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

<p>I saw a lot of Canon and Nikon cameras from Rio Olympic and I start wondering about photographers who use either Canon and Nikon system. Beside Nikon, Canon has a reputation of worst sensor compare to Nikon and Sony so far but I still see a lot of photographers and people using Canon DSLR. Well, I thought Sony sensors are way more superior than Canon sensor tho. I do have 5d mark 3 which has poor DR range but still useable for all purposes. I would like to know the percentage of Canon, Nikon, and Sony in camera industry and why photographers and people prefer Canon and Nikon system over Sony system.</p>

<p>They've been around longer. I bought a Nikon F in 1965. They also have a much larger lens selection. But Sony is coming along and is forcing the other two to re-think their DSLR and move towards mirrorless. It will take awhile. </p>

<p>Speaking as someone who shoots professionally and works alongside lots of other pros, nobody talks about sensor quality except marketing people and web forum warriors. Nobody's photos get turned down for publication because of the sensor they used. That's part one.<br /> <br />Part two is the infrastructure. I can rent almost any piece of Canon (or Nikon) gear on a few minutes notice and have it in my hands in thirty minutes. I've had to rent a teleconverter twice in the last week and had no problem doing it. The rental shop, the biggest in the area, has some Sony video equipment but that's it for the brand.</p>

<p>Part three is the photographer support. It isn't difficult to find all sorts of horror stories about Sony (and Leica also) service turnaround. I can send a piece of equipment in to Canon and have it back, repaired, in four days. A few years ago, I was working on a Hollywood studio lot and Canon serviced the equipment on the lot.</p>

<p>Virtually all of the discussion of technical minutia you see on the web is just that. It's not discussion from working pros, including the ones working the Olympics.</p>

<p>"Being around longer" is irrelevant. That's not a factor for pros working the Olympics and similar events.</p>

<p>Jeff Spirer/ That explained a lot about my questions. </p>

<p>I am completely down on Sony for reasons I can sum up in one word - service. Specifically, lack of.</p>

<p>I bought a Sony DSLR (I prefer to not identify the model, to keep all this more impartial) for my partner in late 2012. This camera developed shutter and processing problems almost immediately. Service in Melbourne was slow and annoying. At one point, the distributor suggested the camera should go back to Japan to be "done over completely" but noted it would have to be at my cost - this for a six months old camera. The service would take up to six months to have done. No thanks, we decided. As at the time all the problems were relatively minor, and involved basically either resetting the function (shutter) or redoing the process (processing), we opted not to, and just live with the problems.</p>

<p>In 2013, while we were traveling in Indonesia, the camera broke down completely. We were in Surabaya at the time, and on the advice of the city's leading repair center, we took the camera to the Sony distributor in Jakarta gave us various reasons, most of them seeming to be thought up on the spot in the very typical Indonesian way, mostly to do (this was finally admitted by staff) with the fact that parts had to be ordered from Japan or Singapore, which the distributor did not consider their role to have to do. As usual the buck was passed back to the manufacturer. I had this in Australia also.</p>

<p>I went back to the repair center in Surabaya, where the very helpful (Chinese Indonesian) owner, after making several very long phone discussions with Sony staff in two countries, suggested I should take the camera wither to Malaysia (which coincidentally was to be our next destination) or Singapore. Which we decided to do.</p>

<p>In Malaysia, Sony in Kuala Lumpur took the camera and (after charging us their usual service fee, which was reasonable but annoying as Sony in Australia had clearly documented the problems with the camera had first occurred during the warranty period) sent it to their service center. FOUR WEEKS later after several phone calls and two visits to the center, we were finally provided with a quote for repair costs which to our great annoyance, was A$220 more than we had paid for the camera.</p>

<p>At that point we cried "whoa!" and walked out.</p>

<p>In 2015 my partner's brother had problems with his Sony laptop. Same scenario. In his case, Sony in Australia quoted A$400 MORE than the original cost of the laptop, to essentially replace everything but the diapers on the thing. He also gave up.</p>

<p>Sum total and results, three ex-customers for Sony. I for one will never buy anything produced by Sony.</p>

<p>In fairness I must say other friends have electronic equipment manufactured by Sony (mostly older gear) and have never had any problems with it. Another family member owns a Sony digital camera and it has worked without problems for two years, altho she shoots infrequently and only in "safe" social situations with it.</p>

<p>By comparison, my Nikon D700 (purchased secondhand in 2012) has needed only a very basic CLA, which I had done in Singapore during a stopover. The excellent repair person there took two days to do the work and told me there were no serious problems at all with the camera. I have used this D700 constantly since I bought it and have shot more than 120,000 images with it.</p>

<p>To be fair, this is the sad saga of one person's experiences with Sony camera gear and I suggest you regard it as such. However, for us, enough is enough. Our money doesn't grow on trees, and any future spending for my photo gear will go to manufacturers who think enough of their customers to provide a reasonable standard of service for said equipment at affordable costs. Nikon, Canon or Fuji will get my business. Not Sony. </p>

