Jer Loc: Mesa, Arizona

I asked a couple of photography stores this question.
Why don't other DSLR brands get the play that Canon and Nikon do?
I'm not talking about bridge cameras or point and shoots. For the serious hobbyist, semi-pro, and pro photographers it seems we are always directed to Nikon and Canon. I know why I bought Canon and I know why some of my friend bought Nikon but what about the other brands? Are they considered as good or is it a matter of perception. Please do me a favor and keep the discussion civil and on topic. Remember only about DSLR's and the various brands.

Theo_cupent42

The main reason is these are the two most versatile value-for-money companies for aps-c and full frame. If you were to go into medium format or larger format Dslrs, these two names wouldn't even get a mention.

The quality is in other brands like Sony, yes, but they don't have the broad range of the other two.

These two companies also have had decades to build up their profiles and audiences. Compared to other companies of their age (eg hassle lad, Leica), they're a more "budget" option.

That's what I think, anyway - just my 2 cents...

sinatraman Loc: Vero Beach Florida, Earth,alpha quaudrant

back in the film days, canons and nikons were built to take the rough abuse professionals put their equipment to. But nowdays everybody dslr's are well made. The new pentax has professional grade seals at an intro dslr price! Sony is making some interesting equipment and according to popphoto magazine they just invested $650 million in proping up olympus. Pentax seems to be thriving now that rollei bought them. I think that in these days of electronic hardware and intricate software you have to have deep pockets in order to survive! Nikon has always been an optical company first. Canon has the additional resources from selling printers, scanners, and copy machines. Sony is Sony. weak companies like kodak folded, while poloroid has become a niche player.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Just curious, what are these othere medium and large format DSLRs you are referring to here? Neither Nikon or Canon make anything larger than the 35mm size "full frame" cameras, and never have except for laboratory test vehicles. Maybe someday they will take their expertise to a larger sensor product, but that remains to be seen. The Hasselblads, Mamiyas and Leaf Pro products are extremely expensive to buy and to use. These products seldom make it out into the world and almost always live their lives in protected studio settings.

As for the original question, MANY manufacturers have come and gone in the 35mm film and DSLR venues and none seen to have ever created the quality of product or the range of lenses and accessories that these two have. No other maker has dedicated the resources and marketing that Nikon and Canon have either. Many have tried, but cannot duplicate the equipment requirements of the professional photographer so they just make consumer grade products and try to get a share of that market wherever they can. Companies like Sony, Olympus, Pentax and a few others will always try to sell a "new" idea to the public and make them think its "just as good" as the Pro gear they have seen, but the proof is in the pudding. If a "Pro" could get the quality out of a $600 camera that he gets out of a $6000 camera, he would be using it! Period! Not gonna happen.
So Nikon and Canon will keep selling the best of gear to the pros, and consumers will see them using that gear, and that gear only, on TV, and those consumers will go out and buy the consumer versions of that pro equipment and believe it will make them as good of a photographer as all those pros they see shooting major sporting events on TV.
And the argument over which is better will thrive so long as there is more than one manufacturer out there.

Festina Lente Loc: Florida & Missouri

I agree with your response MT. But I have to give pause to acknowledge Ricoh's Pentax products of late.

The new Pentax Ricoh Imaging Company may be a small player, but I think it will remain a significant one.

I used to shoot Pentax film SLRs and 6x7 (Pentax 67) for years. Asahi Optical was the company and they made the first Japanese SLR - the venerable Ashiflex, soon followed by the rock-solid Spotmatic series (K, M, A, LX, P and SF).

Then I dated Sony Mavicas and Nikon DSLRs until I married Canon. But I still keep my old friends in the closet.

But Pentax DSLRs are impressive, well built, feature-laden and, well, shy of some better marketing and finding a differentiation from the big boys, I think they would give the Nikon/Canon monopoly a run.

Sony continues to innovate in different areas outside the box and has a strong consumer /proconsumer following, but not very strong in the professional arena.

