important to an advanced amateur and a professional they would have definitely switched. So personally IMHO 'familiarity and easy with a particular system is not a reason that a majority of people stick to a particular system. Its more of an emotional and a personal decision. I mean cmon we all knew Canon was a much better system for a working professional from mid 90s to almost 2007 around when the D3 was released. So the bottomline is if your life depended on a particular system, to hell with familiarity and ergonomics and getting used to, you have to switch to a better system to keep that bread and butter on your table.

Thom Hogan now is too busy reviewing gear, commenting on m4/3 stuff and selling his books that its almost become irrelevant what he thinks or predicts now. Most of his recent predictions have been duds and let's not even talk about Ken Rockwell who also reviews cars and audio equipment now. I personally don't think any one serious about photography follows him too keenly except for occasional amusement.

As of today Nikon has an upper hand on Canon and really someone switching today really has no compelling reason to switch as comapared to the reasons that were present before 2007.

Well if I were making money from photography when I joined the digital bandwagon in 2005 there is no doubt that Canon was simply a better system then and not switching could have caused a lot more harm than good. But then I am just an advanced amateur who loves to shoot birds and animals with a camera so not switching systems was very easy. BTW I just upgraded a from D50 purchased in 2005 to a D800E about 2 weeks back

Honestly there are 2 main reasons that I don't consider a shift to Canon:

a) Familiarity with the system - gosh it's close to 2 decades now. When you use a system that long it's like an old pair of jeans/old shoes/old car or call it any thing that you are most comfortable with.

b) The investment in high end glass and other accessories (as you point out). This may be last but it IS the most important. Financials take precedence over familiarity.

I was on the verge of purchasing a new BMW but went on to indulge in my photography hobby by getting the best Nikon bodies and lenses. No kidding! The Beemer will have to wait for another day. Can't have it all I guess.

As of today IMHO, Nikon has the edge in camera bodies while Canon has the edge (wide range and marginally superior IQ) with their lenses in the 'II' versions.

I am not dissing Nikon, their lenses are great but Canon has just edged forward by a whisker in the new L series lenses. Unfortunately you can't use Canon glass with a Nikon body as you can do the other way around.

Reviews by KR and TH are to be taken with the right amount of discretion applied - especially the views of the former gent. TH is more sober and predictable while KR is like a kid (he confesses) with a lot of expensive toys. Today TH bashes Nikon and as does KR. KR prefers Canon to Nikon...suddenly. It could change. TH has stuck with Nikon and uses a MLC (the Oly OMD) as a lightweight backups. That said both are accomplished (academically and professionally) individuals in their own right. In the end we all do what is right for us.

[SPARKled]

Originally Posted by R2D2

Honestly there are 2 main reasons that I don't consider a shift to Canon:

a) Familiarity with the system - gosh it's close to 2 decades now. When you use a system that long it's like an old pair of jeans/old shoes/old car or call it any thing that you are most comfortable with.

b) The investment in high end glass and other accessories (as you point out). This may be last but it IS the most important. Financials take precedence over familiarity.
As of today IMHO, Nikon has the edge in camera bodies while Canon has the edge (wide range and marginally superior IQ) with their lenses in the 'II' versions.

I am not dissing Nikon, their lenses are great but Canon has just edged forward by a whisker in the new L series lenses. Unfortunately you can't use Canon glass with a Nikon body as you can do the other way around.

Reviews by KR and TH are to be taken with the right amount of discretion applied - especially the views of the former gent. TH is more sober and predictable while KR is like a kid (he confesses) with a lot of expensive toys. Today TH bashes Nikon and as does KR. KR prefers Canon to Nikon...suddenly. It could change. TH has stuck with Nikon and uses a MLC (the Oly OMD) as a lightweight backups. That said both are accomplished (academically and professionally) individuals in their own right. In the end we all do what is right for us.

I guess the light weight canon teles are better due to fluorite which is not only lighter but also has lower dispersion characteristics but seriously I don't agree that its optically superior to new the nikon 400 and 600 VR offerings. Well nikon too has joined the flourite bandwagon with the 800 now and boy have you seen its mtf graphs. Canon 2X TC was always better but I have also read good things about the new nikon 2x TC.

For shorter and wide stuff, Canon is
still playing catchup with the nikon ED and nano crytsal offerings while the new 24-70 is not significantlly better.
Canon tilt and shift lenses, DO lenses and the 1.2 AF lenses are the only place where I believe Nikon still has no replacements but IMHO optically nothing that has Nikon overly worried about.

