Art Wolfe switches to Canon ?
W Scott Elliot
the brand name on the equipment does not make much difference.
I would imagine that Mr. Wolfe did the same thing the rest of us do. Check
out the quality and price of equipment available, then make a decision based
on what feels most comfortable when we play with it a bit.
Scott
Redmond Young wrote in message <7nloa2$ecn$1...@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM>...
>
>A year or two ago, nature photographer Art Wolfe had all his
>Nikon gear ($75K I think the paper said) stolen from his car
>in San Francisco. He said he didn't care about the gear because
>he had insurance, but wanted his exposed film back asap.
>
>Now someone said he's totally switched to Canon ? Is that true ?
>(maybe some Canon salesmen pulled the job ;^> ). Did he find
>something in Canon gear that made him switch Nikon, equipment he
>used for all of his professional career ?
>
>---
>
>Regards,
>Red
>
Redmond Young
DWA652
God Bless,
Don Allen
http://www.DonAllen.net
http://members.xoom.com/donallenfoto
Photos + a large set of photo links including my PHOTO BOOK LIST - NOW WITH
BOOK REVIEWS!!!!
Pál Jensen
re...@Eng.Sun.COM wrote:
> Now someone said he's totally switched to Canon ? Is that true ?
> (maybe some Canon salesmen pulled the job ;^> ). Did he find
> something in Canon gear that made him switch Nikon, equipment he
> used for all of his professional career ?
He is paid for using it. Both Mamiya and Canon pays him. Personally I
cannot fathom why anyone care about who is using what but its still
a big thing in the US judging from the advertisements in the
magazines. It's way past the ridiculous. Anyone using a particular lens
cleaning tissue because Galen Rowell is using it is mentally ill.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
PBurian
paid to do it.
(Granted, they do use the equipment they endorse, for the most part. There is
one exception, but I don't want to get into it. That guy also switched from
lens brand X to brand Y overnight - better endorsement deal.)
So far, the only offer I have had is to endorse lens cleaning tissues. No pay,
but a lifetime supply.
Peter Burian
(A small name)
PBurian
>Now someone said he's totally switched to Canon ? Is that true ?
>(maybe some Canon salesmen pulled the job ;^> ). Did he find
>something in Canon gear that made him switch Nikon, equipment he
>used for all of his professional career ?>>>
Yes, plus medium format. He never did get his film back.
He had owned Canon in the past (F1n).
I have heard stories as to why he switched back and note that he is now doing
(paid) ads for Canon.
Money talks.
Peter Burian
PBurian
>cleaning tissue because Galen Rowell is using it is mentally ill.>>>
I think you are under estimating the value of a well-known pro (in any field
from tennis to auto racing) endorsing a product.
And I don't think people who buy the same brand are mentally ill. It's just
human nature.
Peter Burian
Shaun Beech
photographs of today were made over
a period of 40 + years then lenses count for some ... and then the old adage
still holds true
a good craftsman never blames his tools he just compensates for the lack of
the best and makes sure that he performs at his best
ie: a good lense helps but a crap photographer will allways say I got a poor
lense to compensate for picture quality
where a good photographer will say bad workmanship, I (you) will have to do
better next time.
PBurian <pbu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990728085651...@ng-ba1.aol.com...
Liz Leyden
wrote:
<big snip>
> Anyone using a particular lens
> cleaning tissue because Galen Rowell is using it is mentally ill.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Who he????
Liz
--
__ __ __ __ __ ___ _____________________________________________
|__||__)/ __/ \|\ ||_ | /
| || \\__/\__/| \||__ | /...Internet access for all Acorn RISC machines
___________________________/ lizl...@argonet.co.uk
Bob Flood
> He is paid for using it. Both Mamiya and Canon pays him. Personally I
> cannot fathom why anyone care about who is using what but its still
> a big thing in the US judging from the advertisements in the
> magazines. It's way past the ridiculous. Anyone using a particular lens
> cleaning tissue because Galen Rowell is using it is mentally ill.
Actually, I think it's a little more complicated than that. A successful
artist like Art Wolfe has something very precious to lose by choosing
inferior equipment that will compromise his ability to produce the images
he wants. Thus, a person in his position may be willing to take money to
switch to a certain system, but only if he is confident that the equipment
can do what he wants. I can't imagine someone like Art Wolfe throwing away
his acreer and reputation in exchange for an endorsement deal. All of which
means that the Canon system he changed to allows him to make the
photographs he wants to make, just as the Nikon equipment did. And Canon
gets to advertise that Art Wolfe uses their cameras and produces images
like this (insert extraordinary photgraph here), and they are right. The
equipment won't cause him to make incredible photgraphs, but it ain't
holding him back, either.
As for the lens tissue, I don't have the time or facilities to try, test,
and evaluate the various lens tissues available on the market, and they
probably aren't all equal. So how do I choose? Should I believe Galen
Rowell would use poor tissue that causes problems with his equipment just
to get an endorsement deal? It doesn't seem likelythat he would. So using
the same brand is one way of making a selection that isn't a wild-ass
guess.
A celebrity endorsement of a product where the only thing the endorser
brings is a famous name (like an actor endosring some brand of shampoo) is
(IMHO) a meaningless endorsement. But when a professional endorses and uses
successfully a particular product, that's different.
Norm
lens cleaner, tripods) just because he endorses them doesn't mean he always
uses them. I remember once seeing him using sparkling new Bogen tripods
during a TV program (sponsored in part by Bogen) whereas when I watched him
on an actual shoot in AZ, he used a beat up Gitzo.
Nicholas O. Lindan
>
> A year or two ago, nature photographer Art Wolfe had all his
> Nikon gear ($75K I think the paper said) stolen from his car
>
> Now someone said he's totally switched to Canon ...
Oh dear, can't resist:
Guess he figured thieves don't think Canon is worth stealing?
PBurian
>successfully a particular product, that's different.>>>
Yes, this is a good point. This is not some tennis player recommending a
certain camera, but a pro photographer who makes an excellent living making
superb images.
Peter Burian
PBurian
>during a TV program (sponsored in part by Bogen) whereas when I watched him
>on an actual shoot in AZ, he used a beat up Gitzo.>>>
Both the Bogen (now called Manfrotto) and the Gitzo tripods are distributed in
the US by Bogen Photo Corp.
Peter Burian
Keith Clark
PBurian wrote:
>
>
> Yes, plus medium format.
Switching to medium format will do more for image quality (orders of magnitude
more) than going from Nikon to Canon.
Keith
Keith Clark
"Pál Jensen" wrote:
> Personally I
> cannot fathom why anyone care about who is using what but its still
> a big thing in the US judging from the advertisements in the
> magazines. It's way past the ridiculous. Anyone using a particular lens
> cleaning tissue because Galen Rowell is using it is mentally ill.
>
>
Thanks for that refreshing thought! :>
This whole thread reminds me of some comment a while back that "famous
photographer 'X' uses 'Y' brand film and uses 'Z' method of printing,
therefore that is the best way to go".
How totally silly.
We need to all get away from the "hero worship", "follow the crowd"
mentality and concentrate on our own inner visions and how to express them.
Yeah, equipment is part of that... The best lenses, bar none, are Zeiss.
As for camera bodies, all you need a a light tight box capable of
controlling shutter speed and aperture accurately and reputably. Anything
else is just bells & whistles.
I'd love to have a Horseman view camera with it's geared movements. But a
Toyo takes photos that are every bit as good.
Bottom line is don't be "sheep". Refuse to use what the advertisers tell
you should be using unless you check all the angles and facts on your own
first. Just because some famous dude who is good at what he does uses brand
X, doesn't mean that someone else, who may or may not have god techniques
mastered, will automatically get better results.
I've seen large prints taken with a Hasselblad (Zeiss lenses) that were
crap.
It ain't just the equipment that makes a pro a pro.
