Why photographers prefer Canon and Nikon system mostly instead of Sony?

<p>"I have to say, I love my Fuji X-E1, but I wouldn't take it to the Olympics"</p>

<p>Indeed, my Fuji takes really great skin tones. Love it.</p>

<p>When it really matters...try working when its about feeding your family not feeding a fantasy.<br>

.</p>

<p>"Have you done Pro work? Or, is it about web warrior stuff".</p>

<p>That was uncalled for, you do some great photos, and some very interesting posts.</p>

<p>Humble pie. Apologise.</p>

<p>It makes sense that many pros use Canon and Nikon for many of the reasons given. But most people are not pros. Sony, who's always been in the business of making products smaller, yet effective, continues that philosophy with products like the A7. I recently bought their RX100M4 a 1" P&S with 4K and slow-motion movies as well as pretty nice 19mb stills, a camera perfect for throwing in your pocket or wearing on your belt for vacations and things like that. And then showing slides and movies on my HD TV. I need light, and I've long given up on carrying a heavy camera bag except when I'm shooting locally and then I shoot Mamiya medium format film camera. </p>

<p>Also, companies like Sony, have pushed the industry by thinking out of the box. This has cause the development of alternative methods that are now being accepted by Nikon and Canon. Heck, even digital upset Nikon and Canon's traditional film lines as they had to adapt to new concepts. Look what it's done to Kodak.</p>

<p>For us photographers, what works for some doesn;t work for others, or just isn't needed. Isn't it nice we have such a tremendous choice?</p>

<p>Allen, I very much doubt that every pro has the same consideration for what they want out of a camera. Like I said earlier, if the US military decides they want toughness over autofocus speed, who are you to tell them otherwise? The consideration of one is not the consideration of all.<br /> There are some who prefer sharpness and color rendition over speed, and a large format camera will blow ANY digital camera out of the water in those department- Just talk to the folks in the large format thread. If Ansel Adams could feed his family with his large format landscapes I have no doubt others could, too<br>

Not to be rude just a consideration :)</p>

<p>Here is what I know about brands from nearly 50 years of owning "35mm" cameras and their digital progeny. This is simply based on my own experience--and direct observations of the experience of others. As is said, YMMV...</p>

<p>For most of that time, I hewed closely to Canon. Mixed in with that for fun and variety was Yashica, Minolta, Miranda, and Pentax. In every case, my Canon gear outlasted by decades ANY of the aforementioned brands. The opportunities to build kit off the used market were always tremendous for Canon OEM lenses, and their third party compatible clones. Repair was always available--but with the exception of seals and batteries--I never needed it. Wish I could say the same about the others. The experiences of my friends who swore by their Konica, Olympus, and other hobby cameras mirrored my observations.</p>

<p>Just jumped ship a couple years ago to Nikon for several reasons--none germane to this discussion. I find the same thing happening there as I did with my Canon fixation. Meanwhile, several Sony and Olympus PS cameras (more P.O.S. as was my experience) bought in the last few years as convenient walkabouts have failed somehow and made their way to the trash. Minolta digital was a complete joke before they ultimately failed and folded.</p>

<p>I refuse to get caught up in arcane discussions about the minutae of sensors--just like a lot of things on the innernutz about lens characteristics are rose bush fertilizer. The proof is in the pudding---errr---image. What most have said about 'pro' use is right. It extends to the 'prosumer' and advanced amateur markets as well. Lots of great priced accessories, reliability and repair availability, and solid return on investment. Oh, and not the least. The ability to sell it all quickly for a fair price when the "upgrade" bug strikes</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The main difference between Canon / Nikon and "lesser" professional brands is marketing. It's mostly in the head.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I'm struggling with understanding how supporting a large infrastructure and having fast turnaround for pros is "marketing."</p>

<p>Great stuff!</p>

<p>I knew that my original post would stir up a hornet's nest of responses, but what is most telling is that whether Canon, or Nikon, or something else, all of the cameras and lenses are better cameras and lenses than the posters replying are photographers. </p>

<p>Great photographers dwell little on cameras. Great chefs don't dwell on which pans they use.</p>