I believe you joined the digital bandwagon pretty late and at a time when Nikon already had better bodies, but I bet you would have deserted Nikon if you would have had to buy the non VR 600 and the 400 along with a D2X instead of a mk2 with IS white teles

So the only point I am trying to make here and without pointing fingers here at any one personally is that, not switching due to brand familiarity and brand loyalty and brand preference is all ok on our team-bhp and other popular DSLR forums where amateur photographers like you and me discuss photo gear instead of taking pictures that earn them their living.

But seriously even if Nikon has better bodies and a few better lenses the difference is not so significant to make a switch to nikon either.

[R2D2]

Originally Posted by SPARKled

I guess the light weight canon teles are better due to fluorite which is not only lighter but also has lower dispersion characteristics but seriously I don't agree that its optically superior to new the nikon 400 and 600 VR offerings. Well nikon too has joined the flourite bandwagon with the 800 now and boy have you seen its mtf graphs. Canon 2X TC was always better but I have also read good things about the new nikon 2x TC..

Oh yes that Nikon 800mm will be a killer at least that's what it seems from its MTF charts. And the price is killing too. But charts are one thing and field performance another. Many will be waiting for the initial units to be delivered and reviewed. They start in April.

The problem is that all this time Nikon was convincing us that ED glass was a better option than fluourite as it is less prone to issues like sudden temp changes etc. And here they go with the same material to construct their latest and greatest.

The Nikon TC20E III is really good compared to its predecessor. It was released along with the 300mm F/2.8 in Dec 2009 (IIRC). One of the reasons I purchased it after I got the 300 2.8. The combo makes for a comparatively light weight 600mm 5.6.

I joined the digital bandwagon late (in 2010) because I didn't want to go DX with my film/SLR lenses. It was a simple matter of waiting for the right time - for Nikon to release the D3/D700 and of course for me to be able to afford it. At that point in time I could have shifted to Canon had I wanted to coz my investment in lenses and bodies was comparitively much lower. But I chose to stick with Nikon after careful consideration. My first DSLR was the D700. The D4 and D800 came in last year almost immediately after they were released in India.

Originally Posted by SPARKled

I So the only point I am trying to make here and without pointing fingers here at any one personally is that, not switching due to brand familiarity and brand loyalty and brand preference is all ok on our team-bhp and other popular DSLR forums where amateur photographers like you and me discuss photo gear instead of taking pictures that earn them their living.

But seriously even if Nikon has better bodies and a few better lenses the difference is not so significant to make a switch to nikon either.

Thing is Nikon and Canon are never far ahead of each other nowadays. It was true in the past especially the dark period (for Nikon) from the mid 90s to the mid 2000s. Their improvements are more incremental in nature and the new gear is not a 'must have' but a 'nice to have'.

There will always be photogs who are willing to switch - both pros and amateurs. It may be a critical thing for the pro after all he derives his bread and butter from whatever additional advantage his new photo equipment affords him. But I still believe in the end it has to be a personal choice; in terms of finances (the #1 reason IMO) and the willingness to adapt to a new system. While they may be similar in operation there are subtle differences that can confuse when timing and getting the right shot is critical.

[SPARKled]

Originally Posted by R2D2

The problem is that all this time Nikon was convincing us that ED glass was a better option than fluourite as it is less prone to issues like sudden temp changes etc. And here they go with the same material to construct their latest and greatest.

ED glass is not necessarily worse or better than flourite, but surely has slightly lesser transmission and higher dispersion than Flourite. Some of the best glass makers have made equally good applications with either types and quality of good optical equipment with either is not significantly better or worse than the other.
To give you an example, Zeiss made the brightest binoculars with their flourite based victory bins while Leica used ED or HD glass on their Ultravid line which even though were not as bright as the zeiss flourite bins had better color and contrast. Its very difficult to say which gave better image quality purely on the type of glass used. They just had differnt flavors of the same images and users chose one of the two based on their preferences. None of them had a significant better view than the other.

So similarly Nikons move towards lighter Flourite glass seems to be more towards a lighter lens rather than significant improvement in IQ IMHO.

[R2D2]

Originally Posted by SPARKled

So similarly Nikons move towards lighter Flourite glass seems to be more towards a lighter lens rather than significant improvement in IQ IMHO.

Not just weight but IQ.

It may be a combination of ED and fluorite that is the magic combo. This lens has MTF charts hitherto unseen on any recently made lens (<5-6 years old) from either Nikon or Canon. For e.g. it is better than the Canon 800mm even with the dedicated TC attached (1000mm F7.1). Those MTF charts are astounding. Mind blowing. Never seen before.

We all wait to see if it delivers US $18k worth of performance. I estimate it will retail for 12-14 lakhs (shocking!) here and be classified as a special order lens with Nikon India.

PS - you can buy a Canon 800 5.6 AND a 5D Mk3 for less. Or if you want a 1D X if you tack on about $2K

[StarScream]

Originally Posted by lucifer1881

Nikon is a part of the Mitsubishi group.