And that's my two cents worth (laughing ;>)
Keith
http://www.clarkphoto.com/
Norm
Dan Smith, Photographer
Redmond Young <re...@Eng.Sun.COM> wrote in message
news:7nloa2$ecn$1...@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM...
>
> A year or two ago, nature photographer Art Wolfe had all his
> Nikon gear ($75K I think the paper said) stolen from his car
> in San Francisco. He said he didn't care about the gear because
> he had insurance, but wanted his exposed film back asap.
>
> Now someone said he's totally switched to Canon ? Is that true ?
> (maybe some Canon salesmen pulled the job ;^> ). Did he find
> something in Canon gear that made him switch Nikon, equipment he
> used for all of his professional career ?
>
> ---
>
> Regards,
> Red
>
Adorama Professional Support Division
John Nash
Adorama Camera
B. Buckles
and she told me the leaf from a Mullen Plant was good for that as well
as some other body functions. And it grows wild along the roads :-)
Bob
Adorama Professional Support Division
> Probably Canon offered him more money to endorse their equipment!
>
Not a good rumor to start!
John Nash
Adorama Camera
Adorama Professional Support Division
>
> He is paid for using it. Both Mamiya and Canon pays him.
Would be interested in how you can prove this statement.
John Nash
Norm
least it isn't long enough. The time I saw him using Gitzos was about 15
years ago. As I recall Gitzo and Bogen got together in the last 7 or so
years. Can you come up with the
Norm
A quick look at Gitzo's home page revealed the following about the history
of Gitzo:
"The company remained a family business run by Mrs Yvonne Pflieger, the
daughter of the founder up until 1992 when the company was purchased by the
Vitec Group PLC in the UK who also own Manfrotto, the other leading
manufacturer of camera and lighting support systems. "
Thus it seems like 7 years was a pretty good guess. Now, about the length
of your memory..... Nah, 'nuff said.
Jaan Peets
> Probably Canon offered him more money to endorse their equipment!
>
Let's ignore the possibility that he just likes the Canon stuff.
Or the arguable point that for AF, Canon dominates in terms of
technology. (I heard that new Nikon lenses use technology licensed form
Canon - anyone confirm that?).
Too may people get hung up on a brand name. Zeiss does NOT produce the
best lenses bar none. No one does. Some lenses are superior to others
*in specific applications* - no manufacturer has a lock on that, though.
Zeiss *may* dominate purely in optical terms, but Canon and Nikon blow
away Zeiss in terms of their systems for photographers like Mr. Wolfe.
While I am somewhat guilty, let's try to avoid meaningless, sweeping
generalizations!
Jaan
Tak Auyeung
cannot afford. As a result, their reasons of picking a brand is
probably entirely unrelated to our reasons. For example, I really
don't care about the sharpness of the Canon EF400/28L, but I do care
about the performance of my econo EF200/2.8L.
Yes, I use the EOS system. But that has nothing to do with what
the well-known pros use.
I admit it is *interesting* to know how pros select and utilize
their equipment, but it is more *useful* to learn their techniques
and apply them in our own pictures.
--Tak
PBurian wrote:
>
> >
> >Now someone said he's totally switched to Canon ? Is that true ?
> >(maybe some Canon salesmen pulled the job ;^> ). Did he find
> >something in Canon gear that made him switch Nikon, equipment he
> >used for all of his professional career ?>>>
>
> Yes, plus medium format. He never did get his film back.
>
> He had owned Canon in the past (F1n).
>
> I have heard stories as to why he switched back and note that he is now doing
> (paid) ads for Canon.
>
> Money talks.
>
> Peter Burian
--
Tak Auyeung
tauy...@ieee.org
tauy...@mobots.com
auy...@ece.ucdavis.edu
Guy Washburn/Laura Reiner
a light tight box capable of controlling shutter speed and aperture accurately
changes you need to make to react to conditions or get the effect you want you
are not going to get the picture. While you are fiddling with the shutter speed
dial on your Nikon the bird is gone.
The superior controls of the EOS (and T-90) are why Canon is a far better
choice of body for fast moving nature work.
Guy
Redmond Young
I checked an ad in a photo magazine and there's Art Wolfe with a
shot of Snow Monkeys soaking in a hot spring. The main monkey has
a weird look on his face, and Wolfe says he couldn't have captured that
split-second moment without the "45 focus points on his new EOS-3".
Ergo, one reason he switched ....
I just thought it was weird to switch from a system that you're so
familiar with to a completely different one and have to relearn all
new controls and ergonomics.
When I finally decided to get an AF system, I had no loyalty to
Canon even though I used the FD system for many years (obviously
because the FD to EOS compatibility was near nil). I looked at
Minolta and Nikon and Pentax. But, the Canon EOS was more familiar
immediately. So I ended up buying the 10s (1994).
---
Red
PBurian
for the photos that are published. This is not a rumor.
Also, some pros get a lot of free gear in return for providing the Company with
feedback on all the new products. e.g. Arthur Morris often mentions this.
Peter Burian
PBurian
>Art indeed has switched to Canon for 35 mm gear.
>
>John Nash
>Adorama Camera
But why, John?
Peter Burian
PBurian
>The instance I referred to was BEFORE the merger of the two lines.
>
How long ago, Norm. Ever since I can remember, Bogen distributed both Gitzo and
Bogen pods.
Peter Burian
Pál Jensen
Guy Washburn/Laura Reiner <r...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> For bird or animal nature photography I kind of disagree about "all
you need a
> a light tight box capable of controlling shutter speed and aperture
accurately
> and reputably". If you can't quickly and intuitively get the body to
make the
> changes you need to make to react to conditions or get the effect you
want you
> are not going to get the picture. While you are fiddling with the
shutter speed
> dial on your Nikon the bird is gone.
> The superior controls of the EOS (and T-90) are why Canon is a far
better
> choice of body for fast moving nature work.
I'm using cameras with both new type and old type of user intgerface and
I've yet to miss any picture of birds due to camera limitations.
Its all about different techniques and being prepared. I have no wish to
change basic setting while shooting regardless what camera I'm using.
The camera in the correct mode before the shooting session starts. For
these type of subject I use the camera in aperture priority auto and I
work equally fast regardless of type of camera.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Pál Jensen
Bob Flood <bfl...@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
> Actually, I think it's a little more complicated than that. A
successful
> artist like Art Wolfe has something very precious to lose by choosing
> inferior equipment that will compromise his ability to produce the
images
> he wants.
I don't think you can find inferior equipment on the market today. At
least not among the well known brands. You cannot surely mean that Nikon
is inferior. And waht about all those excellent professionals, sponsored
or not, who uses Minolta, Pentax, Leica or Contax. Are they getting good
images in spite of their inferior equipment?
>I can't imagine someone like Art Wolfe throwing
away
> his acreer and reputation in exchange for an endorsement deal.
Do yo mean staying with Nikon would ruin his career?
> All of
which
> means that the Canon system he changed to allows him to make the
> photographs he wants to make, just as the Nikon equipment did.
Yeah, and if Minolta had given him an even better deal he would still be
able to take the images he wanted. Its the photographer who takes the
images after all. Not the cameras.
Pál Jensen
"W Scott Elliot" <sel...@direct.ca> wrote:
> I would imagine that Mr. Wolfe did the same thing the rest of us do.
Check
> out the quality and price of equipment available, then make a decision
based
> on what feels most comfortable when we play with it a bit.
He probably did the same thing as most of us would have done in his
shoes. If somebody stole all my equipment I would think long and hard
what to buy for replacement. If I was Art Wolfe I would have been
perfecttly aware about the market value of my name and would have
contacted the camera manufacturers and see where I could negotiate the
best deal. After all we're talking about tens of thosands of $ value +
income from advertising.
Its naive to believe that its a coincidence that Wolfe uses the two
brands of cameras that are most agreessive brands in this type of
marketing (that is letting well known photographers promoting the
equipment). Mr. Wolfe seems to me to have a very good business sense.
