The only people that should care what anyone else buys should be stock holders in that company. They both learned to make optics from the Germans during WWII. The German teachers brought cameras to photograph their travels. They both introduced their first production camera in 1948. Each new model since then has some new feature that the other doesn't have. So, at any given time one might have the edge over the other. For most of us the decision to buy one or the other is economic. We have an inventory of one manufacturers lenses that we can't afford or can't be bothered to replace. There are some idiots in the world that think everyone should own what they own. Maybe to validate their own decision. They probably have an opinion on Fords vs Chevys too.
While Canon and Nikon have been the leaders for a long time there are now many other choices. So if you're looking for a new camera, don't ask here. You'll just get a bunch of BS. Read the reviews. fondle the hardware and make up your mind what's right for you.
Remember I said those Germans, that came to Japan to teach, brought cameras? Look at daddy and his two children by different wives.
Good Morning to you! Hope your day improves.
Everyone here will tell you to get what they use...
It's the best.
(for them...)
Has anyone ever said don't get <brand/model>, it's the worst?
Just more classic UHH .....
You show only one daddy. There were actually two. The daddy you show was daddy only to the Canon. You did not show the Nikon’s daddy. Why is that ?
User ID wrote:
Just more classic UHH .....
You show only one daddy. There were actually two. The daddy you show was daddy only to the Canon. You did not show the Nikon’s daddy. Why is that ?
Maybe nobody knows what it was...
The most creative people are those willing to work with any brand of camera.
Licia make a great camera (I had on for years). The camera is built to an unbelievable quality, but the Canon, Nikon and others have surpassed them in innovation in my mind. I moved from them in film days but kept the camera for years. Today we look at a combination of technology(or innovation) and quality. We also find now the cost effectiveness is related to the volume of sales. If a new camera requires a million dollars to tool up and you sell a million cameras it's a buck each to tool up, if you sell a hundred thousand it ten bucks each. So the balance is the best camera to cover the most peoples needs with the cost of manufacturing. Bells and whistles added to broaden the difference in the peoples needs. That why we get things on the camera we don't need but some one else does.
n4jee wrote:
The only people that should care what anyone else buys should be stock holders in that company. They both learned to make optics from the Germans during WWII. The German teachers brought cameras to photograph their travels. They both introduced their first production camera in 1948. Each new model since then has some new feature that the other doesn't have. So, at any given time one might have the edge over the other. For most of us the decision to buy one or the other is economic. We have an inventory of one manufacturers lenses that we can't afford or can't be bothered to replace. There are some idiots in the world that think everyone should own what they own. Maybe to validate their own decision. They probably have an opinion on Fords vs Chevys too.
While Canon and Nikon have been the leaders for a long time there are now many other choices. So if you're looking for a new camera, don't ask here. You'll just get a bunch of BS. Read the reviews. fondle the hardware and make up your mind what's right for you.
Remember I said those Germans, that came to Japan to teach, brought cameras? Look at daddy and his two children by different wives.
The only people that should care what anyone else ... (
show quote)
Canon made their first camera in 1934 under the brand Kwanon. They changed their name to Canon in 1947. So either way Canon made camera before Nikon. Not the same 1948.
Longshadow wrote:
Maybe nobody knows what it was...
Point is that the person posting a long illustrated history post is supposed to be the one who does know. And, the family resemblance between the parents and their respective offspring is plain as day.
User ID wrote:
Point is that a person posting a long illustrated history post is supposed to be the one who does know. The family resemblance between the parents and offspring is plain as day.
So since he didn't have
complete information, he should not have posted?
I have a lot of unknown (missing) ancestors in my tree, since I don't have it all being complete, I shouldn't share it?
Resemblance? they look like cameras to me.
But then I was never good at seeing family resemblance.
When we can no longer afford to change our camera brand, we are challenged to change ourselves.
Longshadow wrote:
So since he didn't have complete information, he should not have posted?
I have a lot of unknown (missing) ancestors in my tree, since I don't have it all being complete, I shouldn't share it?
Resemblance? they look like cameras to me.
But then I was never good at seeing family resemblance.
Not a question of incomplete info, but rather of wrong info.
As to resemblances, if the illustration and info had been accurate you would have seen the canon looking nearly identical to the Leica and the Nikon looking nearly identical to the contax. Instead we have yet more typical UHH alternative factoids, authoritatively presented.
Having owned 3 of the 4 cameras, I know what’s up. I expect the OP is only relating what he thinks he learned superficially surfing the web.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.