Originally Posted by R2D2

I am aware of what Nikon produces and that they belong to the Mitsu group.

I wasn't sure about this ownership thing and so I refrained from commenting until i had some facts in hand. Maybe Nikon at one time was majority owned by Mitsubishi but it sure isn't the case now.

First, if you look at the composition of shareholders here -
http://www.nikon.com/about/ir/stock_...atus/index.htm

Almost 92% of the company is held by foreign/domestic investors, Japanese individuals or via domestic financial instruments. That leaves the 7.3% held by other domestic corporations.

Of the public float there are shareholders bigger than the 7.3% chunk. As of last quarter the biggest holder of Nikon shares was the Capital Group of the U.S. Various Capital Group funds owned 14.3% of Nikon - http://www.capgroup.com/

Japan Trustee Services owned 8.4% and the Master Trust Bank of Japan 7.2%. (Don't bother with the Major Shareholders list on the Nikon website it's not updated as of last qtr.)

A drill down to smaller holdings shows various Mitsubishi companies own a combined 7-odd% of Nikon. This excludes various Mitsubishi UFJ funds and no individual shareholding exceeds 1.8%.

What this shows is that the Mitsubishi Group may own a stake in Nikon but they don't control it and its definitely not a part of Mitsubishi group. The tell-tale sign of control - a board seat - is also absent.

Originally Posted by SPARKled

A majority of people switch systems coz they find that their needs are not being fulfilled by a particular system and IMHO familiarity with a system is not such a big deal compared to investment in the system that really makes switching such a difficult decision. Canon is not really that different that can make someones switch such a big deal. Ergonomics is a personal decision but I have not heard of someone not making a switch especially in the mid 90s and mid 2000s because they prefered the ergonomics of a Nikon over a much better IQ and ISO performance of a Canon or their IS teles. If that was the case not many would have switched from Nikon to Canon in those years. If good ISO and AF and IS in the teles were important to an advanced amateur and a professional they would have definitely switched. So personally IMHO 'familiarity and easy with a particular system is not a reason that a majority of people stick to a particular system. Its more of an emotional and a personal decision. I mean cmon we all knew Canon was a much better system for a working professional from mid 90s to almost 2007 around when the D3 was released. So the bottomline is if your life depended on a particular system, to hell with familiarity and ergonomics and getting used to, you have to switch to a better system to keep that bread and butter on your table.

Thom Hogan now is too busy reviewing gear, commenting on m4/3 stuff and selling his books that its almost become irrelevant what he thinks or predicts now. Most of his recent predictions have been duds and let's not even talk about Ken Rockwell who also reviews cars and audio equipment now. I personally don't think any one serious about photography follows him too keenly except for occasional amusement.

As of today Nikon has an upper hand on Canon and really someone switching today really has no compelling reason to switch as comapared to the reasons that were present before 2007.

Well if I were making money from photography when I joined the digital bandwagon in 2005 there is no doubt that Canon was simply a better system then and not switching could have caused a lot more harm than good. But then I am just an advanced amateur who loves to shoot birds and animals with a camera so not switching systems was very easy. BTW I just upgraded a from D50 purchased in 2005 to a D800E about 2 weeks back

Its not about ergonomics, emotion or familiarity of use. Its about the ins-and-outs of a system, which is not something you learn from a book. What works with what? What are the drawbacks and advantages of my particular lens/body? What is the performance sweet spot of my equipment? It's stuff like that is hard to glean and relearn with a new system.

What you say about Canon being the system of choice for working pros depended on what they were shooting. Sports, news, fashion? No question Canon because of the faster AF. Industrial, travel, landscape - not so much. Now for pros the speed advantage was a big deal as long as they learnt Canon use. Some didn't and actually found switching a hindrance because the new equipment, while faster on paper, slowed them down.

One other critical factor was legacy glass. With Canon there was no issue because there was no EOS legacy. But ask someone who loved what the 8mm AiS Nikkor fisheye could produce for them, whether Canon offered an alternative? It didn't. The money in that case was in getting the shot with unique perspective, not in whatever performance advantage Canon had.

[R2D2]

Originally Posted by StarScream

I wasn't sure about this ownership thing and so I refrained from commenting until i had some facts in hand. Maybe Nikon at one time was majority owned by Mitsubishi but it sure isn't the case now.

Actually it is listed as Mitsubishi group company even today. See here:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...tsubishi-Group

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi


http://www.answers.com/topic/nikon-c...company-public

and most authoritatively:

http://www.mitsubishi.com/e/history/index.html

http://www.mitsubishi.com/php/users/...0000004&lang=1

The last link provides a list of Nikon (sub) group companies including Tochigi Nikon that manufactures pro lenses & Sendai Nikon that manufactures pro cameras in Japan.