Sponsoring of photographers is common. All brands to it to a larger or
lesser extent. Some use it more agresively in marketing than others.
Alan
went to Canon. The rest is history.
Alan
Redmond Young wrote:
>
> A year or two ago, nature photographer Art Wolfe had all his
> Nikon gear ($75K I think the paper said) stolen from his car
> in San Francisco. He said he didn't care about the gear because
> he had insurance, but wanted his exposed film back asap.
>
> Now someone said he's totally switched to Canon ? Is that true ?
> (maybe some Canon salesmen pulled the job ;^> ). Did he find
> something in Canon gear that made him switch Nikon, equipment he
> used for all of his professional career ?
>
> ---
>
> Regards,
> Red
Jana Mullerova
Well Peter, Perhaps "as long as you can remember" isn't very long or at
least it isn't long enough. The time I saw him using Gitzos was about 15
years ago.
(My $0.02 from overseas - sorry if I messed it up even more.)
Jana
-- Jana MULLEROVA Eurocontrol, CFMU, room 22244 jana.mu...@eurocontrol.be 96 Raketstraat/Rue de la Fusee Tel: +32 (0)2 729 91 92 B-1130 Bruxelles Fax: +32 (0)2 729 90 22 Belgium
Yeti Man
no way an implication of wrongdoing. (also, I wish different brands were
at issue, so it didnt look like I was gloating. I tend to stay out of
brand vs brand wars).
What if Mr Wolfe had been sitting around in the great outdoors slapping
skeeters for a while, thinking "I would really like a hot tub in that
new addition I'm building, but those contracters are scalping me so bad
now I'll need a second mortgage or else hit the road an extra 2 months a
year" or "sheesh, I could sure use a tilt/shift lens" or "OUCH ! that
600 f4 sure gets hot !" or "Man, it those guys at canon keep waving cash
at me I'm gonna cave, but switching would cause endless wars on the
newsgroups".
Imagine that an insurance scam worth $75K were to take place. Then
Canon delivers a floatilla of new equipment and some money for expenses.
Next thing you know, this guys grinning mug and some pictures are all
over the magazine pages saying "Switching to Canon made it all possible
!"
Hmmmmm......
Quantum Mechanics.... The dreams stuff is made of.
PBurian
>Thus it seems like 7 years was a pretty good guess. Now, about the length
>of your memory..... Nah, 'nuff said.
>
>
OK, Norm, you've got me there.
Peter Burian
Bob Flood
>In article <379F22D7...@slac.stanford.edu>,
> Bob Flood <bfl...@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>You cannot surely mean that Nikon
>is inferior.
(Answering this from my home account)
Of course I don't. You missed the point entirely. Any number of camera
systems may provide performance adequate to meet Art Wolfe's expectations,
and among those, Canon is apparently willing to pay the most for his
endorsement. This doesn't tell us which other camera systems meet his
expectations or which don't, but it does tell us the Canon system does.
>And waht about all those excellent professionals, sponsored
>or not, who uses Minolta, Pentax, Leica or Contax. Are they getting good
>images in spite of their inferior equipment?
I didn't bother to evaluate every brand out there because they weren't part
of the original subject, which was about what Art Wolfe is using, and I
don't think anyone cares to get into such a debate anyway. I know I don't.
The point is: because it is inconceivable that Art Wolfe would agree to use
equipment that would interfere with his abilities to produce saleable
images, it is easy to see that, regardless of how much they may be paying
him, the Canon system must be satisfactory in his judgement. We can also
conclude that the Nikon system was, too, because he used it and was so
successful with it. That's all we can conclude about what he may think about
the equipment. He has done nothing else I'm aware of that expresses or
implies anything about other brands like Pentax, Leica, etc.
And that's all I was talking about.
Terence Danks
Division <HE...@MMPHOTO.COM> wrote:
>Art indeed has switched to Canon for 35 mm gear.
>
Heck, I am switching too.
So how come no one is excited 'bout that? (LOL)
Question for me is why any nature wildlife photographer would choose
Nikon today if they were NOT being paid to do so.
I'd say, if wildlife is your interest, the choice is pretty obvious .
. . triply so with the introduction of the new IS lenses.
Canon may, or may not pay Wolfe and Morris to use their gear.
Pretty clear to me that Nikon will HAVE to pay nature photogs to use
their stuff soon considering:
MLU and or prefire on F5 only,
No 300mm f/4 that allows AF with an OEM converter,
No 400 f/5.6 AF at all
and, the really big, number one reason . . . .
No IS technology.
IMHO, Canon has left Nikon so far in the dust for nature and wildlife
work they will likely never recover.
If Nikon is financially unable to answer Canon's challenge, that is
unfortunate. In the long run, we will all suffer for the diminished
competition.
If, OTOH, Nikon has just been so totally misguided and mismanaged as
to neglect these issues, they deserve to be relegated to the dustbin.
I don't pretend to know which is the case, I just know Nikon has
ceased to serve my needs as well as the competition's offerings . . .
and I am switching, at least to the extent my finances permit.
Signed: former Nikon shooter who got fed up with the company's lack of
innovation . . .
DWA652
>So how come no one is excited 'bout that? (LOL)
>Question for me is why any nature wildlife photographer would choose
>Nikon today if they were NOT being paid to do so.
>I'd say, if wildlife is your interest, the choice is pretty obvious .
>. . triply so with the introduction of the new IS lenses.
>Canon may, or may not pay Wolfe and Morris to use their gear.
>Pretty clear to me that Nikon will HAVE to pay nature photogs to use
>their stuff soon considering:
>
>MLU and or prefire on F5 only,
>No 300mm f/4 that allows AF with an OEM converter,
>No 400 f/5.6 AF at all
>and, the really big, number one reason . . . .
the 400 f5.6. If it is free, I would rather have a 400 f2.8 Nikkor.
God Bless,
Don Allen
http://www.DonAllen.net
http://members.xoom.com/donallenfoto
Photos + a large set of photo links including my PHOTO BOOK LIST - NOW WITH
BOOK REVIEWS!!!!
Pál Jensen
dan...@ns.sympatico.ca (Terence Danks) wrote:
> Heck, I am switching too.
> So how come no one is excited 'bout that? (LOL)
> Question for me is why any nature wildlife photographer would choose
> Nikon today if they were NOT being paid to do so.
The fact is that the majority of wildlife/nature photographers do not
use canon. I guess they just misses the boat. Nikon has more than twice
market share of anyone else in this field. Strange indeed.
> I'd say, if wildlife is your interest, the choice is pretty obvious.
Nikon? At least thats what most people choose although I'm not
subscribing to the thory that what the majority uses is the necessarily
the best.
> I don't pretend to know which is the case, I just know Nikon has
> ceased to serve my needs as well as the competition's offerings . . .
> and I am switching, at least to the extent my finances permit.
Thats fair enough. Whats best for you is what matters.
S. Boyd
AN INFORMED PERSON MAKES,,,,THE IMPORTANT THING IS TO MAKE THE
DECISION,,,,AND ACT!
Terence Danks
wrote:
>
> Nikon has more than twice
>market share of anyone else in this field. Strange indeed.
>
Where does this figure come from Pal? I'd sure like to know.
While you may well be correct, without a source for the data I find it
less than credible.
Brad Mitchell
If I remember right from a workshop I took with Art a couple years ago,
he (like many big Nikon pros) always had a small Canon setup so that he
could take advantage of the Canon tilt-shift lenses. Therefore, he may
have already been accustomed to the Canon system.
Brad Mitchell
bra...@gte.net
http://home1.gte.net/bradjm/Photo.html
Redmond Young wrote:
> ...
>
> I just thought it was weird to switch from a system that you're so
> familiar with to a completely different one and have to relearn all
> new controls and ergonomics.
> ...
> ---
> Red
PBurian
>Nikon today if they were NOT being paid to do so.>>>
Terry: Have you read my test of the AF-S Nikkor Zooms (PHOTO LIFE, 9/99) or of
the F100 (SHUTTERBUG, 8/99)? If so, I don;t think you would raise this
question.
