papakatz45 Loc: South Florida-West Palm Beach

Then simply do not respond!

LensWork

There is no doubt that Canon EOS cameras outperformed Nikon autofocus cameras for many years. This can largely be attributed to Canon designing a new mount (EF) specifically for autofocus, while Nikon chose to keep the “F” mount (circa 1959), and adapt it to the new technology. In the beginning (1987) Canon owners screamed loudly that they were being abandoned by Canon and that the thousands of dollars they had invested in FD glass was now obsolete. Nikon owners still to this day can still mount virtually any “F” mount lens to most digital bodies (with a few exceptions). The choice by Canon to develop a new mount is seen today as a wise decision as it provided the basis for superior AF performance for many years over their Nikon rivals. Hoardes of Nikon professionals jumped ship to Canon, including many well-known, Pulitzer Prize winners. The decision by the powers that be at Nikon to remain loyal to their owners, and their substantial investment in Nikkor glass, while admirable, certainly cost Nikon a large percentage of their customer base. It is only in the last decade or so that Nikon autofocus performance has caught-up with Canon, which is truly remarkable that they have been able to do so with a lens mount that is now nearly sixty years old.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Which goes further? A bag in a hag or a charge in the towncar?

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

Well since I don't own either, I can't answer from any position of credibility, but the horse wouldn't do well on a gallon of gas or being plugged into a battery charger, and a bushel of oats wouldn't do too much for any kind of mechanical vehicle without some intermediate processing!

Leitz Loc: Solms

We can keep abreast of new technology without whining about our favourite not getting the recognition we think it deserves, which is all this thread is about.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The choir is all shaking their heads vigorously in agreement ....

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

Golly Gee, Now I feel informed!

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

I have no idea what that meant. Please clarify. Thank you.

Cheese

Unfortunately, innovation does not necessarily translate into commercial success, otherwise Polaroid would be at the top of the heap today.

whitewolfowner

You're the one that wrote it, not me. Maybe, you should clarify.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

I’m sorry; I wasn’t thinking about the list. You’re right, my count may be off by a few “and over” (how in the H**l do you pluralize this?). I didn’t want to put in so many that Admin would delete the post. On the other hand, considering the history of this forum and the constant repetition of some subjects by people who can’t or won’t use the search feature, maybe I was a few hundred short.

whitewolfowner

I wouldn't worry about the Admin penalizing you for too many "and over". The only things the admin intervenes on is remarks that counter his agenda.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Polaroid pictures were fast - but limited quality, limited flexibility {making 8x10 or a slide not straight-forward}, and limited lifetime.

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

Cameras inside a telephone. Red camera bodies. WiFi. Thermal imaging that can look through clothing.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Incremental or taking something like a sensor and putting it in a difficult shaped body. Interesting but is it that innovative?
The Pentax penta prism was innovative and the Nikon F with the photomic head and TTL metering etc was incredible for innovation.