«

wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 22:27:18 -0400, "Rita Berkowitz"
> <> wrote:
>
>> With Canon's slipping popularity with sports shooters around the world,
>> Canon has stooped to a few underhanded techniques to try to regain market
>> share. Sadly they chose the Olympic Games for this stunt.
>>
>> <http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com/blinders.htm>
>>
>>
>>
>> Rita
>
> Funny thing about blinders.
>
> Somebody ELSE has to put them on the horse to keep the horse from
> seeing things that the driver doesn't want him to see.
>
> Are YOU trying to put blinders on those who think differently than
> you?

I don't understand why he's so upset about Canon dominating the sports
photography market. It's a market that Nikon made a conscious decision
not to enter, based on a couple of factors. First, Canon was their
first, with their BWL Fluorite lenses, and quickly gained a huge
installed base. Second, The Nikon lens mount precluded them making some
of the long focal length, high speed lenses that are possible on the
Canon mount.

To enter the sports market, and be a real competitor, Nikon would have
had to spend a fortune on R&D, come up with new bodies with a more
modern lens mount, develop fluorite lenses (which are almost certainly
patented by Canon) and then engage in a price war to try to take market
share away from Canon.

Military strategy dictates choosing battles you can win.

In article <hGXnk.9939$>, SMS
<> wrote:

> I don't understand why he's so upset about Canon dominating the sports
> photography market. It's a market that Nikon made a conscious decision
> not to enter, based on a couple of factors. First, Canon was their
> first, with their BWL Fluorite lenses, and quickly gained a huge
> installed base.

actually nikon had that market before canon did (70s-80s), then canon
took a huge bite out of it in the 80s-90s, taking the lead, and now the
tide is starting to turn back to nikon.

> Second, The Nikon lens mount precluded them making some
> of the long focal length, high speed lenses that are possible on the
> Canon mount.

nonsense. in fact, nikon just came out with stabilized telephotos to
match what canon has, so obviously it's not impossible at all.

> To enter the sports market, and be a real competitor, Nikon would have
> had to spend a fortune on R&D, come up with new bodies with a more
> modern lens mount, develop fluorite lenses (which are almost certainly
> patented by Canon) and then engage in a price war to try to take market
> share away from Canon.

or just introduce a nikon d3 which has turned a number of canon heads,
especially with the canon 1d mark iii autofocus debacle.

nospam wrote:
> In article <hGXnk.9939$>, SMS
> <> wrote:
>
>> I don't understand why he's so upset about Canon dominating the sports
>> photography market. It's a market that Nikon made a conscious decision
>> not to enter, based on a couple of factors. First, Canon was their
>> first, with their BWL Fluorite lenses, and quickly gained a huge
>> installed base.
>
> actually nikon had that market before canon did (70s-80s), then canon
> took a huge bite out of it in the 80s-90s, taking the lead, and now the
> tide is starting to turn back to nikon.

Yes that's true. It was the switch to the EOS mount, and the development
of the Fluorite BWLs that caused the switch. The reason it's not
switching back is that Nikon still lags Canon in the higher-end D-SLR
bodies, even though they've made some recent gains with their full-frame
models. No professional sports photographer is going to switch systems
because they have to look at the big picture (no pun intended). Which
manufacturer has the lenses they need, and which manufacturer has the
best high end bodies. Nikon is still far, far behind Canon in the
equipment needed for professional sports photography.

On Aug 11, 10:04*am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> Military strategy dictates choosing battles you can win.

Unless you are George Bush.

Annika1980 wrote:
> On Aug 11, 10:04 am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> Military strategy dictates choosing battles you can win.
>
> Unless you are George Bush.

No, he went into Iraq knowing full well what would actually happen, as
multiple military experts predicted. What he says in public about Iraq
is very different than what he knows to be true.

In article <54Znk.17959$>, SMS
<> wrote:

> >> I don't understand why he's so upset about Canon dominating the sports
> >> photography market. It's a market that Nikon made a conscious decision
> >> not to enter, based on a couple of factors. First, Canon was their
> >> first, with their BWL Fluorite lenses, and quickly gained a huge
> >> installed base.
> >
> > actually nikon had that market before canon did (70s-80s), then canon
> > took a huge bite out of it in the 80s-90s, taking the lead, and now the
> > tide is starting to turn back to nikon.
>
> Yes that's true. It was the switch to the EOS mount, and the development
> of the Fluorite BWLs that caused the switch.

it was mainly the new mount (which could mount nikon lenses with an
adapter) and agressive marketing (i.e. supplying cameras and lenses for
free to major customers). the canon lenses are great but nikon also
has excellent lenses, they just don't paint them white and pretend
they're magical. however, canon did have stabilized extreme telephotos
before nikon did. in any event, the marketing strategy worked.

> The reason it's not
> switching back is that Nikon still lags Canon in the higher-end D-SLR
> bodies, even though they've made some recent gains with their full-frame
> models. No professional sports photographer is going to switch systems
> because they have to look at the big picture (no pun intended). Which
> manufacturer has the lenses they need, and which manufacturer has the
> best high end bodies. Nikon is still far, far behind Canon in the
> equipment needed for professional sports photography.

nonsense. photographers *are* switching back, partly because of the
nikon d3 and problems with the canon 1d mark iii.