The fact that Canon has IS and a few lenses that Nikon does not, doesn't mean
they are left in the dust. (And I love and own Canon. They just happened to
have the right camera when it was time for me to switch to an AF system some
five years ago.)
Peter Burian
PBurian
>The fact is that the majority of wildlife/nature photographers do not
>market share of anyone else in this field. Strange indeed.>>>
I have not yet seen those statistics. Where can I get this data confirmed??
There seemed to be an awful lot of black lenses when I was shooting birds in
Florida.
Peter Burian
PBurian
>While you may well be correct, without a source for the data I find it
>less than credible.>>>
Terry: You expect EVIDENCE on the web?
Facts?
Sheeesh.
<G>
Peter Burian
Terence Danks
>
>Terry: Have you read my test of the AF-S Nikkor Zooms (PHOTO LIFE, 9/99) or of
>the F100 (SHUTTERBUG, 8/99)? If so, I don;t think you would raise this
>question.
>
>The fact that Canon has IS and a few lenses that Nikon does not, doesn't mean
>they are left in the dust.
No, Peter. No disrespect, but I find the editorial content of SB to be
too thin to bother getting the mag very often. The editorial stuff is
obviously scant filler to pad out the ads. I have not seen Photo Life
at all but might give it a try.
I have used Nikon exclusively for 3 decades, albeit with a long hiatus
in which I did little photography at all.
My interest is almost exclusively in long lenses for birds . . . other
wildlife when the opportunity arises. I still own no Canon gear but
plan to do so . . . likely when the successor to the 1n becomes
available.
I have no axe to grind wrt the F100. It does not have MLU or prefire.
In a body of that cost, given my interest, that is a big strike
against it regardless of its other merits. There is no need for me to
go begging for MLU-prefire . . . the opposition has it in spades.
I have a big beef not so much with what Nikon has, but with what they
do not have. I have been patient but they seem little disposed to
close some gaps that are of import to me. Hence I plan to move on and
have begun the process by selling off some N. gear.
I can see a lot of advantages in the Canon system for long lens
enthusiasts. I see no disadvantages to the Canon system while Nikon
lacks several key components, at least I personally consider them key
components.
As for the latest AF-S zooms . . . I have no interest in zooms
regardless of how excellent they may be.
I'll admit to an expectation that perhaps Canon's IS lenses can not
live up to. I've never used one although I have checked out their IS
binoculars and was very impressed with the technology although less
enthusiastic with build quality and ergonomics compared to, say, Leica
binoculars.
I have a difficult time reconciling your post, seemingly defensive of
Nikon gear, with your enthusiastic endorsement of Canon's latest IS
offerings.
Let me figuratively put the choice to you: If your interest was birds,
would your choice be the new 300mm/2.8 and 600/4 IS models from Canon
or their non IS Nikon equivalents?
For more compact, portable gear would you choose the only 300/4 Nikon
offers which loses AF capability with a Nikon TC against either of the
two Canon 300/4's which maintain AF with the Canon TC and one of
which offers IS as well?
Would you choose the Nikon 400mm/5.6 that does not even offer AF
capability at all over the Canon 400/5.6 that does?
Nikon still make some fine stuff. However, as far as I personally am
concerned, they have indeed been left in Canon's dust. Perhaps that is
just a reflection of my personal interests.
The latest announcement of a change of colours for long Nikkors
without other significant change, i.e., IS technology, seems a
rearranging of the deck chairs on the Titanic to me . . . a gambit
that borders on the desperate and pathetic.
randall j lantz
> On Wed, 28 Jul 1999 18:34:39 -0400, Adorama Professional Support
> Division <HE...@MMPHOTO.COM> wrote:
>
> >Art indeed has switched to Canon for 35 mm gear.
> >
>
> Heck, I am switching too.
> So how come no one is excited 'bout that? (LOL)
> Question for me is why any nature wildlife photographer would choose
> Nikon today if they were NOT being paid to do so.
Maybe because they like the "feel" of a Nikon in their hands.
> I'd say, if wildlife is your interest, the choice is pretty obvious .
> . . triply so with the introduction of the new IS lenses.
> Canon may, or may not pay Wolfe and Morris to use their gear.
> Pretty clear to me that Nikon will HAVE to pay nature photogs to use
> their stuff soon considering:
>
> MLU and or prefire on F5 only,
> No 300mm f/4 that allows AF with an OEM converter,
> No 400 f/5.6 AF at all
> and, the really big, number one reason . . . .
> No IS technology.
>
I cannot concur. I've been using Nikon FM2's for at least a decade. I
would put the shapness of my manual focused, tripod mounted shots up
against any other shot and, based on sharpness, I doubt anyone could tell
the difference. (Composition and subjective criteria notwithstanding).
Autofocus and IS lenses my be a help in taking a sharp photo and my make
things a bit easier on the photographer laborwise. But a carefully
focused manual lens mounted on a tripod will match the new technology for
sharpness, all other things being equal (ie. resolution of the lens,
f-stop, etc.)
> IMHO, Canon has left Nikon so far in the dust for nature and wildlife
> work they will likely never recover.
>
> If Nikon is financially unable to answer Canon's challenge, that is
> unfortunate. In the long run, we will all suffer for the diminished
> competition.
> If, OTOH, Nikon has just been so totally misguided and mismanaged as
> to neglect these issues, they deserve to be relegated to the dustbin.
>
Nah, these two companies have traded being the leaders in photographic
35mm equipment for decades. I'd guess that Nikon will match or exceed
Canon in the near future (only to be surpassed by Canon, and then
surpassing Canon again, ad nauseum).
Who knows, but Nikon may well be making the move in digital since that
is supposedly the future of the business.
> I don't pretend to know which is the case, I just know Nikon has
> ceased to serve my needs as well as the competition's offerings . . .
> and I am switching, at least to the extent my finances permit.
>
> Signed: former Nikon shooter who got fed up with the company's lack of
> innovation . . .
>
To each his own. But to get me to leave Nikon, some other manufacturer
would have to come up with much more technical innovation than Canon has
to get me to make the huge investment and commitment of changing systems.
Regards,
Randy
PBurian
I have no brand loyalty to any brand. I have tested too many excellent cameras
and lenses from too many manufacturers. That's why I feel that Nikon is worth
supporting as are Minolta, Pentax, etc.
I can only afford to own one brand, and it happens to be Canon. But I would be
more than happy to own a Nikon, Minolta, Pentax system as long as they had the
lenses I needed.
I'm not sure why any of this would seem surprising to anyone.
Peter Burian
PBurian
The Image Stabilizer technology is great but that alone does not make a system.
Even Canon owners are not all dumping their other lenses to buy all IS lenses.
It's easy to pick out a few holes in any brand (e.g. lack of a certain lens or
mirror lockup in some camera) but it is not fair to use that as an overall
evaluation of the value of any brand.
Nikon also makes ultrasonic focusing AF-S lenses in 300mm f/2.8, 500mm f/4,
600mm f/4, etc. aside from the AF-S zooms I reviewed in Canada's PHOTO LIFE,
9/99.
Yes, Nikon needs to come out with teleconverters that maintain AF with any AF
lens, a new AF-S 300mm f/4 and 400mm f/5.6 etc. No doubt they will. Lens
development is always a process that occurs over time.
I devote as much time to testing cameras/lenses/film for SHUTTERBUG as I do for
any magazine that I write for. My reviews are just as thorough as in PHOTO LIFE
- and often longer. (So why do people send me nice notes about my PHOTO LIFE
tests and nothing about my test reports in SB? e.g. F100 test in 8/99 issue.)
Peter Burian
Terence Danks
>I have no brand loyalty to any brand. I have tested too many excellent cameras
>and lenses from too many manufacturers. That's why I feel that Nikon is worth
>supporting as are Minolta, Pentax, etc.
