Camera brands

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Guest, Apr 6, 2007.

  1. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Since the advent of digital photography, I've noticed that the number of
    brands suitable for consideration has shrunk considerably. Indeed, it
    sometimes seems as though there are only 2 brands worth considering for
    serious photography: Nikon and Canon. If I read a technical article, the
    examples given almost always use one of these 2 cameras.

    Is it true that other brands, such as Olympus, Pentax, etc. are slowly
    disappearing from the upscale market?

    Norm Strong
    Guest, Apr 6, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Guest

    Le Patriote Guest

    <> a écrit dans le message de
    news:...
    > Since the advent of digital photography, I've noticed that the number of
    > brands suitable for consideration has shrunk considerably. Indeed, it
    > sometimes seems as though there are only 2 brands worth considering for
    > serious photography: Nikon and Canon. If I read a technical article,

    the
    > examples given almost always use one of these 2 cameras.
    >
    > Is it true that other brands, such as Olympus, Pentax, etc. are slowly
    > disappearing from the upscale market?


    Pentax is coming back with the K10D and the K100D but Olympus should
    disapear very soon. The 4/3 system was a major mistake.
    Le Patriote, Apr 6, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Guest

    ray Guest

    On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 10:20:24 -0700, normanstrong wrote:

    > Since the advent of digital photography, I've noticed that the number of
    > brands suitable for consideration has shrunk considerably. Indeed, it
    > sometimes seems as though there are only 2 brands worth considering for
    > serious photography: Nikon and Canon. If I read a technical article, the
    > examples given almost always use one of these 2 cameras.
    >
    > Is it true that other brands, such as Olympus, Pentax, etc. are slowly
    > disappearing from the upscale market?
    >
    > Norm Strong


    There does seem to be a bit of a 'wash out', but things are really not
    that draconian. Sony has introduced a new DSLR - Alpha, based on a Minolta
    design (Sony bought the Minolta camera business). Meanwhile, Kodak seems
    to be doing well on the P&S end with their 'easy share' systems - IMHO
    their 'upscale' P&Ss - the P series are very nice cameras with a LOT of
    ability. There are others, too - fuji for example.
    ray, Apr 6, 2007
    #3
  4. Guest

    Doug Guest

    "ray" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 10:20:24 -0700, normanstrong wrote:
    >
    > > Since the advent of digital photography, I've noticed that the number of
    > > brands suitable for consideration has shrunk considerably. Indeed, it
    > > sometimes seems as though there are only 2 brands worth considering for
    > > serious photography: Nikon and Canon. If I read a technical article,

    the
    > > examples given almost always use one of these 2 cameras.
    > >

    >. There are others, too - fuji for example.
    >


    However I cannot find any high end Fuji within 100miles!, though even Costco
    has them mail order only.
    Doug.
    Doug, Apr 6, 2007
    #4
  5. Guest

    ray Guest

    On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 19:31:52 +0000, Doug wrote:

    >
    > "ray" <> wrote in message
    > news:p...
    >> On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 10:20:24 -0700, normanstrong wrote:
    >>
    >> > Since the advent of digital photography, I've noticed that the number of
    >> > brands suitable for consideration has shrunk considerably. Indeed, it
    >> > sometimes seems as though there are only 2 brands worth considering for
    >> > serious photography: Nikon and Canon. If I read a technical article,

    > the
    >> > examples given almost always use one of these 2 cameras.
    >> >

    >>. There are others, too - fuji for example.
    >>

    >
    > However I cannot find any high end Fuji within 100miles!, though even Costco
    > has them mail order only.
    > Doug.


    It is helpful to be able to look them over first. None within 100 miles -
    where do you live?
    ray, Apr 6, 2007
    #5
  6. Guest

    Adam Helberg Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Since the advent of digital photography, I've noticed that the number of brands
    > suitable for consideration has shrunk considerably. Indeed, it sometimes seems as
    > though there are only 2 brands worth considering for serious photography: Nikon
    > and Canon. If I read a technical article, the examples given almost always use
    > one of these 2 cameras.
    >
    > Is it true that other brands, such as Olympus, Pentax, etc. are slowly disappearing
    > from the upscale market?
    >
    > Norm Strong


    I've noticed the opposite trend, unless you're only thinking of high end cameras.
    Since the advent of the digital camera non photo companies such as Sony, Panasonic
    and Casio have entered the market. Also I don't think Fuji had any serious cameras
    until digital.

