Nikon PR nightmare

[KeeFy]

http://www.petapixel.com/2011/09/28/nikon-says-a-photographer-is-only-as-good-as-the-equipment-he-uses/

Wow, epic post by the Nikon facebook PR team. I wonder how are they going to live it down.

[old dog]

Foot in Mouth disease methinks. But then again, if I want to win a competition here I might have to sell my car and motorbike and get the best camera and lenses..:crike:

[rellik666]

Oops! :rolleyes:

[Ezookiel]

Damn. I wanted to be a good photographer, but apparently I can't be, because I have the wrong equipment. I may as well give up now :(
Though in honesty, there's probably a very small portion of truth in the statement - a really bad lens might blur images more than a good one - but then a good photographer would make that blur work for them, so there goes any truth in the statement.

[rellik666]

I think I will be selling my Non Nikon gear to some other poor schmuck who doesn't know the camera makes the photographer!

Better get in quick before the rest of the world realises and my stuff becomes worthless....:lol:

[kiwi]

yeah I noticed that on crackbook, social media is a dangerous beast when it goes viral

[bigjobs]

Pretty dumb thing to say, really quite ignorant... perhaps whoever was responsible could have phrased that a little better :)

Makes you wonder how some people get certain jobs eh?

I don't see the point in them asking that question at all actually.

[ricktas]

Woohoo. Nikon know their stuff. So everyone should dump their Canon's, Sony's and Pentax's and get with the program. NIKON RULZ! :D

[kiwi]

Sometimes the truth hurts :-;

[Mark L]

Damn. My dreams are shattered, until I win the lottery. :eek:

[KLi]

There might still be a grain of truth if they said the "right" lens instead of a "good" lens.

[pixy]

I asked my wife 3 months ago if I could sell the car and buy a 250-600 she would`t let me ,looks like it is mediocrity for me.

[reaction]

Your gear should always be able to perform better than you. Your skill and not your gear should always be the limiting factor in your system. I don't see where Nikon said everyone must buy Nikon gear, nor that only the most expensive gear is worth buying.

The people who think a great tog can use a 5yr old P&S and produce the same photos as using their regular DSLR, should maybe buy my 5yr old P&S off me ;)

I know that if someone asked me to take some pics for them, but stipulated I must use a specific set of gear which didn't have the features required for the event, I would feel less confident vs using the appropriate gear.

[Mark L]

I don't see where Nikon said everyone must buy Nikon gear, nor that only the most expensive gear is worth buying.


That's right, however, they started by saying , "A photographer is only as good as the equipment he uses,............"
Leaving aside the fact that a lot of woman take photos, does that mean that because I don't have as good equipment as someone else, I can't be as good a photographer as them? Or because someone can afford better equipment than me, they must be a better photography?

[Lani]

I think it is so funny that people are even worrying about it, there is a lot of rubbish spouted in marketing, what about all the p&s cameras that let you shoot like a professional? Anyone with half a brain can decide or research what level of equipment suits their purposes at any given time.Most likely it is just a way to get people talking Nikon....amazing how many non Nikon users follow the Nikon forum. :D

[Sutto]

Glad I bought a Nikon.... I'm on the right track atleast.:rolleyes:

In a way its been eventful marketing.... look at how much press they are getting.

[dieselpower]

This may not be as bad as everyone is making out. I mean, if they want people to rush out and buy cameras (or lenses) because it'll make them take better photos, then all the 'consumers', uninformed etc will rush out and spend up - that's what Nikon want, right?

Of course we all know that it's not true, but I know a LOT of people who think that a good photo must mean a good camera (not a good deal of skill by the person driving it) who would go "oh sweet, better go and upgrade!". A post like this would have them roped in and Harvey Norman would reap the rewards...

[Sambo]

I came across that yesterday, but what really intrigued me was the comments that some people made in response and unfortunately some people will take that original post seriously.... It was still a good laugh though haha

[reaction]

That's right, however, they started by saying , "A photographer is only as good as the equipment he uses,............"
Leaving aside the fact that a lot of woman take photos,....