Only Hasselblad has retained the interests of serious professionals and only professionals can even begin to justify their price tags.

I still have my old Pentax film cameras, and fondly recall the days when I used to carry as many as four bodies around just so I did not have to load film (I used to roll 44 35mm frames into one roll).

Bram boy Loc: Vancouver Island B.C. Canada

Nikon and cannon are the inovators they have been around for years and years . They are what the others strive for pentax minolta olimpus all try to copy nikon cannon. Sony is good at video cameres tv radio they just got into dslr a few years back where do you think they got there camerea know how from. Would you rather go to the moon in a rocket made five years ago by radeio shack or in one made by the same company that put neil armstrong on the moon. Ps nikon and cannon use the sensors that sony makes because there expertese in video is second to none how else do you think nikon makes cameres that take shch clear and detailed pictures

Bram boy Loc: Vancouver Island B.C. Canada

And nikon cameras is only a small part of there income. The main part of there buseness is selling to labratory's , opservetories looking at stars ' medical equipment . Some of there lenses sell for five million each .

Solomon Loc: Australia

I started long long ago with a Minolta 101. Then changed to Nikomat cos of the faster flash sincro. and have used Nikon ever since. Nikon lenses are all colour corrected. in other words the colour of a object will look the same dont matter what Nikon lens you use.I also use Hasselblads, I have a atachment that will alow me to use my ''Blad ''lens on a Nikon body. I did some test in my early years took 2 photos of the same subject.. A Japanese doll(white faced.so Id notice any colour cast. When I looked at the slides..I could not see much diffrence except the contrast was higher in the ''Blad'' shot..European lenses are usualy a bit more contrasty for what reason ? however when you have a print (greater than 10x8)from the ''Blad'' then you see the diffrence.Im now using a nikonD800 its 36mp is so close to the ''Blad''quality...Blads start at 20mp.I havent used Cannon so I do not comment on something I dont have any experance with. So enjoy what you have ...learn to wring every ounce of quality out of every shot. dont wory on what your using.....be concerned what your producing...and enjoy your''artistic side''.
Solomon

wteffey Loc: Ocala, FL USA

I believe that Nikon and Canon pick up a lot of customers because their camera's are "safe" to buy. In other words, you basically cannot buy a bad Canon or Nikon. If fact, if someone wants my quick opinion on what camera to buy, and we don't have a lot of time to fully explore their needs, I recommend they stick to Canon or Nikon, even though I shoot with Pentax. I feel that confident that they will be satisfied.

Leicaflex Loc: Cymru

I know you only stated DSLRs, but I use Leica, Rolleiflex and Bronica Etrs and mainly shoot film.
For DSLRs I use Pentax occasionally

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

Leica has a good reputation above Nikon and Canon, but it's just to dam expensive.

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

Pentax has proven itself to me to make an unreliable product and an unwillingness to be held accountable for providing a remedy for a problem they know about. I agree some of the earlier film cameras were outstanding. I still on occasion use my old K1000 which has proven reliability for many years now. They seem to have missed the mark when the went digital. Some of their lenses are outstanding, but so are many other manufacturers. Overall, I think Nikon and Canon remain the standard for reliability.

bobmcculloch Loc: NYC, NY

An aside to this topic, recently I've been noticing the cameras being carried around me, heavily slanted toward Canon, even more so among users that appeared to be of Asian heritage, just something I noticed, NYC NJ area, Bob.

oldmalky Loc: West Midlands,England.

When I started I had no idea of nikon, canon,or in fact anybody, so when i went to buy my first dslr I had an open mind to everything,and as there was a sale on as well, i had a choice and i chose Sony and am glad I did,the innovations that Sony will introduce, they have already made their intentions clear with the hook up with hasselblad and it will be just a matter of time before they will be the leaders.
Back to the original question why do people pick canon or nikon because that is all the shop carries.

The Saint KK4GO Loc: Florida

I think there many good brands of cameras out there, but Canon and Nikon are by far the most popular.