It is difficult to ascertain group membership thru shareholding patterns. Those other holding companies, both domestic and international, themselves may be a part of the Mitsu group.

[nilanjanray]

Originally Posted by mpksuhas

Thanks for the suggestion. Saw the pics in non Auto image thread and also in your blog .Decided to go for 70-300.

Good

Practice hard with it because you will need to work around its limitations. And the best opportunities - especially for wildlife - can be there for a few seconds.

Remember that it is the person behind the gear and not just the gear. If you browse the popular photo forums, you will see many people talking big but seldom backing that talk with proportional quality photos. Many people will say that this lens is soft, slow etc. It's all about what you can get out of it, assuming you get a good copy.

[StarScream]

Originally Posted by R2D2

Actually it is listed as Mitsubishi group company even today. See here:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...tsubishi-Group

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi


http://www.answers.com/topic/nikon-c...company-public

and most authoritatively:

http://www.mitsubishi.com/e/history/index.html

http://www.mitsubishi.com/php/users/...0000004&lang=1

The last link provides a list of Nikon (sub) group companies including Tochigi Nikon that manufactures pro lenses & Sendai Nikon that manufactures pro cameras in Japan.

It is difficult to ascertain group membership thru shareholding patterns. Those other holding companies, both domestic and international, themselves may be a part of the Mitsu group.

Like I said, maybe at one time. Not today. I broke down the entire shareholding for everyone's benefit. Some more information. A domestic Jap institution with 5.13% stake - Meiji Yasuda Life Insurance - gets a board seat. Mitsubishi - zip. You'd think that if they were a Mitsu group company, Mitsu would have some presence on the board.

Also the link from the Mitsu website talks of Nikon in 1947 and ends at 1970. Where (from the authoritative list) does it say Nikon is a Mitsu group company as of 2013? Most of the links could be legacy links.

Incidentally, the place where I got all that information from shows no parent company data for Nikon.

[smokie]

Hi Guys,

I need to pick up Canon 40mm STM lens in Bangalore. Can you help me with contacts details of a few shops as I have recently moved to bangalore and have no clue where to go

Thanks

[R2D2]

Originally Posted by StarScream

Like I said, maybe at one time. Not today. I broke down the entire shareholding for everyone's benefit.
Incidentally, the place where I got all that information from shows no parent company data for Nikon.

As I said shareholding patterns make it difficult to deduce whether or not are not a particular company is a part of a particular group. Here is a 'FAQ' on their site which talks about what is a Mitsu group company:

http://www.mitsubishi.com/e/group/about.html

I am sure you will agree Encyclopaedia Britannica and the Mitsubishi group website would not make fundamental errors about a company being a part of the Mitsu group when it is not.

Anyways, go here:

http://www.mitsubishi.com/php/users/...rch.php?lang=1

This is the list as of Feb 2013 i.e current. There are 616 member companies in the group. Click on 'N' - you will see Nikon listed in a group of 45 companies. Click on the 'Nikon' and it will take you to the Co. profile with Nikon Corp's website URL.

Also attached is a screenshot where I have highlighted the names.

[amitk26]

Well excuse me Gentlemen for unwanted intermission but this is place for DSLR discussion , Perhaps we could open another thread for keiretsu and it's meaning in Japanese corporate world.
Keiretsu is translated as conglomerate but in reallity it is not exactly a conglomerate like Tata group in India. Every company or other in Japan is part of one or other Keiretsu it has lot of relevence from corporate strategy point of view but may not be relevent for production/operations/marketing.

[R2D2]

Originally Posted by amitk26

Well excuse me Gentlemen for unwanted intermission but this is place for DSLR discussion , Perhaps we could open another thread for keiretsu and it's meaning in Japanese corporate world.
Keiretsu is translated as conglomerate but in reallity it is not exactly a conglomerate like Tata group in India. Every company or other in Japan is part of one or other Keiretsu it has lot of relevence from corporate strategy point of view but may not be relevent for production/operations/marketing.

This is a one-off discussion about a major DSLR and lens production company's shareholding and parent group..so not really off topic. Nor are we discussing the Japanese Keiretsu. So are we to assume discussing Nikon's financials in brief is off topic too? If your answer is yes to one or both, I can't help but vehemently disagree.

You are absolutely right about the conglomerate called Keiretsu. That's what I was trying to point out..it's difficult to ascertain the parent group simply by looking at the shareholding pattern. This is peculiar to Japan and Far Eastern organisations where they may be bound by goals other than profit or horizontal/vertical integration - some even based on common ideals and beliefs.