Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Nikon Slams Photographers..  
User currently offlinestealthz From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5743 posts, RR: 44
Posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2561 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

There are a few reasons I would not consider buying Nikon.

On their Facebook page they just provided another one...

Quote:
A photographer is only as good as the equipment he uses, and a good lens is essential to taking good pictures! Do any of our facebook fans use any of the NIKKOR lenses? Which is your favourite and what types of situations do you use it for?

A manufacturer promoting their products is one thing but insulting their customer base and showing no understanding of the true nature of the craft, certainly won't endear them to the market.


If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
25 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBAViscount From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 2338 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2536 times:

Quoting stealthz (Thread starter):
A photographer is only as good as the equipment he uses, and a good lens is essential to taking good pictures!

Rubbish! I know people who claim to be good photographers and who have top of the range equipment, but their results leave a lot to be desired! I don't claim to be a good photographer myself, but people have told me that I have an "eye for photography", which seems to be what matters. If you've got the eye, you can take good photos with a cheap camera phone!



Ladies & gentlemen this is Captain Tobias Wilcock welcoming you aboard Coconut Airways flight 372 to Bridgetown Barb
User currently offlineKPDX From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 2776 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2531 times:

Meh.



I agree that the comment is incorrect but this is fake outrage (or not warranted anyways). Next!



View my aviation videos on Youtube by searching for zildjiandrummr12
User currently offlineStuckInCA From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2000 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2479 times:

I think you're a bit overexcited. Typical marketing language here.

User currently offlineFly2HMO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2471 times:

Quoting stealthz (Thread starter):
There are a few reasons I would not consider buying Nikon.

On their Facebook page they just provided another one...
http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/4/1240265992468.jpg

I fail to see what's so offensive about this. Take a chill pill.


User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2459 times:

Quoting stealthz (Thread starter):
A manufacturer promoting their products is one thing but insulting their customer base and showing no understanding of the true nature of the craft, certainly won't endear them to the market.

What do you think Nikon should promote Canon lens?

It's an advertisement (advert to you?).


User currently offlineczbbflier From Canada, joined Jul 2006, 980 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2459 times:

Quoting stealthz (Thread starter):
A photographer is only as good as the equipment he uses, and a good lens is essential to taking good pictures!

Actually, this is quite true. A lousy photographer is still lousy no matter how good the equipment he or she has. However a good photographer is able to do so much more with better equipment-especially the lenses.

A point specific to a.net... how many pictures on the a.net database were taken with an iPhone? How many, in recent years, were taken with a point-and-shoot?

It is not an insult at all. I'm with Fly. Chill pill anyone?


User currently offlineTransIsland From Bahamas, joined Mar 2004, 2046 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2444 times:

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 3):
I think you're a bit overexcited. Typical marketing language here.

  

Quoting BAViscount (Reply 1):
If you've got the eye, you can take good photos with a cheap camera phone!

Doubt it. The composition may be good, but the quality of the image will leave a lot to be desired.

Quoting czbbflier (Reply 6):
A lousy photographer is still lousy no matter how good the equipment he or she has. However a good photographer is able to do so much more with better equipment-especially the lenses.

  

Quoting czbbflier (Reply 6):
How many, in recent years, were taken with a point-and-shoot?

Probably not many, but it does happen. Two examples from 2010:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Stephen B. Aranha
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Stephen B. Aranha



Nikon Coolpix S570



I'm an aviation expert. I have Sky Juice for breakfast.
User currently offlineflyboyseven From Canada, joined Feb 2007, 905 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2424 times:

Are you saying that just because a photograph is "good"

Quoting czbbflier (Reply 6):
Actually, this is quite true. A lousy photographer is still lousy no matter how good the equipment he or she has. However a good photographer is able to do so much more with better equipment-especially the lenses.

A point specific to a.net... how many pictures on the a.net database were taken with an iPhone? How many, in recent years, were taken with a point-and-shoot?

But, if a photographer has only "lousy" equipment, they can still make excellent photos, they are simply of a lower image quality. Just because a photo is crazy numbers of megapixels doesnt mean it is amazing, and just because a photo is only a few megapixels doesnt mean it isnt amazing.

As for picture making it onto a.net, there are plenty of amazing photos taken of planes out there, some on iPhones, some with point and shoots. The reason you dont see them on the site is merely that they dont meet the grade for image quality. Image quality strictly meaning the quality of the image file, not the quality of the photograph itself. Likewise, there are many photos taken out there using top of the line equipment that dont make it onto the site, this time for aesthetic or thematic issues.

While I think it is wrong that Nikon made that statement, in the grand scheme of things, a statement made on a facebook page by a camera company that is mildly offensive to some people really doesnt matter all that much.

I hope I wasnt blathering too much

Cheers!