<p>Those relying on "brands" miss the whole point of photography. </p>

<p>Everyone has different tastes. And that's a good thing. People also rationalise, which is not always good.</p>

<p>But the real question is, "Do you have anything by Robert Ludlum?"</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Being around longer" is irrelevant.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't see it that way. I don't shoot the Olympics or any sports for that matter but when you have been around as long as Canon and Nikon you've had time to develop deep, robust systems which make the selection of their gear smart business decisions. They've had time to establish deep lens and accessory catalogs. To establish pervasive, well-trained and responsive service organizations. They have had product develop time that spans decades so the product is not just highly functional, rugged and reliable but ergonomically excellent. They've had time to optimize gear specific to discrete sections of photography such as close-up, sports, portrait or photomicrography. To a person relying on photography for your living, these are simply better tools.<br>

</p>

<p>Personally, I enjoy the Sony mirrorless cameras. I love the Sony image quality for my personal work. But for professional work, we use Canon gear. And as long as we (seven staff photographers, five support staff) have tight deadlines to meet, distant and often difficult locations to capture, need specialized close-up, portrait, super-wide or shift optics, and have the continuous performance pressure to deliver quality imaging products on-demand and on-time, using a long establish brand like Canon makes sense. So, yes, I think being around longer plays a big part of <em>my</em> choice.<br /><br>

<br /></p>

infrastructure and large, fast CSR team with deep knowledge and numerous rental locales do take a long time to develop.

Louis +1

<blockquote>

<p>Everyone has different tastes. </p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

That has nothing to do with why many pros choose their cameras. If you haven't done it, you don't know how important fast service turnaround and availability of compatible equipment is.<br>

<br />Sounds like you haven't done it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Great photographers dwell little on cameras. Great chefs don't dwell on which pans they use.<br>

Those relying on "brands" miss the whole point of photography.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, that must be why a significant number of them used Leica, Graflex, Calumet, Hasselblad, Mamiya, Linhof, Sinar, Rollei, plus many others and the famous optics that have gone with them... Granted, I can get some fantastic shots with my old Argus C3. But if I am being paid for a day out in the field in which some of my work is going to end up somewhere important--the Argus will be on a shelf at home.</p>

<p>Look at the tools of any professional in a trade, such as a mechanic. Mac, Snap-On, S-K. There is a reason for that--much the same in many ways as with cameras. The 'chef' analogy does not hold much water either. Every executive chef I have worked with or known has been a real d*ck about not only what particular variety of pan it was--but its manufacture as well. Like the Argus, I can make a crepe in a $4 K-Mart pan--but you sure as heck will never find such in a production kitchen... :-)</p>

<p>Canon and Nikon also offer equipment (e.g. specialist lenses etc.) to use to the accredited shooters at major sports events, so the photographers don't necessarily have to bring all of it along (or own it), which would get very expensive and heavy as well (e.g. think about carrying a 400/2.8, 800/5.6 along with everything else). Also they help with difficult technical setups that may be needed, remote cameras etc.</p>

<p>While there is room for <em>one</em> David Burnett (it's good that there are some people working to get different results), there are reasons why the majority of shooters at the Olympics use what they use; tilted pseudo-miniature shots would not do as the sole coverage of the games. Canon makes excellent long lenses and they have been leaders in autofocus technology since the beginning of the AF era. Nikon also have the needed equipment and technology. However, this doesn't mean you have to use Canon (or Nikon) for your photography. It depends on what you want to do and what you're comfortable with. Personally I do not like electronic viewfinders and I would not choose a brand which only offers those. However, I know others who happily use them.</p>

<p>There is no reason to be concerned about what other people use. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>fast service turnaround and availability of compatible equipment</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It’s not a concern for me, personally. If I’m shooting, say, a dress rehearsal for a stage play, fast turnaround of service is irrelevant if one of my cameras breaks down. Even five minutes is too long. If I do another wedding I’ll rent two or maybe three bodies. Service in that case will not be my responsibility.<br>