>
>The Image Stabilizer technology is great but that alone does not make a system.
>Even Canon owners are not all dumping their other lenses to buy all IS lenses.
>
Very diplomatically handled Peter, (but I can't help but feel you
ducked the very direct and simple question I posed). I, like yourself,
have no brand loyalty. In fact I consider brand loyalty is for saps .
. . which is why I"ve decided that it's time to switch, despite the
financial pain. My interests seem better served by C these days. Whose
to say if N might decide to aggressively pursue the sports/wildlife
long lens field in the future? I personally feel, and that is all it
is as I have no internal knowledge of Nikon's financial state, that
they are not able to financially compete with Canon's innovations. I
take no personal satisfaction in that . . . the contrary in fact.
Sure, they still offer things Canon does not . . . interchangeble
finders is a big one that might be very important to some. Why C does
not offer a bellows unit ( a recent discovery for me) is pretty
perplexing. No big R&D costs involved in that one! also Canon has seen
fit not to offer catadioptic optics at all.
The thing Canon has neglected to do that ticks me the most . . . WHAT
. . . no IS on the 1200/5.6 EF L?? Well, they lost a sale there! Just
when I had my wallet out too. ;>)
>
>I devote as much time to testing cameras/lenses/film for SHUTTERBUG as I do for
>any magazine that I write for. My reviews are just as thorough as in PHOTO LIFE
>- and often longer. (So why do people send me nice notes about my PHOTO LIFE
>tests and nothing about my test reports in SB? e.g. F100 test in 8/99 issue.)
>
I suppose that would reopen the old debate about the merit/lack
theroef of the whole SB enterprise. That's almost as volatile as the N
vs C debate. I have my hands full enough already.
I'm not gonn'a go there!
PBurian
My point is just this.
Just because Canon has some things in their line that Nikon does not, does not
make the entire Nikon concept inferior.
Given that their long lenses ARE now ultrasonic (AF-S, Silent Wave) I would not
say they have abanadoned the nature photographer. And they do have a series of
converters that DO maintian autofocus, etc. with the AF-S lenses.
Peter Burian
Terence Danks
Ah, yes, Peter.
But, given you were starting from scratch, with an interest
specifically in long lenses for small subjects . . . which would you
choose?
I sure never said anywhere that Nikon's "entire concept was inferior".
I hold merely (if with an irritating insistence) that, in the field of
long telephotography, Nikon is a poor choice considering what is
offered by Canon. I say this as the owner of an 800mm f/5.6 Nikkor
BTW, not some Rebel G owner trying to make points by tearing Nikon
down. In fact I have no interest whatsoever in tearing Nikon down
despite what I perceive to be some pretty glaring deficiencies in
their product line these days. . . I have enumerated them in detail.
I again pose the question (abbreviated). . . would you choose a Canon
600/4 IS or a Nikon 600/4 (obviously not IS) to photograph birds with
these days?
I appreciate both are optically superb and (ruefully) I am not at all
sure I can afford either.
Are you willing to commit yourself in a public forum to answering that
question? If not, well, surely that is your privilege and I respect
that.
I suppose all I ask is that you answer . . . or decline to answer.
Obviously enough, you are compelled to do neither.
PBurian
>I again pose the question (abbreviated). . . would you choose a Canon
>600/4 IS or a Nikon 600/4 (obviously not IS) to photograph birds with
>these days? >>>
Since I still don't know exactly how well the Image Stabilizer of the new EF
telephotos works on a tripod, I'll defer on this.
Nor do I know the price of the IS lenses vs. Nikon AF-S Silent Wave.
I'm one of those people who think Image Stabilizer is worth the extra $$$ but
in terms of sales, the IS lenses have not set the world on fire so far. Not
everyone is willing to pay extra.
Peter Burian
Geir Eivind Mork
> Now someone said he's totally switched to Canon ? Is that true ?
Oh NO! what a tragedy! Someone actually changed the brand of tool they
were using to photograph with. Now as long as that only affect their
images in a positive way, it's good :)
--
[ http://Geir.Eivind.Mork.com ]-[ Namsos/Norway ]
Pál Jensen
dan...@ns.sympatico.ca (Terence Danks) wrote:
> I again pose the question (abbreviated). . . would you choose a Canon
> 600/4 IS or a Nikon 600/4 (obviously not IS) to photograph birds with
> these days?
I would have choosen the 600/4 lens that fit my cameras and the one I
could afford. Yes IS is nice and would like to have that. Ultra sonic
motors are probably also nice but I don't have that and I see no reason
for having it either.
Furthermore, all my lousy shots with my 600/4 lens are due to my lack of
talent, not some technical inferiority of the lens. I have yet to miss
any shots due to lack of IS or ultrasonic motors. Until I do, I won't
ditch my system for some new gizmos. However, if someone stole my whole
setup then I would carefully look at all brands that may serve my needs
and its not certain I would choose what I use now.
Liz Leyden
(PBurian) wrote:
>
> in terms of sales, the IS lenses have not set the world on fire so far.
> Not everyone is willing to pay extra.
Or able.
The discussion is surely irrelevant to a lot of us.
(Not that I mean it shouldn't be discussed - it's vaguely interesting in an
abstract, hypothetical sort of way)
Liz
--
__ __ __ __ __ ___ _____________________________________________
|__||__)/ __/ \|\ ||_ | /
| || \\__/\__/| \||__ | /...Internet access for all Acorn RISC machines
___________________________/ lizl...@argonet.co.uk
PBurian
Aside from the mega $$$$ telephotos, Canon also makes some affordable zooms
with Image Stabilizer. 70-300mm and 28-135mm.
But yes, they cost several hundred dollars extra and in terms of sales, have
not set the world on fire.
Peter Burian
Terence Danks
wrote:
>
>I would have choosen the 600/4 lens that fit my cameras and the one I
>could afford.
Actually Pal, given the cost of a 600/4 from a brand name
manufacturer, the choice of body is almost irrelevant. It makes every
sense to choose the lens and buy a body to fit it when you get into
this price range.
The cost differential between a Canon 600/4 IS and the Nikon non IS
equivalent has yet to be determined. We will know soon. I don't
pretend it is not a relevant issue but I am betting the difference
will not be all that great.
>Yes IS is nice and would like to have that. Ultra sonic
>motors are probably also nice but I don't have that and I see no reason
>for having it either.
I see EVERY reason for having both . . . mind you I am not at all
sure I can afford either.
>Furthermore, all my lousy shots with my 600/4 lens are due to my lack of
>talent, not some technical inferiority of the lens. I have yet to miss
>any shots due to lack of IS or ultrasonic motors. Until I do, I won't
>ditch my system for some new gizmos.
Surely unitil you have used both, you can not state that you have
never missed a shot that IS and/or USM would have permitted. You have,
for whatever reason, relegated IS to "gizmo" status. IS may well turn
shots that would have been discards into keepers. If not, the
technolgy must be branded a failure. Many of my failures with long
lenses have resulted from trying to get a shot when there was not
sufficient light which inevitable leads to trying a slower shutter
speed or wider aperture than I can get away with. The whole concept of
IS is predicated on allowing a slower shutter speed than possible
otherwise with the same aperture, focal length and emulsion. The
higher shutter speed I can use, the more likely my shot will turn out
well. (Lets not get into the "fast" film question.)
How succesful IS is in accomplishing this I can not say. I hope to
find out. I submit that, until you have tried it, you can not say
either.
Incidentally, I'll be keeping my 800/5.6 Nikkor, non IS and non AF
that it is. I'd prefer that it be both IS and AF but, if it were , I'd
never have been able to have afforded it. I appreciate that fact.
My initial resolve to go to Canon was for the lesser AF and IS
possibilities that Nikon does not permit, i.e., 400 mm or so with IS
and AF. I can not afford to ditch my 800mm Nikkor for a new Canon
600mm IS.