Really, that's what worried you? Are we going back to the 90's politically correct world of hu-persons? :confused013

Soon some's going to complain that they said "A photographer" and some photographers work in groups, or the VALs need credit too, or the retoucher, or MUA, or model, or the national trust that looked after the heritage building so you could take the photo, or the conservatory looking after the forest, and pretty soon we'll be complaining that the font they used was innappropriate for such communication :party6:

And hell yeh, me using my DSLR is better at photography than me using a pinhole camera. Me using a TTL flash is better than me using a manual flash or no flash in some situations. I've met a person who guaranteed he could take better photos with his iphone in ANY situation than I could using my DSLR, so I guess he would be insulted, but I think the rest of us would rather just go out and take photos. :scrtch:

[arthurking83]

Even tho I don't fully agree with the sentiment, there is some truth to it, and there's always someone that is going to stir this thing up into a storm.. because we all know that giant killing is a world wide phenomenon. Nikon being the 'giant' that it is, we're instantly prone to taking to them with whatever weaponry we can find (of sorts.. not literally).

So on a serious note, those that think Nikon's comment is completely out of line with this comment .. how many of you are willing to abandon your uber great DSLR and kit of lenses and swap them out for a cheapo Chinese point and shoot camera for $10 with free postage?

if your gear is not essential in capturing better quality images, what's with all the replies to the effect of ditching the kit lens and acquiring better more professional quality lenses!?

Why do we all aspire to own expensive lenses such as fast primes and pro quality f/2.8 zooms which are far less flexible in terms of use and usability?

Lets not all fall into the trap of this lowest common denominator form of response.

Comments such as the idiot with the chefs and the spatula.. really? is that what AP is about?... inane replies that reach the depths of stupidity.

Is he seriously comparing a basic tool such a spatula to a complex and sensitive tool such as a lens, in terms of how it can help the operator capture their vision!

As for the guitar comment! Is he serious(again!!). I've never seen a cheapo Chinese $1 guitar ever used in a professional environment, and guitarist the world over covet their Fenders and suchlike.
What an idiot comment, and anyone that agrees with that kind of sentiment should really seek professional advice.
That's what we do,! We covet a particular bit of uber photography gear(as photographers) because it helps us to capture images in ways that we see them.
A builder covets a particularly high priced tool because it helps them to build more effectively(and anyone that thinks otherwise is delusional!)

My brother in law is a builder and I've helped him on the odd job here and there. A while back he needed to cut some concrete and bought a cheap chinese non name brand concrete saw.. due to it's quoted power rating. Piece of crap wouldn't cut melted butter and broke down twice anyhow. Took close to all day to cut barely any of the concrete, when he called his usual contractor to come in and 'rescue the job' In an hour and a bit, the contractor and his massively expensive Stihl saw had done 15x what Jack could do with the hacks tool he got from ebay.

Don't fall into this tall poppy cutting pandemonium simply because it's the easy way out.
Look at what's been said in an objective manner and question these lowest common denominator response types if they themselves have any of the 'good lenses' that the Nikon PR person is referring too? if they are going to disagree then they should really put up or shut up themselves ..

show us your Pulitzer Prize wining photos taken with a cheap Chinese $5 16 Mp point and shoot!!..... and then maybe I'll start to listen the alternative.

Nikon have simply put in writing something that we really all believe in .. you invest in higher end gear for a reason!

What Nikon says is the truth, and should not offend anyone!
They haven't said anything about creativity and ability.. they've only said that the photographer is as good as the equipment they use.

So, as a photographer, your assignment is to get some nice wide angled images with good subject separation, and your first choice of lens is going to be ... what? A standard kit lens 18-50 f/3.5 - 5.6?
No! it's more likely to be a 24/1.4 or a 35/1.4(maybe) but the 35mm's ability to capture a wide angle perspective is questionable. So the 24mm is more likely to win the race as the lens of choice.
To this you will most likely couple it to a 5D or D700, but if you can afford it you'd probably get a 1Ds Mk IV or D3s or D3x anyhow. With an unlimited budget you would splurge and get the best.. and now here you are making derisive comments about Nikon and their comment!
Does this make sense?

If any scorn should be directed at Nikon's PR imbecile, it's should be on the fact that they said : he and not they!!
I find it hilarious that Nikon have been ridiculed for making a statement of fact about the gear aspect of the quote and no one has taken them to task that they seem to think that only males use their equipment!

Actual Nikon quote as per the link:


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 favorite and what types of situations do you use it for?

