Here is a good reason not to shoot a Canon anything

Does canon even have a competitor in the sports photography field? I mean a "real" competitor? I love it when companies kick ass at what they do.

Anxiously looking forward to the new models from Canon..
 
A great example of what I believe is true. At the heart of Canon is a marketing organization, at the heart of Nikon is a photographer!

Someone should make belts that run around the shoulders to hip and carry empty flim cans in Nikon yellow without any name on them! Others should be in Leica White with red trim! Kodak could be in Kodak Yellow and Fuji in Green.

That would mess with them!

B2 (;->
 
ywenz said:
Does canon even have a competitor in the sports photography field? I mean a "real" competitor? I love it when companies kick ass at what they do.

Anxiously looking forward to the new models from Canon..

You could add the wildlife genre to that as well I think. Working alongside wildlife photogs in Africa showed them as Canon all the way.

Interestingly, not one of them really cared too much about brand names...they chose Canon because that's what they needed for the job. End of interest. As a wildlife cameraman, I enjoy spending time with wildlife photogs - no one talks about gear...it's all about the subject. :)

Nikon still rules nature macro though. Now that Olympus have lost interest. ;)
 
It is good to know that you are buying from a company that will force professional journalists to advertise for them. It is also good to know that if something you do pisses off somebody with a lot of money that your camera company will sell you up the river.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article2104250.ece

Not that I support the Harry Potter Copy write infringer, but it is good to know where a company's loyalties lie.


That said I love my Canon 5d, but if I ever have to shoot NFL it will be with a Nikon.
 
They should also demand that news photographers who cover Dogfights and NFL Perp Walks wear their colors too...
 
Next news photographers who cover the White House will have to wear a vest with a big red elephant on it.
 
Tuolumne said:
I agree it's over the top and idiotically invasive, but it's rather childish to say "I won't shoot anything Canon" just because of this.

Companies bending to anti-human-rights governments' invasion of privacy and hunting political rivals, like Google and Yahoo has, well, I'd understand. But over a shirt? Pleez.
 
I don't see that this is a big deal- just another endorsement, similar to Gatorade being the Official Sports Drink of any number of sports.

Also, the NFL agreed to it- it is just another way to bring in a bunch of money to help teams pay those huge player and executive salaries.

I guess you would have to swear off any NFL productions, too.
 
Chaser said:
Next news photographers who cover the White House will have to wear a vest with a big red elephant on it.

Some form of generic seal of the US would be better, as they will have to alternate between red and blue, elephant or donkey every so often.

(Keep in mind that the red and blue colors have switched over the years. In some past elections, the republicans were blue and the democrats were red, so that means there would be four possible vests over a long period of time).
 
Al Patterson said:
Some form of generic seal of the US would be better, as they will have to alternate between red and blue, elephant or donkey every so often.
The Dark Side is strong in Sith Rove. I think one shirt for a generation will suffice :eek:
 
While it may pale in comparison to human rights violations that doesn't mean it is not of importance. Turning journalists into advertisers is a little crass to me. I guess it wont matter in the future when the line between journalism and entertainment gets blurred beyond the point of recognition.



Gabriel M.A. said:
I agree it's over the top and idiotically invasive, but it's rather childish to say "I won't shoot anything Canon" just because of this.

Companies bending to anti-human-rights governments' invasion of privacy and hunting political rivals, like Google and Yahoo has, well, I'd understand. But over a shirt? Pleez.
 
I still love my Canon.

antiquark said:
In obliquely related news:
Nikon overtakes Canon in Japan.

Have you seen sales figures for the D40? That's why Nikon beat Canon this last quarter.
 
Chaser said:
It is good to know that you are buying from a company that will force professional journalists to advertise for them. It is also good to know that if something you do pisses off somebody with a lot of money that your camera company will sell you up the river.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article2104250.ece

Not that I support the Harry Potter Copy write infringer, but it is good to know where a company's loyalties lie.


That said I love my Canon 5d, but if I ever have to shoot NFL it will be with a Nikon.


Maybe THE NFL forced the ISSUE with Canon. (they ARE the Last word, if want to deal with them!!) AND, Just maybe...Nikon had the chance to be the OFFICAL NFL Camera, but decided against it... Anyone know the REAL SCOOP ???

I shoot Canon, I used to shoot Nikon. But the ergonomics with the Canon felt more natural in control placement and usage. Between Nikon and Canon, It is not a matter of Lens or IQ..

...both have well over 60 lens's to choose from. And they both have great 1 tier lens's for the pro and serious amateur. And both have a great 2nd tier lens's for the not so rich. And they offer some decent 3rd tier lens's for Joe, and Mary too.......It is a matter of which Brand 'Feels" right in your hands and makes sense IN YOUR HEAD for control placement and usage.

I am not talking about Len's compatibility from body to body.... Just the Ergonomics in general. Or about a few len's that Nikon has, and Canon doesn't or Visa Virsa.
 
Chaser said:
While it may pale in comparison to human rights violations that doesn't mean it is not of importance. Turning journalists into advertisers is a little crass to me. I guess it wont matter in the future when the line between journalism and entertainment gets blurred beyond the point of recognition.
Now, that is an excellent point.

Frankly, I find the move beyond outrageous. I hope the "press" fights it, and I'm sure they'll win, because this is invasive. People complain of government "telling you what to do", but it's even worse when the courts do nothing to let raw Alice-in-Wonderland Capitalism get away with stuff like this. But I'll still shoot Canon whatever... at this point. We'll see how far the industry goes.

This is a case of money-for-nothing. I hope the day doesn't come when you're required to wear Marlboro shirts if you want to walk in public where there are public surveillance cameras.
 
Back
Top Bottom