However, instead of the little 300mm f/4 IS with EF1.4, that new 300mm
/2.8 EF L IS just may be "do-able" in my circumscribed financial
world. Why in the name of the saints would I buy a Nikon 300mm 2.8
AF-S when the new Canon is on its way from Japan with IS?
Why would you?
Why would anybody?
Gimme the 300/2.8 IS on a Rebel body over the Nikon non IS version on
an F5!
(Need I add YMMV? ;>)
MBig528025
>shot of Snow Monkeys soaking in a hot spring. The main monkey has
>a weird look on his face, and Wolfe says he couldn't have captured that
>split-second moment without the "45 focus points on his new EO
Oh I love that quote! Here is a guy who has made it all too known that he
bends, folds and otherwise mutilates most of his stuff on a computer, talking
about "capturing" the moment! Let Canon have him!
MrBiG
"It's just too creepy"
News Server
Regarding lense cleaning tissue and Galen Rowell...while shooting Avalache
Creek at Glacier National Park with a seminar group...Galen cleaned his
filter with his shirt....I'm not sure what brand the shirt was...if I knew I
would pass it on. If I remember right it was a pretty comfortable looking
shirt though....
rwe
Pál Jensen <pa...@norvol.hi.is> wrote in message
news:7nmjtv$kgp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <7nloa2$ecn$1...@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM>,
> re...@Eng.Sun.COM wrote:
>
> > Now someone said he's totally switched to Canon ? Is that true ?
> > (maybe some Canon salesmen pulled the job ;^> ). Did he find
> > something in Canon gear that made him switch Nikon, equipment he
> > used for all of his professional career ?
>
>
> He is paid for using it. Both Mamiya and Canon pays him. Personally I
> cannot fathom why anyone care about who is using what but its still
> a big thing in the US judging from the advertisements in the
> magazines. It's way past the ridiculous. Anyone using a particular lens
> cleaning tissue because Galen Rowell is using it is mentally ill.
Carlos R. Herrera
Add up all the bad, lazy traits of every photographer out their and you will end
up with Art Wolfe. It must take some high skill to paste a polar bear on a sand
dune!
Nikon will be adding to their line up soon, I suppose. They have been slowly
eliminated out of the LF market for years now by Schneider, Rodenstock, and the
Fujinon line. Their poor designs and service have cost them. Now, they only have
35mm left. I doubt they will lie down and die.
I heard a rumor that there is a Zeiss 50 1.4 at the Nikon R&D dept. Been there
for years, but they can't figure out how to dupe it or add to the design.
Just because N & C have the lion's share of the market, doesn't mean they have
the best to offer. Who invented AF? No, it wasn't Minolta, they just put it to
the market first. Who invented many of the innovative optical feats that N & C
proudly shill in their ads. Hint: it's is the same company and they did it in the
early 1900s.
Lots of people with little cameras seem very much obsessed with their equipment.
I do believe a lot of people used 4x5 Graphics to shoot sports WAY back in the
day. Very slow to operate, but still came away with classic sports shots of that
day. I don't think there were 600mm plus lenses 20-30 years ago for those 35mm
people shooting wildlife. But then, most of them weren't shooting animals in a
cage or confined area a la Shaw or the like.
Forget the equipment and just cook film. I know people with tore up 50 year old
lenses, but they still make great images.
CH
The Ansel Adams Gallery-Yosemite
http://www.anseladams.com
Dan Smith, Photographer
Liz Leyden <lizl...@argonet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:na.2bb9e8492a....@argonet.co.uk...
> In article <19990731201723...@ng-fg1.aol.com>, pbu...@aol.com
> (PBurian) wrote:
> >
> > in terms of sales, the IS lenses have not set the world on fire so far.
> > Not everyone is willing to pay extra.
> ^^^^^^^
>
> Or able.
> The discussion is surely irrelevant to a lot of us.
> (Not that I mean it shouldn't be discussed - it's vaguely interesting in
an
I would be more interested if they came up with a 600 f/2.8. Canon has a
1200 f/5.6 and I could live with the weight penalty for the extra stop at
600 since it is a basic length for wildlife and sports work.
dan smith
DWA652
>
>Regarding lense cleaning tissue and Galen Rowell...while shooting Avalache
>Creek at Glacier National Park with a seminar group...Galen cleaned his
>filter with his shirt....I'm not sure what brand the shirt was...if I knew I
>would pass it on. If I remember right it was a pretty comfortable looking
>shirt though....
>
or something like that. In fact, I believe I did the same thing with a
polarizer at Avalanche Creek at GNP last year, maybe the scene just calls for a
cotton cleaned filter shot!
PBurian
You would need a mule to carry it.
Peter Burian
PBurian
>Creek at Glacier National Park with a seminar group...Galen cleaned his
>filter with his shirt....I'm not sure what brand the shirt was...if I knew I
>would pass it on. If I remember right it was a pretty comfortable looking
>shirt though....
So how the heck are we to buy the Galen Rowel Lens Cleaner Shirt if you cannot
recall the brand??????
<G>
Peter Burian
PBurian
>top
>or something like that. >>>
Yeah, right. Like your T-shirt is as good as the official Galen shirt.
<G>
Peter Burian
Pál Jensen
"Carlos R. Herrera" <rog...@inreach.com> wrote:
> Just because N & C have the lion's share of the market, doesn't mean
they have
> the best to offer. Who invented AF? No, it wasn't Minolta, they just
put it to
> the market first.
It was in fact Pentax who brought AF to the market first.
Pál Jensen
mbig5...@aol.com (MBig528025) wrote:
> Oh I love that quote! Here is a guy who has made it all too known that
he
> bends, folds and otherwise mutilates most of his stuff on a computer,
talking
> about "capturing" the moment! Let Canon have him!
His "Migration" book completely lost all value for me when I read that
most (all?) the images was manipulated on a computer.
PBurian
Paal: Where do you come up with these gems?
Several manufacturers had designed autofocus cameras but Minolta Maxxum (Dynax)
7000 was the first one to succeed in the market.
>Share what you know. Learn what you don't.>>>
Peter Burian
PBurian
>His "Migration" book completely lost all value for me when I read that
>most (all?) the images was manipulated on a computer.>>>
Paal: Where do you get these gems?
Only 10 of the images had ANY digital manipulation.
I attended a workshop with Wolfe and he showed us exactly which images and to
what extent. Often, the changes were not dramatic at all.
He does say he wishes he had identified those images specifically and the
extent of manipulation (in the book).
Did you lose all respect for Ansel Adams when you found out that all of his
images were extensively manipulated? Those who have seen his negatives (e.g.
Moonrise, Hernnandez, NM) wrote that they were often quite ordinary.
It was darkroom skill that made them magnificent. Adams made no secret of that
as in his books: The Negative, The Print, etc.
Peter Burian
Norm
Didn't Pentax or some other company sue (and win) Minolta for infringement
of their AF patent?
Norm
Pál Jensen
pbu...@aol.com (PBurian) wrote:
> >It was in fact Pentax who brought AF to the market first.>>>>>>
>
> Paal: Where do you come up with these gems?
This gem is well known fact for anyone with slightest knowledge in
camera history.
The Pentax ME-F was the first 35mm AF SLR camera brought to the market.
period. That was in 1981 (maybe 82; my memory isn't that good). The
camera used the same AF system as todays cameras but the AF motor was
located in the lens, not the body. There was only one AF lens; a
35-70/2.8 zoom.
The Pentax was followed by similar efforts from Olympus and Canon (I
think the Canon was called AL-1; I'm not sure if it had real AF or just
focus confirmation). I believe there was a Minolta as well, but I'm not
sure. There was also an AF version of the Nikon F3.
>
> Several manufacturers had designed autofocus cameras but Minolta
Maxxum (Dynax)
> 7000 was the first one to succeed in the market.