(Sorry I don't have this FB virus, so I can't see for myself the actual offending comment, only what's been pasted in the above link).

As to what the ruckus is about, Nikon's comment is basically the truth. if you don't have a good quality macro outfit, don't expect high quality macro images.
If you want shallower DOF you need lenses that produce shallower DOF!

Nikon have never made comments as to the individual ability of the person only that we are all limited in our ability to produce the goods based on the equipment at hand.

You may well be the best photographer ever in the history of man kind, but if your camera stops working or you drop the one and only lens you took with you on your photography trip .. how good are you as a photographer really?


If we are going to take Nikon's PR person to task here(on AP) lets do it in a more intelligent manner and not join the brainless FB moron commentators ..

Girls??? :confused013 .... you don't feel offended in having been labelled a he?

[Tommo1965]

I cant see anything wrong with the statement....

a sharp lens that has great contrast will yield better results than than a inferior design lens ...I think we all know that ...of course its a given that you know how to use said gear....

a long FL lens that can right into the action from your hide..will produce better results than a shorter FL lens that relies on heavy cropping to achieve the same FOV.

isn't this why we upgrade our lenses when our skill level increases beyond what the returns from a kit lens can give us.


the posts are typical of insulted egos that suggest that you cant take good images with the gear you have...of course you can..but they could be better with the right or better gear .... I've no doubt of that

[Lance B]

There is some truth to the statement. I have taken many a shot that I wouldn't have been able to get with a lesser lens due to VR and very fast AF. How about this shot taken with a 300mm f2.8 VRII and a 2x TCIII - 600mm - at 1/20sec on a monopod, that's 5 stops better than 1/focal length law!:

http://www.pbase.com/lance_b/image/137121613/original.jpg

This shot was taken purely handheld at 1/50sec @ 600mm:

http://www.pbase.com/lance_b/image/136961808/original.jpg

I am sure there are many examples that can be shown where the equipment has allowed a shot that wouldn't normally have been able to be have been taken. Whilst it is a very broad brush statement to make that it is the equipment that makes the photographer, it is also just as wrong to say that it is all the photographer. It is a combination of both in many situations that allows for a great shot.

[Speedway]

Nikon updated with this.

Update: Nikon has responded by updating its Facebook page with this message:

We know some of you took offense to the last post, and we apologize, as it was not our aim to insult any of our friends. Our statement was meant to be interpreted that the right equipment can help you capture amazing images. We appreciate the passion you have for photography and your gear, and know that a great picture is possible anytime and anywhere.

Draw your own conclusion.
Keith.

[reflect]

Finally the company that has received thousands of my hard earned dollars have rewarded me by acknowledging me as a good photographer, I can rest and wait for that call from Vogue………………(oohh still waiting, Bugger!!):lol::lol:

[arthurking83]

There is some truth to the statement. ......

I would have said complete truth, but then again this is just my thoughts based on what the quote says.
The problem that's happened here is that (as per usual with the human race) they've placed their own interpretation of what's been said.

In a literal translation, basically the quote reads that a photographer is limited by the gear that they use, which turns out to be a 100% factually correct statement.
There is no comment made in the quote that one photographer is better than another because they use better gear.
There is no reference to other manufacturers gear(nee lenses) being inferior or any of these kinds of implications.. just the fact that a photographer is capable of capturing better images with the use of better quality gear.

They said that using higher quality lenses will get you higher quality results.
To me, I see this as: if you want higher quality Macro images, don't go for the Nikon 105mm VR Micro.. get the Sigma 150mm Macro lens instead. It will provide higher quality images with more detail to begin with, and is cheaper to purchase! If you want an image of the moon with detail.. real detail, then don't even think about a 200-600mm f/5.6-8 Ebay lens, you need something of higher quality.
This could simply be a Sigma 150-500mm, or 50-500mm, or a Tamron 70-200 + 2xTC, or better yet a Nikon/Canon 600mm f/4 or whatever else is financially attainable.
Simple fact is that a better quality product will give a better quality result. In general a better quality product simply costs more than the lower quality products.

Nowhere does it state that to get good results you need top shelf first party manufacturer gear!!
Any notion that this was said in the quote, is an interpretation by others!

I'll use Lance's example image here, and we'll try to compare it to an image captured with the use a cheap $125 300-1000mm f/5.6-f/11 lens sourced from ebay .. use your imagination!