<p>JDW on the road.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I just had dinner with a friend who shoots and manages a large Reuters desk. He has done many Olympics and Aussie Opens etc. He says "zero" of their people are using Sony or the new generation of bodies. Every one of his shooters wants to use Canon 5DMK3.<br>

These companies have extremely streamlined workflows, RAW files are not permitted whatsoever, as is any editing at all on the images. Everything is JPG straight out of the camera. Cropping is the only thing allowed.</p>

<p>I think part of it is what you are accustomed to and how you began -- started with Nikon. Could easily have been Canon, but it wasn't. Have a lot of Nikon gear going back decades. Nikon has never once let me down and it is what I trust. I did buy a Ricoh GXR outfit six months or so ago, which I use as an "opportunity" camera when I don't plan to need a camera. Quite small and sophisticated, though now obsolete. It produces good images, but on a real photo outing, I would only use it in the unlikely event my Nikon failed. Last photo trip I carried it as a spare to save weight over a D 750 -- only used it because it is set up for IR, the vast bulk of shots with my Nikon DF.</p>

<p>There was that time period where Sony were selling cameras without a lossless raw. And Canon/Nikon lens ranges are huge, maybe not as huge as they were in the manual focus days but still, lot's of selection. Common systems also lead to economies of scale and more selection on third party accessories. Word of mouth is pretty powerful, and it's easier to get informal help when more people have cameras designed like yours. At the Olympics in particular it's worth noting Canon has been dumping boatloads of money and equipment into it since at least the 80s. Speaking of which, Sony have a diluted brand in cameras, they lack the long association with professional cameras that the big 5 had. Up until they bought the corpse of Minolta they had no real market presence in professional cameras and they still have more of a reputation as a consumer electronics and video company than a camera company. Name recognition matters.</p>

<p>Sony gets poor marks as it is not Nikon or Canon.<br>

Sony, however, makes all of the sensors fro Nikon and Canon, so the actual question is not really about Nikon or Canon.</p>

<p>It's about who will survive. In current terms, Nikon is a very small and undiversified company, dependent on Sony and other suppliers.</p>

<p>Canon is much larger, and more diversified, but still dependent on Sony for sensors and survival on the new digital age. Only time will tell... It's not so much about Sony today, but who can buy and implement a Sony sensor, and have the best firmware to harness it..</p>

<p>It is unlikely that anyone's current opinion about a current vendor, and the related popularity, will amount to much downstream...</p>

<p>Writing off Sony, or even Panasonic, in the current phase would be problematic and unwise...</p>

 

<p>@ Michael: please redo your research. Canon makes its own sensors for DSLRs at least. Nikon is no small company and is part of Mitsubishi. Some other companies make more than decent sensors as well so the dependance on Sony is not huge although at the moment Sony admittedly makes the best sensors.</p>

<p>As for the discussion about brands: in my photoclub there is hardly any discussion about brands. We care about composition, perhaps a bit about editing and print quality. Certainly not about the make or quality of sensors and which battery produces the best picture.<br /> Professionals will look at the available service and in this respect Nikon and Sony are established companies.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>why photographers and people prefer Canon and Nikon system over Sony system.</p>

 

Some gave technical reasons, some gave customer service reasons, and others mentioned historical reasons and I agreed with them all. I just want to add my 2 cents in sentimental and/or philoshophical aspects: 1. Firstly, if by photographers and people we mean "and other non-photographer people", then maybe the statement is not so true. For non-photographers, I see many of them prefer Sony, and Fuji MILC, many even like most the LG G4 (a phone), and I don't blame them (in fact they think I am stupid not to have an LG G4).

 

For photographers, the way I see, we prefer Canon or Nikon just because Canon and Nikon care about photographers. I have tried many cameras from many manufacturers but with the Sony "cameras", I never feel they are cameras. They are more like digital image capturing systems built for the engineers, officers, secretaries, or kids. That's why.

 

About "who makes the sensors", I have no information that you haven't known. But the sensor makers would not and cannot kill the camera makers because that means they kill themselves. People will also keep providing boxes, bags, filters, tripods, ... and other services like shipping, for camera manufacturers. Thinking that a camera manufacturer is dependent on a sensor maker is not much different from it is dependent on the big brown trucks (UPS) to deliver.