Sure. The Minolta 7000 was the first sucessful AF camera but wasn't the
first on the market. The Minolta was the first camera where AF was part
of the system thinking and not just an add on feature on existing camera
bodies and types. That was a major key to its sucess.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Pál Jensen
pbu...@aol.com (PBurian) wrote:
> >
> >His "Migration" book completely lost all value for me when I read
that
> >most (all?) the images was manipulated on a computer.>>>
>
> Paal: Where do you get these gems?
This gem I got from the internet!
> Only 10 of the images had ANY digital manipulation.
Maybe. Still you get sceptical when you can see the same animal
(individual) several places in the image.
Pál Jensen
I think that ws Honeywell, not Pentax. Don't ask me where I got that gem
from. Its from somewhere in my foggy memory and totally unreliable.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Pál Jensen
Pál Jensen <pa...@norvol.hi.is> wrote:
> In article <19990802094045...@ng-fp1.aol.com>,
> pbu...@aol.com (PBurian) wrote:
> > >It was in fact Pentax who brought AF to the market first.>>>>>>
> >
> > Paal: Where do you come up with these gems?
>
> This gem is well known fact for anyone with slightest knowledge in
> camera history.
> The Pentax ME-F was the first 35mm AF SLR camera brought to the
market.
> period. That was in 1981 (maybe 82; my memory isn't that good).
Before someone ask where i got this gem from, and again being acused for
making thing up, here's a copy from Pentax Sweden homepage (I will
translate it; sort of):
1981 lanserar Pentax världens första
autofokuskamera ME-F. Kameran har
autofokustekniken inkorporerad i optiken och
visar vägen för den framtida
autofokusutvecklingen.
It should be easy to understand even for english speaking persons. The
Scandinavian languages and english are closely related. Let me just say
that "världens" means the worlds, "första" means first, "har" means has.
It ends with saying that the camera showed the way for future AF
developments.
Norm
right places.
From the History of Pentax page which states:
>>>>1980
Pentax LX is introduced as the finest quality Pentax at the time. It was
named LX (the Roman numeral for 60) in commemoration of Asahi Optical's 60th
anniversary. The 35mm professional camera attracted a great deal of
attention for its interchangeable viewfinder, weather-resistance, direct
metering automatic exposure control, and titanium horizontal-run shutter. It
featured rugged construction and special seals against dust and moisture. It
also has aperture-priority automatic, manual and TTL flash, and incorporates
an integrated light metering cell measuring directly off the film plane.
The Pentax ME-F, the world's first through-the-lens (TTL) SLR Autofocus
camera is introduced. It will take the market another decade before
Autofocus becomes a widely accepted feature.
Pentax's parent corporation, Asahi Optical, becomes the first camera
manufacturer to reach the production milestone of 10 million SLR cameras.
1982
The Pentax MG is released. Its lightweight design makes it particularly
attractive for photographers who demand fast handling, easy carrying and
high quality results without a costly price tag.
Pentax introduces its first 35mm non-SLR camera, the Sport 35 (PC35AF).
Featuring Autofocus, automatic exposure, and a stylish design, the Sport 35
quickly becomes a top selling model in this fast-growing category.<<<<<
When was the Minolta first released?
Norm
Norm
>>In 1985, the marketing of the Minolta 7000 camera ushered in the era of
autofocus (AF) single-lens reflex (SLR) cameras, spurring great changes in
the SLR market<<
William Vollert
"I pity da mule that has to carry that lens!"
Sorry folks, I just could not resist.
:-)
PBurian <pbu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990802003222...@ng-ba1.aol.com...
Norm
It could have been Honeywell. I seem to remember reacting to the "From the
Minds of Minolta" ad that ran in the US by thinking "Yeh and from the
patents of Pentax." But my memory, too, is foggy.
Norm
Bob Flood
> I attended a workshop with Wolfe and he showed us exactly which images and to
> what extent. Often, the changes were not dramatic at all.
>
> Did you lose all respect for Ansel Adams when you found out that all of his
> images were extensively manipulated? Those who have seen his negatives (e.g.
> Moonrise, Hernnandez, NM) wrote that they were often quite ordinary.
I don't often disagree with you, sir, but I must in this case. I find it
incomprehensible to define dodging and burning to compensate for the difference in
range of brightness in film/paper and the human eye to be no different from
cutting-and-pasting images into a frame to create a scene that did not exist
anywhere. No one disputes that darkroom work involves manipulating the image
(unless you are blessed with the ability to generate nothing but perfect
negatives). In that sense one could argue that adjusting the size of the print
from 5X7 up to 8X10 is manipuating the image. Adams' ability in the darkroom to
bring out in the negative and ultimately to place on the print as much of the
detail in the scene as he could simply is not the same as replicating images to
make a flock appear larger than it was, or in the National Geographic case (not an
Art Wolfe photo) to place an image of an animal photgrphed in a zoo on a block of
ice photographed in a different part of the world. I happen to like that polar
bear picture; I just think the photographer/editor/computeroperator who created it
has a moral obligation to inform the viewer that the image isn't real - he never
saw such a scene anywhere.
This has become an issue in the English courts, where the acceptability of
photographs as evidence is now in question because of digital manipulation
problems. No doubt the same issue will find its way into our courts as well.
Jaan Peets
> Did you lose all respect for Ansel Adams when you found out that all of his
> images were extensively manipulated? Those who have seen his negatives (e.g.
> Moonrise, Hernnandez, NM) wrote that they were often quite ordinary.
>
> It was darkroom skill that made them magnificent. Adams made no secret of that
> as in his books: The Negative, The Print, etc.
>
> Peter Burian
Peter,
I feel that I have to enter the fray here. There is a world of
difference in manipulation of tone, or even color, and the fairly
wretched practice of composting multiple images. I have no problem with
digital retouching for minor things, but a composite has little of the
appeal or value to me of the "found" image. You certainly wonder if the
image is "real" in the sense that combination of the animal and
habitat/time of day/behaviour etc. just might never happen in nature.
I know the argument about the image being the final product, and the end
justifies the means, but the traditonal darkroom work of Adams, et al.
is profoundly different. I suspect that Adams would have embraced
digital technology, but would have recoiled at some of the stuff that is
being done wiith it today. After all, a big part of his motivation was
to communicate the splendor of wilderness, not to just make interesting
images.
I suspect the almighty buck has a lot to do with this. It is a lot
easier to produce a striking image in Photoshop than it is to park
yourself in Alaska for a few months at a stretch......
Jaan
Jaan Peets
>
> LOL.
>
> Lots of people with little cameras seem very much obsessed with their equipment.
> I do believe a lot of people used 4x5 Graphics to shoot sports WAY back in the
> day. Very slow to operate, but still came away with classic sports shots of that
> day. I don't think there were 600mm plus lenses 20-30 years ago for those 35mm
> people shooting wildlife. But then, most of them weren't shooting animals in a
> cage or confined area a la Shaw or the like.
>
> Forget the equipment and just cook film. I know people with tore up 50 year old
> lenses, but they still make great images.
>
> CH
> The Ansel Adams Gallery-Yosemite
> http://www.anseladams.com
>
Bravo! Photography is one of the wost endeavours when it comes to
"equipment junkies" and inane discussions about the latest gizmo. Is is
all about making images. Since many of our classic images, which are
still bench marks, were produced 60+ years ago, that proves that the
latest technology is not *necessary* to produce fine photographs.
I have noticed that the tech freaks are rarely fine photographers (am
putting on my asbestos underwear... ;)
Jaan
PBurian
>This gem I got from the internet!>>
That explains it. Do not beleive everything you read on the web.
Peter Burian
PBurian
>incomprehensible to define dodging and burning to compensate for the
>difference in
>range of brightness in film/paper and the human eye to be no different from
>cutting-and-pasting images into a frame to create a scene that>>>
OK, one can do a lot more with digital - and more easily - than in a darkroom.
But in the end, both images are quite different than what the eye saw or the
film recorded.
So what? Except in documentary photography.
