Bram boy Loc: Vancouver Island B.C. Canada

You have no idea how right you are SS . what I was digenosed with last winter I wouldn't wish on any one except the
worst of the worst . It's something that you never even heard of and I never heard of it before , I can't even step up
On a one inch curb unless there is a lamp pole or something to hang on to . Never in my wildest dreams I could think of
This .

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

It will happen to all of us, one way or another. I think we all wish you well. In the mean time live long and prosper, as much as you can.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Very well put.
As most know the Nikon F set the 35mm SLR standard by which all SLRs were judged for decades.

trc Loc: Logan, OH

SS,

You referred to my comment I had made:



I must disagree that loyal customers would be lost. My goodness, look how many people 'move up' in their equipment and still buy the same manufacturer's products!

I know an extremely good photographer, just as one example, who owns a D800 or D810, and just bought a D500 so he can use it as a bird camera since it can shoot something like 10 fps, or maybe even more, allowing him a better opportunity of capturing that perfect bird shot. He did not switch manufacturers and is very pleased with Nikon, just as others are very pleased with Canon, Sony, Fuji, Hasselblad, and whatever other maker they chose.

Now, I'm sure if a company wants to delve out/invest in very large sums of money into R&D and come up with a brand new super fantastic, marvelous, amazing new camera body/model, their customers would greatly appreciate their efforts and expense . . . if they are successful and if the customer can afford this new magic camera which would most likely be quite expensive and out of reach, monetarily, for most common people and photographers (such as myself and maybe even you?). Who would be their target audience - just very well to do and extremely successful professional photographers? If so, I doubt very much that those chosen few could buy enough of the new cameras to support and justify all the money invested in R&D by the company, such that they would not take a loss on their endeavors. And guess what, other camera manufacturers would then be able to get their hands on the new product, study it, and maybe even improve upon it making their version (if copyright laws did not immediately forbid it, but it takes quite a while to get copyrights, I believe, and I'm sure there are ways around that, as well as company espionage) at an extremely reduced price for the common market and common photographer - Hmmm? Just like things have been done for years and years.

A very few loyal customers would say thank you, but the majority of the amateur, hobbyist, Mom & Pop photography businesses would say thanks, but no thanks - just can't afford your new camera. Now that is being realistic in my honest opinion. Let's face it, everything in our society is governed by money and expense - those are the two necessary evils that make decisions and control what happens in our world - honestly, just think about it and be honest with yourself and with all the others reading/contributing to this thread you began.

You were very successful in getting reactions you most probably were looking for, and for getting people involved on the UHH Forum Site, so my hat goes off to you. Was there a secondary reason you started this thread - one only wonders, if the time is taken to think about this in more depth. It is/was entertaining to read such a wide array of comments and information people have put forth and contributed to your thread. Congratulations, SS. Cheers, my friend.

Best Regards,
Tom

Bram boy Loc: Vancouver Island B.C. Canada

No not what I have it only happens to three to five people in a million , according to the records . How many people
In a million get cancer a hundered thousand , that's why cancer is a ongoing fight to cure it . There is hardly any labs
Working on what I have , so there won't be a cure tell it is as comment as cancer .

pego99

You cant be serious. Nikon is much more innovative. The D40 was a killer camera. Nothing from Canon can touch my D750. And soon the mini D5 the D760. And the D500.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Bram, I wish you well. But something will find us all. All my immediate family is gone. I am the last of my line. No progeny. Some may be grateful for that!

Something will find me. Dealing with the journey with dignity and integrity is critical, but it is a journey, and it does have an end. I wish you well. I hope you get to find happiness and joy in this stage of your life. You do have a life while you are here.

Reinaldokool Loc: San Rafael, CA

You jogged my memory to two cameras I forgot. I bought an Asahi Pentax in 1958, when I was a USAF in Japan. It replaced my Argus C3. Later, the Petri Penta competed for my mindspace with the Canon rangefinder that I finally purchased. By this time, I was back in Japan as a university student. I left Japan in 1964 with my bachelor's degree and the Canon rangefinder and an Asahi Pentax (The latest and greatest). When I got to grad school, I hooked up with a pro who oversaw all audio-visual for the small school. He was shooting Nikon and Hasselblad professionally and on location for CBS Sports. Three years later, I had Nikon, a Yashica (Poor man's Rollieflex) and a Linhof 4x5. A friend visited Japan and brought me back a new Nikon and a Mamiyaflex. Since then mostly Nikons, but also a new Pentax and a couple of awesome Fuji P&S, Canon G12, Fuji X-E1, and now Sony a6300.

Besides the Petri, you reminded me of the Nikon D70 I had four generations ago. It was pretty primitive by today's standards, but I got a lot of good images with it.

Every camera I've had has had some innovative features. The Sony has the best AF I see in any of today's cameras. But Canon or Nikon will frogjump. I bought the first Sony a6000 because neither Canon nor Nikon were making a decent MILC. They both used the 1/3x1/3 (They call it "1 inch") sensor. And neither had a viewfinder. Sony and Fuji both had aps-c.