Graham



As long as the number of take-offs equals the number of landings...you're doing fine.
User currently offlineKaphias From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 315 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2391 times:

Quoting czbbflier (Reply 6):
How many, in recent years, were taken with a point-and-shoot?

I have 10 photos in the database, all taken with a Nikon Coolpix S6000. It's by no means easy; all the conditions have to be just right, but capturing a new registration/unusual event helps.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Kaphias
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Kaphias


Certainly, having a better camera would lead to me getting many more shots in the database. The main issue at this point isn't a lack of skill (though it would be if I upgraded to a manual DSLR) but a lack of quality in the pictures the S6000 takes. Nonetheless it adds a challenge to the process... but I'm just happy that the camera can do what it does for $150.  



Flown on: C150, C172, C206, Beaver, Otter, Jetstream 32, Q400, CRJ7/9, E135/40/45, A320, B732/4/7/8/9, B744, B752, B763
User currently offlinestealthz From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5743 posts, RR: 44
Reply 10, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2381 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting stealthz (Thread starter):
On their Facebook page they just provided another one...

Am quite chilled about this and their Facebook postings would not be a significant factor in my decision.

It does raise a question about the influence of social media as a marketing tool.

The mature and rational members of A.net see this as just another advert(which it is), there hundreds of millions of Facebook users that do not share the maturity and common sense of this community!  

Cheers



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29832 posts, RR: 58
Reply 11, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2371 times:

Quoting stealthz (Thread starter):
A photographer is only as good as the equipment he uses

And I would point out that no less the Ansul Adams shot many of his great landscapes with a pinhole camera and glass plates.

Seriously this is just an add, don't write too much into it.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineczbbflier From Canada, joined Jul 2006, 980 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2358 times:

Quoting flyboyseven (Reply 8):
But, if a photographer has only "lousy" equipment, they can still make excellent photos, they are simply of a lower image quality.

Respectfully, it seems you do not appear to understand that a quality lens makes a huge difference- the point that Nikon was making.

The quality of the file starts with the quality of what the sensor inside the camera sees. Then there are a whole bunch of other variables but one of the defining variables is the quality of the lens.

A fish-eye lens, a long focal-length lens, a fast lens... all necessarily speciality, if not quality lenses. However, a quality speciality lens is, well, quality. And an accomplished photographer wouldn't chance his or her time and effort to shoddy equipment.

Quoting flyboyseven (Reply 8):
Image quality strictly meaning the quality of the image file, not the quality of the photograph itself.

Meanwhile, the quality of the image for a.net has a lot to do with the fact that you can't get a close-enough crop (no zoom) or that the image is too soft (lens quality).... There is the fact that there isn't enough resolution and stuff like that but much of that is overcome if you have the right lens to do the right job.

Even a 'good' Tamron lens doesn't compare to the quality of a good Nikon, Cannon, Zeiss or Hasselblad lens.

Quoting flyboyseven (Reply 8):
Likewise, there are many photos taken out there using top of the line equipment that dont make it onto the site, this time for aesthetic or thematic issues.

Tell me about it! lol

Let's put it another way:
Isn't it obvious that there is a difference between a lens like this:


And a lens like this:


User currently offlineflyboyseven From Canada, joined Feb 2007, 905 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2331 times:

Quoting czbbflier (Reply 12):
Respectfully, it seems you do not appear to understand that a quality lens makes a huge difference- the point that Nikon was making.

Respectfully, you do not appear to understand my post.

I was trying to make the distinction between image quality, a measurable quantity decided by the quality of the camera, exactly what you described in your post, and the artistic value of the photograph itself. An 18 megapixel photograph shot with a 2000 dollar camera attached to a 1000 dollar lens will produce an extremely good image n matter what, but if it is pointed at a not so intriguing angle, the artistic value of the photo is not so high.

On the other hand, a photograph taken with an iPhone could be shot from an incredible angle, creating an awesome photo. Sure, the image quality is probably better in the first case, but all that is produced is a boring picture, however in the second case, image quality sucks, but as a photographic experience, it is much more enjoyable.

This is not to say anyone who has a 2000 dollar camera takes pictures of un-intriguing subjects, and iPhone users are imaginative artistic photographers, it is just to illustrate that there is a difference between a photos image quality, and its artistic value.

I am sorry if I come across poorly, I am not that great at translating thoughts into constructive arguments.

Cheers,

Graham



As long as the number of take-offs equals the number of landings...you're doing fine.
User currently onlinevikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 10337 posts, RR: 26
Reply 14, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2280 times:

Do I disagree?

Yes.

Do I care?

No.

Quoting stealthz (Reply 10):
The mature and rational members of A.net see this as just another advert(which it is), there hundreds of millions of Facebook users that do not share the maturity and common sense of this community!

Who cares?

There are hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people in the world who do not share the maturity and common sense of this community (whether their common sense and maturity are greater or lesser remains to be seen).