I shoot with a mirrorless system and I have adapters for six lens mounts. So compatibility is not a problem for me (although I would like a few more). I use manual lenses which tend to be cheap and bulletproof. If I decide to use an AF lens I’ll have a backup for important jobs. As always, YMMV.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Every executive chef I have worked with or known has been a real d*ck about not only what particular variety of pan it was--but its manufacture as well.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That’s a very good point. We think that we are the only professionals who care about what equipment we use. Some people should speak to people on a film crew - 1st ACs have their favourite follow-focus systems, and that’s not a trivial thing. Follow-focuses are very important to getting the shot. So if the focus puller likes a particular FF, you do your best to make sure that they get it.</p>

<p>BTW I usually carry spare CF and SD cards so in the rare case that someone is short on memory cards, they can always borrow from me, regardless of the brand of their camera.</p>

<p>As stated or implied, you see Canon and Nikon cameras at the Olympics or any professional sports venue because they are the best tools for the job. You don't need high resolution for a 4 column spread on the sports page (at 80 dpi), but you do need rugged hardware, high speed and long lenses.</p>

<p>I suspect that Cartier-Bresson chose a Leica because that was the best tool for his work, or Ansel Adams an 8"x 10" view camera (or often an Hasselblad). I wouldn't use either of the latter for anything that moves. I've actually used a Leica for sports, because 50 years ago there weren't many choices. There is nothing inherently wrong with mirrorless camera focusing and speed that a shift in emphasis and design can't overcome. The Leica SL601 is just the first step in that direction.</p>

<p>Canon and Nikon have exceptional service in the U.S. However that is driven largely by the importer, not the factory. If you are using an U.S. import in Thailand or Singapore, do you really expect the same level of service? Would it matter WHERE you bought it? As another has said, if I have a breakdown at an event, I need it NOW, not five days hence. That's why I carry a backup which uses the same lenses and accessories. I also carry twice as many memory cards and batteries than I think I'll ever need. I've smoked flash units to, so two of them go along too. It is nice, however, to get a camera or lens back in a week from a local Nikon service agency.</p>

<p>I think the OP is missing the point. Why<em> should Sony</em> be preferred by professional sports photographers?<br>

Only in the past 2 or 3 years have they got serious about photography and professional sports is not their focus.<br>

For everyday photographers and/or portrait/landscapers they are great. There is no doubt that they make wonderful cameras for these applications which people can make money using. For sports they are not even on the RADAR. <br>

There is no point pretending otherwise.</p>

 

<p>Major sports events and political photo ops are probably where most people see a lot of photographers at once, generally shooting with Nikon or Canon cameras. Despite the visibility, these venues are not where most cameras are used.</p>

<p>Compared to a few hundred major sports events, there are 2.3 million weddings per year, and many have at least one professional photographer in attendance, plus innumerable party snappers. Weddings are a $72 billion industry in the U.S. alone. While most wedding photographers will continue to use their current equipment until it is no longer competetive, mirrorless ILC cameras are arguably ideal for this application - 30% smaller/lighter, high resolution and image quality, and quiet or silent operation. You can get medium format quality in a 35 mm package. If the turnover hasn't made a major impact on the DSLR industry, just wait.</p>

<p>http://www.soundvision.com/article/wedding-statistics-in-the-united-states</p>

<p>Statistics on landscape and travel photography are elusive, but among those professionals who write about it, including Luminous Landscape, the shift is overwhelmingly toward high-end mirrorless cameras. Why settle for 16-20 MP when you can get up to 42 MP and leave your tripod in the car? A lot more people travel than get married each year, and some take it very seriously.</p>

<p>Personally, I find that a mirrorless ILC meets my needs for social events and an occasional wedding, but just as important it is ideal for travel, family and friends. I haven't sold my DSLRs, but they're in the capable hands of my adult son, who shoots performance and sporting events professionally, and puppies for fun.</p>

<p>These long discussions really amaze me. They are mostly similar to the last one within an endless series.</p>

<p>Pro photographers are but a very very small part of the Nikon, Canon users. Most other photographers use these two because they are better known to them than Sony. It is hard not to not see them at sporting events on TV or in the flesh, where they are in their realm, and that alone (unfortunately) influences a lot of photographers, as well as the fact that they are mature, well rounded systems.</p>

<p>Serious photographers will buy a camera for its system capabilities, various picture making qualities and durabiity and couldn't care less about the nameplate.</p>