    Adam
    Adam Helberg, Apr 7, 2007
    #6
  7. Guest

    Tom Guest

    Canon and Nikon are the only digital SLR manufacturers most serious
    photographers would consider, and Canon is better although Nikon is
    catching up.
    Tom, Apr 7, 2007
    #7
  8. Adam Helberg schrieb:
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Since the advent of digital photography, I've noticed that the number of brands
    >> suitable for consideration has shrunk considerably. Indeed, it sometimes seems as
    >> though there are only 2 brands worth considering for serious photography: Nikon
    >> and Canon. If I read a technical article, the examples given almost always use
    >> one of these 2 cameras.
    >>
    >> Is it true that other brands, such as Olympus, Pentax, etc. are slowly disappearing
    >> from the upscale market?
    >>
    >> Norm Strong

    >
    > I've noticed the opposite trend, unless you're only thinking of high end cameras.
    > Since the advent of the digital camera non photo companies such as Sony, Panasonic
    > and Casio have entered the market. Also I don't think Fuji had any serious cameras
    > until digital.
    >
    > Adam
    >
    >


    Well I remember in the good old days (80?s) I had to decide between a
    canon, minolta and fuji SLR... don?t remember what made me discard the
    fuji, though...
    Gregor Kobelkoff, Apr 7, 2007
    #8
  9. Guest

    John Bean Guest

    On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 21:15:22 -0700, "Adam Helberg"
    <> wrote:

    >
    ><> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> Since the advent of digital photography, I've noticed that the number of brands
    >> suitable for consideration has shrunk considerably. Indeed, it sometimes seems as
    >> though there are only 2 brands worth considering for serious photography: Nikon
    >> and Canon. If I read a technical article, the examples given almost always use
    >> one of these 2 cameras.
    >>
    >> Is it true that other brands, such as Olympus, Pentax, etc. are slowly disappearing
    >> from the upscale market?
    >>
    >> Norm Strong

    >
    >I've noticed the opposite trend, unless you're only thinking of high end cameras.
    >Since the advent of the digital camera non photo companies such as Sony, Panasonic
    >and Casio have entered the market. Also I don't think Fuji had any serious cameras
    >until digital.


    You're very wrong about Fuji, they had some very, very
    serious cameras but not many were 35mm SLRs.

    There's the "Texas Leica" - the Fuji G690 rangefinder, the
    MF SLRs like the GX680, or the panoramic GX617... the list
    goes on - including the Hasselblad Xpan which they made and
    sold under the Fuji name in some countries.

    But like many high-end professional camera manufacturers
    they're largely unknown to the masses.

    --
    John Bean
    John Bean, Apr 7, 2007
    #9
  10. "John Bean" <> wrote:
    > "Adam Helberg" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>I've noticed the opposite trend, unless you're only thinking of high end
    >>cameras.
    >>Since the advent of the digital camera non photo companies such as Sony,
    >>Panasonic
    >>and Casio have entered the market. Also I don't think Fuji had any serious
    >>cameras
    >>until digital.

    >
    > You're very wrong about Fuji, they had some very, very
    > serious cameras but not many were 35mm SLRs.
    >
    > There's the "Texas Leica" - the Fuji G690 rangefinder, the
    > MF SLRs like the GX680, or the panoramic GX617... the list
    > goes on - including the Hasselblad Xpan which they made and
    > sold under the Fuji name in some countries.


    You left out their great 645 cameras: the GS645, series with three
    razor-sharp, lenses (45mm, 65mm, and 75mm in one of the best folding cameras
    ever made) and the GA645 automagic cameras. And the Fujiblad: GX645AF in
    Japan and the leading MF digital SLR under the Hasselblad name elsewhere.
    (Poor Zeiss had to redesign the V-series Hasselbad 40/4.0 since it looked so
    soft compared to the Fujblad's 35/3.5.)

    To say nothing of their superb large-format lenses.

    > But like many high-end professional camera manufacturers
    > they're largely unknown to the masses.


    Yep. Sic transit gloria.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Apr 7, 2007
    #10
  11. Guest

    John Bean Guest

    On Sat, 7 Apr 2007 19:11:58 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
    <> wrote:
    >You left out...


    Yup, that's why I said "... the list goes on, as you just
    demonstrated.

    >To say nothing of their superb large-format lenses.