Quoting czbbflier (Reply 12):
Even a 'good' Tamron lens doesn't compare to the quality of a good Nikon, Cannon, Zeiss or Hasselblad lens.

Or even a Canon!



How can I be an admiral without my cap??!
User currently offlineaerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 7389 posts, RR: 16
Reply 15, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2257 times:

As a very happy Nikon D7000 owner I happily agree with Nikon. Without the D7000 and D70 and F55 before it operating reliably and consistently, I would not have developed my craft, and trained my eye to be much better, than had I stayed with a basic point and shoot. Anyone familiar with a D7000 menu, and it's ability to change absolutely any minutiae to your own selection/preference will agree that it allows for amazing personalisation and has a great ability to take a great photo even under poor conditions. While some do have a natural knack, for most good photography comes from hours of trial and error and learned experience/behaviour. Have a good lens and good SLR and you'll learn that much faster...

I suspect the reason for the offense, like many other instances of ' taking offense' it comes down to registering somewhere deep inside and resonating because it is true, it's just that we don't want to let our egos admit it. Ego and wanting to be right accounts for more 'taking offense' than anything else. Personally I think what makes a good photographer is the humility to admit that you were only in the right place at the right time to capture a good subject, using good judgement, sound photographic knowledge and the right settings for the task. A good photographer ensures that they are always at the right place at the right time and using their camera to the best of their ability.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8478 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2104 times:

Quoting flyboyseven (Reply 8):
Just because a photo is crazy numbers of megapixels doesnt mean it is amazing, and just because a photo is only a few megapixels doesnt mean it isnt amazing.

The need for a good lens goes way back to the days of film. Actual film. Even then it was pretty clear that quality lens were a core foundation of good photography. Nikon was one of the brands at the top of the list when it came to quality - and they are still there.


User currently offlineflyboyseven From Canada, joined Feb 2007, 905 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2092 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 16):
The need for a good lens goes way back to the days of film. Actual film. Even then it was pretty clear that quality lens were a core foundation of good photography. Nikon was one of the brands at the top of the list when it came to quality - and they are still there.

It may be the core of producing a good quality image with film, digital, whatever you want, but are you saying that if one took an photograph with a lesser quality lens that somehow the artistic qualities are also lesser?

That would mean that only photographers with top of the line equipment can produce good photos, and that brings us right back to the beginning of this thread when Nikon said that a photographer is only as good as his equipment.

I recognize and do not dispute the fact that quality counts for a lot in the world of photography, however, it is certainly not everything. Some of the most skilled photographers I have met use cheap cameras. If they were taking the exact same photos with an expensive camera, they would not in my opinion be better photos, merely photos with a higher resolution.

That is all that I am trying to say.

Cheers,

Graham



As long as the number of take-offs equals the number of landings...you're doing fine.
User currently offlinesw733 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6371 posts, RR: 9
Reply 18, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2083 times:

Quoting Fly2HMO (Reply 4):
I fail to see what's so offensive about this. Take a chill pill.

Same here. After reading the OP, I kinda did a double take and had to re-read again to make sure I wasn't missing something. I wasn't...it's just blown way out of proportion.

Quoting TransIsland (Reply 7):
The composition may be good, but the quality of the image will leave a lot to be desired.

Exactly. I have taken some ridiculously great photos from my iPhone, but the quality is rubbish for anything beyond posting them online. For example, I have some beautiful photos of trees turning from a few years ago that have wonderful composition, but I could never blow them up and put them on display like I want to because the quality of the iPhone camera (3G back then, so even worse than now) isn't up to par, even if my skills as a photographer were.


User currently offlineFingerLakerAv8r From United States of America, joined May 2011, 259 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2035 times:

As a proud owner of a Nikon D3100 and two Nikkor lenses I can honestly say I am very happy with their equipment. They can say whatever they want on their facebook page, doesn't bug me.

I've taken awesome photos and crappy photos. There are much more pressing issues in the world other than a percieved comment by a manufacturer.


User currently offlineGrahamHill From France, joined Mar 2007, 2869 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2021 times:

Quote:
A photographer is only as good as the equipment he uses

That's a not a good PR move, but I'm sure it was not ill-intentionned. I'm 100% sure Nikon has respect for photographers (heck, why wouldn't they have?), and I think it was just a clumsy sentence.

Quoting StuckInCA (Reply 3):
Typical marketing language here

I don't think it is. This is clumsy marketing language here. It's basically saying "you're not good unless you use Nikkor lenses". It's like saying "you don't look good unless you use our makeup" or "you don't know how to drive well unless you drive our car". There are less offensive ways to convey a message.

Quoting czbbflier (Reply 12):
Even a 'good' Tamron lens doesn't compare to the quality of a good Nikon, Cannon, Zeiss or Hasselblad lens.