<p>A high end Sony system and quality optics are what I presently need and apply as a part time professional photographer (part time only because I have another revenue source as well), but I could likely get similar quality elsewhere for what I shoot. I have changed systems at least three times in as many decades, which is not a problem in my case, given my relatively modest needs of lenses and accessories. </p>

<p>In my own opinion I think the main reason is vogue! It's all about propaganda and marketing. They have been trending in the market for many years. These cameras are heavy, plastic, noisy, overrated, big ... and still trending. Like Charleston pants in the 70's. They were worn by almost everyone. Why? Because they worn by everyone. :)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The fastest turnaround in case of an equipment failure is still having enough backup equipment or options</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />That depends on what breaks. In my case, while shooting on the studio lot, my 70-200/2.8 died. I took it into the on-site Canon facility, rented one for a couple days, and had my own back. We had plenty of bodies, Canon DSLRs were used for a lot of the video work, but there were only cine lenses. And this doesn't address the rental issue. Why would I buy a $400 teleconverter to use three times a year when I can rent it for $12 for the night? Twice, I only knew hours before an event that it was necessary and it was no big deal to run out and pick it up.</p>

<p>Rental agencies are not limited to Canon and Nikon equipment. LensRentals seems to have a good inventory of Leica and Sony equipment, among other items. If you are fortunate enough (?) to live in Chicago or San Francisco, you have a choice of rental agencies, and others are just a key-click away.</p>

<p>In other countries and regions, you take your chances. While I was not able to travel freely, I managed to find one camera shop in Beijing which sold Nikon equipment - for three prices. China, it would seem, is not much into importing things like that.</p>

<p>I don't think I paid that much for a teleconverter. I have two (1.4 and 2.0), and generally no warning when they might be needed. My son uses them at almost every event.</p>

<p>I've been a Canon guy, but always respected Nikon. I worked for Canon in the early '90's, and one thing they took pride in was that (at the time) everything they made, was reprographic. Whether it was cameras, photocopiers, fax machines, digital filing, etc., and all required a high level of reprographic R&D. Nikon is, was, an always has been a photographic and related equipment company. I would feel safe in guesstimating that 99.999% of both company's R&D money is put in to photographic endeavors. </p>

<p>Along with what has already been said by others, one thing about Sony that makes me feel like they aren't geared in any manner towards professionals, is that they're cameras seem to boast gimmicky features. In camera HDR (like a pro is really going to use that), is one that totally turns me off the Sony name. <br /><br />Sony had/has a strong foothold in the consumer market as a well known name for electronics, on both the consumer and professional levels, but Canon and Nikon have always had that reputation in the photographic world. So when Joe Public is going out to Best Buy to get his first 'high-end' camera, he sees the Sony name, the high MP count, and all these incredibly useful (useless) features right there in easy access, he equates it to 'the best out there'. Whereas a pro typically is savvy enough to know that while a high MP count and in-camera editing isn't enough to bring home the bacon, but that other quality features on C/N, such as faster AF, will.</p>

<p>Some other possible reasons is that Sony still is a bit of a proprietary company (hot shoes), amount of lenses available is significantly lower for Sony then either Canon or Nikon, this also applies to available accessories (including from 3rd party manufacturers), and as much as Sony wants to think it does, an electronic VF can not reproduce the entire scene as well, or as instantaneously, as a quality mirror setup.</p>

<p>Phil, I understand what you're saying, but what pro would use the in-camera HDR over one done in true HDR software for paid work? You even say that you would still need to process afterwards, so the feature is (IMO), for the MWAC/GWAC who think its cool, and makes them a better fauxtographer. </p>

<p>No doubt Sony makes good, capable cameras. The issue is that if a photographer pursues a large variety of photographic specialties, a comprehensive system is essential. So far, Sony hasn't got that. Nikon and Canon have, long since. To me, an admitted Nikonista, the fact that every F mount lens from earliest days is seamlessly usable on my modern digitals is valuable. Canon took a different path (I could have easily gone Canon back in the '60's), and made a break from a portion of their old lenses -- probably not important to most. Simply, I don't care to have my photography limited by an emerging system.</p>

<p>Quality, reliability and service.</p>