</blockquote>

<p>Also please bear in mind that there are several Sony companies/divisions. Sony cameras and sensors are not produced by the same companies, although both belong to the Sony group. <br>

Who remembers the discussion about CD DA conversion, the debate about the number of bits and oversampling? This discussion is mostly over. I expect the same to happen to the debate about camera sensors.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Canon is much larger, and more diversified, but still dependent on Sony for sensors and survival on the new digital age.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Absolute nonsense!</p>

<p>Although I would like to try out one of the newer Sony cameras and reduce the size/weight of my kit, it is a non-starter with my financial advisor (wife). Our business suffered from a series of failures of Sony computer products within warranty periods. Sony service, difficult to contact at all times, would never honor the warranty and provide an RMA or replacement. Conclusion: Sony products, once past a 30-day return to seller period, were throw-aways once problems arose. Our Sony experiences were more than a decade ago and it appears that the company continues an unsatisfactory approach to post sales support.</p>

<p>Nikon and Canon have been getting the job done since the beginning, why change especially given the large investment in lenses. I sometimes get the impression that my ancient Nikon D50 still can out focus my latest mirrorless Fuji.</p>

<p>Just my .02 as a professional photographer: professionals in the field shooting sports, weddings, PJ, and such alike, use Nikon and Canon because they are the best tools (and lenses) for those situations. Period.</p>

<p>Sony would've done themselves better if they had carried on the Minolta legacy instead of putting their name on cameras. It's a perception thing. Sony was always known for TV's, stereos, Walkmans, CD players, not professional camera equipment. For casual/hobbyist shooting, Sony, Panasonic, Olympus, etc, are great. Professionals sports and wedding photography require higher end Nikon and Canon equipment.<br /><br /></p>

<p>For people with an established outfit of Canon or Nikon, its a lot cheaper to add or upgrade a lens or body or accessory of that brand than to start afresh with a different brand. I imagine that accounts for a high proportion of camera equipment sales. Then there's the likelihood of needing to change filters and other accessories. </p>

<p>Of the people making totally new system decisions today, I don't know what the Sony/Canon/Nikon shares are. Maybe Sony are doing ok on that. </p>

<p>I thought long and hard about a swap to Sony last time I bought a body. But the Sony lenses are as big, as heavy, and as expensive as the Canon L zooms I have now. Didn't seem worthwhile to spend a quite a few thousand £ replacing everything I own for a size/weight benefit on a body. </p>

<p>And a decade or two ago , Sony seemed to me at least to be considered towards the top of the pile in consumer electronics. Not sure how clear cut that is today.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon is no small company and is part of Mitsubishi.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Basically, no: http://www.dslrbodies.com/nikon/about-nikon/nikon-faq/is-nikon-a-subsidiary-of.html</p>

<p>Sony got the remnants of Minolta and didn't really know what to do with that and certainly didn't show as a major competitor against Nikon or Canon. Their A-mount system is in limbo nowadays more than ever. Their E-mount system is catching on by now and has given Sony a lot of market share. There are no long E-mount lenses and hence the system is unsuitable for shooting at events like the Olympics (one can adapt A-mount or Canon lenses while retaining AF to some extent).</p>

<p>For once, I agree completely with Jeff Spirer. The Internet warriors who rattle on about sensors and raw converters and such seem never to have images worth looking at. </p>

<p>"Part two is the infrastructure. I can rent almost any piece of Canon (or Nikon) gear on a few minutes notice"<br /><br />Jeff pretty much nailed it with his discussion of infrastructure and other reasons.<br /><br />I've been a newspaper photographer, then a reporter/editor and then done PR, so I've either been a photographer or worked side by side with photographers for 40 years. In that time, at least in the news business, I have never, ever seen a news photographer shooting with anything other than Nikon, Canon or Leica. Up through maybe the 80s I rarely saw Canon. And I haven't seen anyone shoot with Leica since the world went digital.<br /><br />Jeff mentioned equipment rental and quick service from Nikon and Canon. Back in the day, newspapers also provided pool equipment for more exotic gear, and it has always been Nikon or Canon. Since most photographers shoot Nikon or Canon, it's easy to borrow gear from colleagues if you stick to those two brands. Also, anybody who's shot for any length of time has a considerable investment in lenses and accessories and that commits you to what you've got pretty much no matter what else comes along. <br /><br />I agree that Sony made a mistake in dropping the Minolta name. But Minolta, Pentax, Olympus, etc., have always been also-rans at best. They simply aren't players in the professional world, and therefore can't provide the range of products, service, etc., that you need when shooting for a living. Do they have some products that might be better? Maybe, but it doesn't matter.<br /><br />I used to have a Nikon-Canon website. The way I explained it was that baseball has the American League and the National League, politics has Democrats and Republicans, computers have PC and Mac. And photography (at least for SLR/DSLR) has Nikon and Canon. It's a fact of life.</p>

<p>An interesting note [a bit of a tangent too!], the American Army uses Pentax cameras, or at least the Marines do</p>

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

<p>Another difference between the Sony A7 series and the Canon and Nikon bodies they are competing with is that the Sony battery life is quite a bit shorter presumably because of the electronic v/f.<br /> I also found that with bigger lenses attached I preferred the balance of my Canon to my brother's Sony A7II. But the Sony A7 series are fine cameras that may suit some people.</p>

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

<p>Really, Phil.</p>

<p>Try auto focus one of the main considerations of a Pro...</p>

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