    That's because I was teplying to Adam's "I don't think Fuji
    had any serious cameras" comment . Fuji lenses - superb as
    they indeed are - are not cameras ;-)


    --
    John Bean
    John Bean, Apr 7, 2007
    #11
  12. Guest

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 13:30:51 -0400, "Le Patriote" <> wrote:
    :
    : <> a écrit dans le message de
    : news:...
    : > Since the advent of digital photography, I've noticed that the number of
    : > brands suitable for consideration has shrunk considerably. Indeed, it
    : > sometimes seems as though there are only 2 brands worth considering for
    : > serious photography: Nikon and Canon. If I read a technical article,
    : > the examples given almost always use one of these 2 cameras.
    : >
    : > Is it true that other brands, such as Olympus, Pentax, etc. are slowly
    : > disappearing from the upscale market?
    :
    : Pentax is coming back with the K10D and the K100D but Olympus should
    : disapear very soon. The 4/3 system was a major mistake.

    Kind of sad, if true. I remember when Olympus burst on the film-camera scene
    back in the 1960s with a highly regarded SLR that was only about two thirds
    the size of comparable offerings from Nikon, Canon, Asahi Pentax, et al. But
    the innovators of the past are often the crowd followers of the future. Look
    at what happened to Polaroid (if you're old enough to remember them).

    BTW, IIRC it was Asahi Pentax who introduced the instant-return mirror. Before
    that, you couldn't see through the lens of an SLR until you cocked the
    shutter.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Apr 7, 2007
    #12
  13. Guest

    Shawn Hirn Guest

    In article <>,
    <> wrote:

    > Since the advent of digital photography, I've noticed that the number of
    > brands suitable for consideration has shrunk considerably. Indeed, it
    > sometimes seems as though there are only 2 brands worth considering for
    > serious photography: Nikon and Canon. If I read a technical article, the
    > examples given almost always use one of these 2 cameras.
    >
    > Is it true that other brands, such as Olympus, Pentax, etc. are slowly
    > disappearing from the upscale market?


    No. Just look at their web sites to see their offerings.
    Shawn Hirn, Apr 8, 2007
    #13
  14. On Apr 6, 11:15 pm, "Adam Helberg" <> wrote:
    > <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    > > Since the advent of digital photography, I've noticed that the number of brands
    > > suitable for consideration has shrunk considerably. Indeed, it sometimes seems as
    > > though there are only 2 brands worth considering for serious photography: Nikon
    > > and Canon. If I read a technical article, the examples given almost always use
    > > one of these 2 cameras.

    >
    > > Is it true that other brands, such as Olympus, Pentax, etc. are slowly disappearing
    > > from the upscale market?

    >
    > > Norm Strong

    >
    > I've noticed the opposite trend, unless you're only thinking of high end cameras.
    > Since the advent of the digital camera non photo companies such as Sony, Panasonic
    > and Casio have entered the market. Also I don't think Fuji had any serious cameras
    > until digital.
    >
    > Adam



    I agree with Adam. Oly left the SLR market even for film cameras to
    concentrate on P&S film cameras. Other old brands have fallen by the
    wayside. But with the advent of digital, the electronics mfgs have
    entered the ring, and you have cameras by folks who never built film
    cameras, such as HP, Sony, Panasonic, etc. Personally I am still
    reluctant to go with the electronics guys, but I have friends who have
    their cameras and they seem quite satisified.
    Don Stauffer in Minnesota, Apr 8, 2007
    #14
  15. Guest

    Bill Funk Guest

    On 8 Apr 2007 09:55:29 -0700, "Don Stauffer in Minnesota"
    <> wrote:

    >I agree with Adam. Oly left the SLR market even for film cameras to
    >concentrate on P&S film cameras. Other old brands have fallen by the
    >wayside. But with the advent of digital, the electronics mfgs have
    >entered the ring, and you have cameras by folks who never built film
    >cameras, such as HP, Sony, Panasonic, etc. Personally I am still
    >reluctant to go with the electronics guys, but I have friends who have
    >their cameras and they seem quite satisified.


    I also agree.
    The need to build upon generations of experience simply isn't
    necessary any more. The biggest hurdle is the initial cost of buying
    into the ability to actually build the hardware; the physical plant,
    if you will.
    The technology is relatively easy; the sensors can be bought from
    stock, the rest of the bits can be designed and made relatively easily
    around already-designed chips, given the tooling (the initial buy-in
    part). A few custom chips (to get around patents), and Bob's your
    uncle.
    The really hard part is the financing for the initial buy-in.