And the days of pasting polar bears into sand dunes is just about gone. The
ability to do weird stuff like that was a novelty, that has worn off for most
serious photographers.
Removing a distracting branch, selectively lightening or brightening an area,
etc. are the more common uses of digital imaging in the pro fields.
Peter Burian
PBurian
>bear picture; I just think the photographer/editor/computeroperator who
>created it
>has a moral obligation to inform the viewer that the image isn't real - he
>never
Agreed, 100%.
And Art Wolfe agrees. His migrations book was an early work before this issue
crystallized. I guarantee that he has since made sure that digital work ---
used for editorial, not advertising use -- is captioned accordingly.
And photography is not all documentary. Just as wildlife artists take liberties
why can't photographic artists?
Peter Burian
PBurian
>Didn't Pentax or some other company sue (and win) Minolta for infringement
>of their AF patent?
I don't recall but the fact remains that the Maxxum 7000 was the first
commercially succesful autofocus camera on the market.
And it was the market that Paal was discussing.
Peter Burian
PBurian
>Pentax introduces its first 35mm non-SLR camera, the Sport 35 (PC35AF).
>Featuring Autofocus, automatic exposure, and a stylish design, the Sport 35
>quickly becomes a top selling model in this fast-growing>>>
I would need to see when other manufacturers first came out with point and
shoot AF cameras.
I beleive we were discussing SLR cameras, however.
Peter Burian
PBurian
Who remembers ever seeing a Pentax ME-F camera, ever actually seeing one,
seeing an ad for it, etc.
If it was on the market outside Japan, it was a well-kept secret.
The Maxxum 7000 however took the market by storm.
And it was the market we were discussing.
Peter Burian
Bob Flood
> OK, one can do a lot more with digital - and more easily - than in a darkroom.
> But in the end, both images are quite different than what the eye saw or the
> film recorded.
>
There's no doubt that, until there is a breakthrough in some as-yet-undiscovered
technology, no photograph (or painting) will be able to portray the range of
brightness the human eye can detect. This fact makes every photograph an attempt
to collect and portray as much of the original scene as practical, but within the
limits of the materials.
> So what? Except in documentary photography.
>
One difficulty that photography as a field has to deal with is the perception that
it is documentary by definition - "the camera doesn't lie." The typical viewer,
who isn't knowledgeable about cameras or darkroom or digital imaging techniques,
will believe that the photographer stood (or sat, whatever) in front of the scene
in the photo and took the picture. Note that the same assumption would not be made
about a painting of the same scene. It is this difference that results in
photographs being acceptable as evidence in courts for so long.
> And the days of pasting polar bears into sand dunes is just about gone. The
> ability to do weird stuff like that was a novelty, that has worn off for most
> serious photographers.
>
The polar bear case was a photo of zoo-bound bear (Cleveland, I believe) lying on
a concrete slab facing the photographer and a photo of a chuck of ice floating
near (if I remember correctly) Alaska. The photographer pasted the bear onto the
ice, produced an excellent overall image, and it was published in National
Geographic. It proved so popular that Natl Geog began selling it as a poster. Then
they learned it was a digital image of a zoo animal. Much consternation followed.
Because of the history of photography as a technology, photographs are accepted as
factual unless there is something undeniably obvious in the photo that gives away
some fabrication. The same is true for digitally altered images, because they are
assumed by the viewer to be ordinary photographs. To allow that idea to go
uncorrected is, IMHO, a bit of dishonesty on the part of the photographer toward
the customer.
Digital manipulation of the image is not better or worse than darkroom
manipulation, it's just different. And I think the person laying out his/her money
to purchase the image and line the pockets of all you incredibly rich professional
photographers should know what he/she is getting. I just don't think it's up to
the photographer to decide whether digital alteration matters - it's up to the
person the photog wants to sell the image to.
Standing down from soap-box mode.
T Pole 1
matter what gear he uses / its not the gear its the photographer that makes the
photo
Norm
Totally irrelevant to the question of who invented the first AF.
Paal started this thread with "Who invented AF?No, it wasn't Minolta, they
just put it to the market first."
Then you came out with your "Where do you come up with these gems?" comment.
Look at the thread as written, not as you'd like it to read.
Terence Danks
>>I would be more interested if they came up with a 600 f/2.8>>>
>
>You would need a mule to carry it.
>
>Peter Burian
>
Actually, I could likely live with that particular weight problem. I'd
like to try anyhow. I'd say it would weigh very close to what the
1200/5.6 weighs, no? The front optical elements would be identical in
size, albeit thicker.
The real problem is that I'd need a whole TRAIN of mules to carry the
moolah from the bank to the dealer to pay for it! Given the optical
complexities of figuring the more sharply curved front lens, it likely
would cost a whole lot more than the 1200/5.6. In fact it might not
even be doable at all while keeping distortions and aberrations within
expected limits.
Say, just how much DOES that 1200mm puppy cost anyhow? (even without
IS) Canon sure cheaped out there, huh? ;>)
Norm
IS) Canon sure cheaped out there, huh? ;>)
I heard a figure around $85,000
Terence Danks
Hmmm . . . I thought I saw one offered on the EOS list, used for
$13,000. Some fellow out of Jackson Hole, WY.
Likely I was wrong if Norm is close to being correct.
Robert Harris
>Several manufacturers had designed autofocus cameras but Minolta Maxxum (Dynax)
>7000 was the first one to succeed in the market.
He said brought first to market, Peter, but I do not believe he said
"succeed." That is another matter completely. <g>
Relying on my memory, I believe the first Pentax AF system was in the
market at least a year before Minolta's first. The Pentax was a
modified ME-Super (I believe it was called ME-F) and there was only
one lens, f 2.8 35-70mm, as I recall. The AF sensor was in the body
but the motor was in the lens and I believe batteries for the motor
also were in the lens, although I am not sure of that. At any event,
the lens was large and heavy, quite an ungainly beast, the market did
not treat this pioneering effort well. No other lenses were introduced
for it and it was allowed to die quietly. You still see the lens in
the used market occasionally, though.
Also, Nikon introduced an autofocus body (FA?) with a couple of AF
lenses to the market early on, and I think that also was before the
first Minolta AF release. It also was not a great market success.
Of course, I could be wrong -- as I get older my memory gets less
reliable. <g>
-- Bob Harris, New York City
Robert Harris
>Who remembers ever seeing a Pentax ME-F camera, ever actually seeing one,
>seeing an ad for it, etc.
I remember seeing a number of them on display in windows of NY camera
shops and some must have been sold since, as I pointed out in another
message, you occasionally see the lens in the used market.
>If it was on the market outside Japan, it was a well-kept secret.
It definitely was available in the US. I do note remember seeing ads,
but I do remember articles about it in photo magazines.
>The Maxxum 7000 however took the market by storm.
That is true -- and by the time it did Pentax had dropped the ME-F
since it did not sell well.
>And it was the market we were discussing.
If something is produced, offered for sale and sold, even if not in
great numbers, it is in the market.
Pál Jensen
pbu...@aol.com (PBurian) wrote:
> OK, a poll.
>
> Who remembers ever seeing a Pentax ME-F camera, ever actually seeing
one,
> seeing an ad for it, etc.
KEH have currently one ME-F body offered for sale and two 35-70/2.8
lenses. They are not among the commonest items but they are not hard to
find and cannot be considered rare. It is, however, far more common than
any other pre Minolta 7000 AF camera.
>
> If it was on the market outside Japan, it was a well-kept secret.
It was marketed worldwide and was quite a sensation when released
although it did not make AF take off for various reason. It made
headline news in the photo magazines here in Europe. BTW I've never
claimed that the ME-F was particularly sucessful.
>
> The Maxxum 7000 however took the market by storm.
>
> And it was the market we were discussing.
We wasn't. Sombody claimed that Minolta brought AF to the market first.
I said that they didn't. I have never disputed that the Minolta 7000 was
the first sucessful AF camera.