Now Canon has a new beast, the M5 that is way ahead of the Sony. This is an illustration of SS's theme. If they had been there a year ago. . . I'll probably stay happy with my a6300 for at least a few more years. Nikon will have to come up with something better by then or I'll jump to Canon.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Tom, thanks for the support!
Yes, the reference I made using your comment, I knew was not that of the poster I was replying to, but on my phone I can't go back and look without losing my reply!
And I thank you for a well thought out reply.
I also know better than to think a post can be controlled by an OP, that ain't gonna happen.
But I'm glad to see that in in ten pages there has not been one name called!! That in itself is amazing(knock on wood)! Must be the Holiday spirit still kicked in. Actually more like it, is that all the trouble makers have me on their banned list and can't come here and make noise!!! LoL

Much of what has been said is what I referred to as normal evolution. Just the normal progression of any product, and THAT will leapfrog from company to company. Many are heaping accolades onto the the D500. It's a great camera. I wish I had one but it's not better enough than my 7Dll, to which the 500 was the answer to, to not just wait till the 7lll makes its appearance, if I ever need it at all?!
A few more mp's here, a few more fps there, a bigger buffer etc., those things are not innovation, they are simple evolution.
Some one mentioned matrix metering, well metering was around since the 60's.
Someone mentioned TTL, well that IS big.
My point was that as far as BIG INNOVATION goes, I just haven't seen it.
Even the D500, a month before it was announce, the BIG Montanon had loudly declared that the D400 would NEVER be seen. Maybe it took the Pressure of the 7Dmkll to light a fire under Nikon. So the 500 is merely a leapfrog, NOT an innovation. It simply incorporates what the 7ll already has but with an update.
Someone mentioned that Nikon was the first to put video into a dslr. I would consider that HUGE and very much an INNOVATION ! But Nikon was unable to follow it up, and Canon stole their thunder by putting out the first affordable FF with lvideo in the 5D and the movie industry jumped all over it by making it the affordable go to Indie camera. My guess is tha Bollywood gobbles those up by the truckload! What a missed opportunity for the inventor of dslr video!

Anyway, lunchtime is over, so gotta go back to paying for my new to me camera gear!! LoL
Tom, thanks for the good reply!!!!!!
SS

whitewolfowner

Canon has more sales for two reasons. First they are a very large company compared to Nikon who is a small company. Secondly, both companies started out in the camera business with professional equipment. Canon got the idea to start selling to the amateur market with the introduction of the AE-1. They did so well with it that Nikon jumped in to it also. Nikon did not do as well in the amateur market as Canon did and having the extra money for advertising, beat Nikon in sales and has done since they got the edge. It comes down to advertising, the more you spend advertising the better your sales; no matter if you got the better product or not.

David in Dallas Loc: Dallas, Texas, USA

Reinaldokool, my first 35mm camera was a Petri 7S rangefinder. I bought it new in 1964 from the BX at Goose Air Base in Labrador and it took superb photos! It may even still be around somewhere (I have packing boxes that haven't been opened in 50 years). In 1966 I upgraded to a Nikkormat SLR, bought at a USAF BX on Johnston Island in the Pacific Ocean. I specifically chose the Nikkormat because all its control were on rings around the lens body, similar to the ones on the Petri rangefinder I was used to. That camera was stolen from my car in southern California a couple of years later and I replaced it with a Nikkormat FT, which was just an upgrade and used the same lenses. I don't know where the 50mm lens I had for it is any more, but the 500mm f/8 mirror lens is still with me and I can (with a little finagling--there's an interference) mount that lens on my D7100 if I want to. In the 1980s I moved to a Nikon N70 and added an FE to the mix; I carried both of them at the same time, one with fast film for indoors and one for outdoors with a zoom lens. In 2004 I got a digital P&S Kodak DX7630, but was dissatisfied with the lag between pressing the shutter and getting the shot so, with suggestions from a photographer friend I got a D50 DSLR and equipped it with the new 18-200VR lens. When I wanted better low-light capability I upgraded to the D7000 and when it died (salt water infusion) I got a D7100. I'm also using the 18-200VR2 lens on it, but the older VR lens still works and is kept as a backup, along with the D50 body.

Through all this scenario I have been using the benefits of continual innovation, most of it in the Nikon family. Each time I upgraded it was to take advantage of features that had not been available in the prior status. I care not who first comes up with an innovation, since each manufacturer must develop its own method of implementing that feature (patents) and that process is itself an innovation.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

But both companies have excellent products. Isn't it a little more complicated than that when we're looking at a four or more decade long journey?

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

that's not how the industry sees it.

whitewolfowner

Of course it is; I was giving an overall quick explanation. Both companies do have excellent products; I'm not disputing that, just explaining briefly where Canon has the advantage for more sales. There are also a lot of things that Canon has done in the industry first that has attracted many to them. For instance, at big photographic events, Canon showed up with millions of dollars of equipment that they loaned out the press photographers. This swung many to them. Now Nikon has jumped on the wagon and is doing the same thing too.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

The big thing Canon did though was go to the EOS system. From there they just never looked back and yes people did switch over when they got tired of waiting for their cameras to focus and the Canon was done with 15 shots in the same time. It could actually capture quick grand kids and their soccer games like nothing else in the market.
Yes others are catching up but it took from 1987 to 2017 to do it and a loss of product compatibility in doing so where the earliest EF lens is just fine on any EOS camera being made and every EF lens works perfectly on any EOS camera ever made. That says a lot considering how things have moved along since 1987, that is vision.