I already used a Tamron 70-200 f2.8 that did the job better than the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS I used in the last 24 Hours of Le Mans. My sigma 8-16 is giving me better results than the Canon 10-22.

I'm not saying you're wrong, because camera manufacturers' lenses are most of the times better quality, but sometimes they get beat by third-party lenses.

Quoting flyboyseven (Reply 13):
An 18 megapixel photograph shot with a 2000 dollar camera attached to a 1000 dollar lens will produce an extremely good image n matter what, but if it is pointed at a not so intriguing angle, the artistic value of the photo is not so high

It won't produce a extremely good image if the photographer doesn't know how to use his equipment properly!  
Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 15):
A good photographer ensures that they are always at the right place at the right time and using their camera to the best of their ability

  

You summed it up well.



Edit: grammar

[Edited 2011-09-30 09:46:27]

[Edited 2011-09-30 10:37:36]


"A learned fool is more foolish than an ignorant one" - Moliere
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11569 posts, RR: 52
Reply 21, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1985 times:

Quoting KPDX (Reply 2):
I agree that the comment is incorrect but this is fake outrage (or not warranted anyways).

  

The kinds of people that buy Nikons anyway aren't the types making artsy, blurry photos with high grain film and high, almost posterized contrast, etc. They're too hipster to use anything but a fully manual from the 70s. (not that there's anything wrong with that, other than they look down their noses at me and my D80.)

If you were offended, you probably aren't the target audience. If you're trying to get your photos up on a.net, then you probably need the most expensive lens Nikon sells.

Quoting Fly2HMO (Reply 4):

Hey look! It's Senator Leahy talking to the Joker!

(No really, it is!)



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineRGElectra80 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 362 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1982 times:

Quoting TransIsland (Reply 7):
Doubt it. The composition may be good, but the quality of the image will leave a lot to be desired.

By using the HDR setting on the iPhone 4, the camera produces some very decent pictures. They're of course not of professional publishing quality, but given the medium it's pretty good.

I don't think the people who are following Nikon on Facebook really care about their marketing jargon. I doubt most people take anything salesy/marketing-y seriously on Facebook (for instance, Facebook Ads has some pretty low click-through rates). If anything it's nothing more than a poorly constructed sentence.



Feel free to check out my Flight Diary: flightdiary.net/alenart
User currently offlineNASCARAirforce From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3184 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1605 times:

Quoting stealthz (Thread starter):
A manufacturer promoting their products is one thing but insulting their customer base and showing no understanding of the true nature of the craft, certainly won't endear them to the market.

All the companies do that. I seen the same thing for one of the major electric guitar companies saying "a guitarist is only as good as the equipment he uses"

Quoting stealthz (Thread starter):
A photographer is only as good as the equipment he uses, and a good lens is essential to taking good pictures!

People should be more offended by the equipment "he" uses, meaning that only males play guitar or take pictures?

There is a girl in my band who used to be endorsed by Ibanez guitars and she can play better than most of the professional guys in my opinion, she is up there with the shredders. She can play really good guitar whether it is a top of the line Ibanez, a Les Paul, a Strat or if it is a $10 acoustic guitar she picked up down the street at a garage sale.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5478 posts, RR: 31
Reply 24, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1585 times:

Good equipment can make a good photographer better but it won't make a bad photographer good.

Composition means a lot more than the camera or lens. Without that, the clearest picture in the world means nothing if the beautiful portrait you planned is of the wall.



What the...?
User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 25, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1577 times:

While the statement is silly...a good point does exist here...put the $$$ into the optics as this is the business end of the capture...high end optics surely make a difference but this holds true for all the manufacturers. Personally, I would like to see "Carl Zeiss" optics on my Nikon bodies...g

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Clinton Slams Israel posted Sat Mar 13 2010 18:15:02 by DocLightning
When Will Nikon Replace/Update The D90? posted Tue Jan 5 2010 10:06:44 by 2H4
France's Top Cop Slams Arabs posted Fri Sep 18 2009 23:04:26 by Aaron747
Regulator Slams Cautious Mass. Banker posted Mon Mar 16 2009 16:52:35 by PPVRA
Obama Slams Bankers For $18.4 Billion In Bonuses posted Thu Jan 29 2009 19:54:00 by StasisLAX
Is This A Good Price For A Nikon D80? posted Tue Dec 23 2008 14:23:07 by LH4116
Nikon Indy 300 Gold Coast Australia. posted Wed Oct 22 2008 06:43:04 by OzTech
Now That Sports Illustrated Has Gone Full Nikon posted Wed Sep 17 2008 12:19:55 by Clickhappy
Iran Slams Sarkozy On Israeli Air Strike Issue posted Fri Sep 5 2008 07:20:18 by Sv7887
A.net Photographers Show Us Your Best Non-Av Pics! posted Sun Aug 24 2008 09:10:01 by Umfolozi