    --
    THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!
    The White House gave John Kerry's
    campaign nemesis Sam Fox, who funded
    the Swift Boat Veterans, a recess
    appointment to Belgium on Wednesday.
    Nothing ever changes. John Kerry
    insisted he was for the appointment
    before he was against the appointment.
    Bill Funk, Apr 9, 2007
    #15
  16. Guest

    John Turco Guest

    Bill Funk wrote:
    >
    > On 8 Apr 2007 09:55:29 -0700, "Don Stauffer in Minnesota"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >I agree with Adam. Oly left the SLR market even for film cameras to
    > >concentrate on P&S film cameras. Other old brands have fallen by the
    > >wayside. But with the advent of digital, the electronics mfgs have
    > >entered the ring, and you have cameras by folks who never built film
    > >cameras, such as HP, Sony, Panasonic, etc. Personally I am still
    > >reluctant to go with the electronics guys, but I have friends who have
    > >their cameras and they seem quite satisified.

    >
    > I also agree.
    > The need to build upon generations of experience simply isn't
    > necessary any more. The biggest hurdle is the initial cost of buying
    > into the ability to actually build the hardware; the physical plant,
    > if you will.
    > The technology is relatively easy; the sensors can be bought from
    > stock, the rest of the bits can be designed and made relatively easily
    > around already-designed chips, given the tooling (the initial buy-in
    > part). A few custom chips (to get around patents), and Bob's your
    > uncle.
    > The really hard part is the financing for the initial buy-in.



    Hello, Bill:

    Who needs to construct a new "physical plant," anymore? Contract one
    of the OEM camera manufacturers (e.g., Sanyo), to spit out millions of
    products; and then, just slap your brand label, on each of them.

    That's what HP and countless other digicam "makers" do, today...no?


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
    John Turco, Apr 14, 2007
    #16
  17. Guest

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 01:36:28 -0500, John Turco <>
    wrote:

    >Bill Funk wrote:
    >>
    >> On 8 Apr 2007 09:55:29 -0700, "Don Stauffer in Minnesota"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >> >I agree with Adam. Oly left the SLR market even for film cameras to
    >> >concentrate on P&S film cameras. Other old brands have fallen by the
    >> >wayside. But with the advent of digital, the electronics mfgs have
    >> >entered the ring, and you have cameras by folks who never built film
    >> >cameras, such as HP, Sony, Panasonic, etc. Personally I am still
    >> >reluctant to go with the electronics guys, but I have friends who have
    >> >their cameras and they seem quite satisified.

    >>
    >> I also agree.
    >> The need to build upon generations of experience simply isn't
    >> necessary any more. The biggest hurdle is the initial cost of buying
    >> into the ability to actually build the hardware; the physical plant,
    >> if you will.
    >> The technology is relatively easy; the sensors can be bought from
    >> stock, the rest of the bits can be designed and made relatively easily
    >> around already-designed chips, given the tooling (the initial buy-in
    >> part). A few custom chips (to get around patents), and Bob's your
    >> uncle.
    >> The really hard part is the financing for the initial buy-in.

    >
    >
    >Hello, Bill:
    >
    >Who needs to construct a new "physical plant," anymore? Contract one
    >of the OEM camera manufacturers (e.g., Sanyo), to spit out millions of
    >products; and then, just slap your brand label, on each of them.
    >
    >That's what HP and countless other digicam "makers" do, today...no?
    >
    >
    >Cordially,
    > John Turco <>


    I don't think that's done for DSLRs, but I could be wrong.

    --
    THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!

    The White House admitted on Wednesday that
    e-mails about official business in Karl Rove's
    office were erased. The deleted e-mails were
    sent on Republican Party accounts instead of
    White House accounts to avoid a law that
    requires preservation of government records.
    It doesn't clog up the landfills like Hillary's
    shredder did for eight years.
    Bill Funk, Apr 14, 2007
    #17
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Jimmy Dean
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    438
    Jimmy Dean
    Feb 22, 2005
  2. Shawn

    Different Memory Brands

    Shawn, Dec 19, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    4,560
  3. David Kilpatrick

    PCs, Macs and camera brands....

    David Kilpatrick, May 28, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    51
    Views:
    1,110
    George Kerby
    Jun 1, 2004
  4. Shelly
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    1,354
  5. The best digital camera brands?

    , Dec 5, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    52
    Views:
    1,143
    Ron Hunter
    Mar 5, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page