We've all seen the posts, a million times over(well I have at least) ... "should I get one of these 100-1000mm f/5.6-f/16 lenses on ebay selling for $99 with free postage" ... etc, etc ..... and the resounding consensus is always no! Why? Because we know, with 99.9% certainty, that this lens is bound to be rubbish and not even useful as a doorstop.

Nikon haven't said that you need to spend up big money on their gear to effect better quality images. This train of thought is an interpretation of the quote by someone and then the rest of simply hopped up onto the bandwagon and followed suit, simply because it's multination corporation bashing. And we all love cutting down those tall poppies!

For a given brief the photographer should have access to the right tools for the job to produce images effectively and efficiently. If not there is a very low probability that they will be able to produce repeatable results. We all know this, and we all seem to aspire to bigger grander and higher quality lenses and cameras to achieve our aims.
And yet, when the large multinational corporation says this, puts it down on 'paper' they get flak for it!!

[Lance B]

I would have said complete truth, but then again this is just my thoughts based on what the quote says.
The problem that's happened here is that (as per usual with the human race) they've placed their own interpretation of what's been said.

In a literal translation, basically the quote reads that a photographer is limited by the gear that they use, which turns out to be a 100% factually correct statement.
There is no comment made in the quote that one photographer is better than another because they use better gear.
There is no reference to other manufacturers gear(nee lenses) being inferior or any of these kinds of implications.. just the fact that a photographer is capable of capturing better images with the use of better quality gear.

They said that using higher quality lenses will get you higher quality results.
To me, I see this as: if you want higher quality Macro images, don't go for the Nikon 105mm VR Micro.. get the Sigma 150mm Macro lens instead. It will provide higher quality images with more detail to begin with, and is cheaper to purchase!

Hmmm, I don't know about that! Photozone's test of the 105 f2.8 VR Micro seems to have a very slightly higher resolution than the Sigma 150 f2.8 macro. However, the difference is negligible and they both get 4.5 stars for optical quality, 4.5 stars for mechanical quality and it is only the cheaper price of the Sigma that gets it 5 stars over the Nikon's 4.5 stars. They are both highly recommended by Photozone.



If you want an image of the moon with detail.. real detail, then don't even think about a 200-600mm f/5.6-8 Ebay lens, you need something of higher quality.
This could simply be a Sigma 150-500mm, or 50-500mm, or a Tamron 70-200 + 2xTC, or better yet a Nikon/Canon 600mm f/4 or whatever else is financially attainable.
Simple fact is that a better quality product will give a better quality result. In general a better quality product simply costs more than the lower quality products.

Nowhere does it state that to get good results you need top shelf first party manufacturer gear!!
Any notion that this was said in the quote, is an interpretation by others!

I'll use Lance's example image here, and we'll try to compare it to an image captured with the use a cheap $125 300-1000mm f/5.6-f/11 lens sourced from ebay .. use your imagination!

We've all seen the posts, a million times over(well I have at least) ... "should I get one of these 100-1000mm f/5.6-f/16 lenses on ebay selling for $99 with free postage" ... etc, etc ..... and the resounding consensus is always no! Why? Because we know, with 99.9% certainty, that this lens is bound to be rubbish and not even useful as a doorstop.

Nikon haven't said that you need to spend up big money on their gear to effect better quality images. This train of thought is an interpretation of the quote by someone and then the rest of simply hopped up onto the bandwagon and followed suit, simply because it's multination corporation bashing. And we all love cutting down those tall poppies!

For a given brief the photographer should have access to the right tools for the job to produce images effectively and efficiently. If not there is a very low probability that they will be able to produce repeatable results. We all know this, and we all seem to aspire to bigger grander and higher quality lenses and cameras to achieve our aims.
And yet, when the large multinational corporation says this, puts it down on 'paper' they get flak for it!!

[arthurking83]

one of the problems with relying on pure data from review sites such as PZ is that it's not always indicative of what a lens my be truly like. I have the 105, and I have played with the 150 sigma and have a few sample images, and the few brief images I got with the sigma look more promising. Of course I am referring to close up photos. I think that at close up distances the sigma is better. All PS tests are made at close to or at infinity focus, the have no dedicated macro testing method!
Nothing really wrong with the 105VR, it's just that there are better alternatives available for macro.

[Lance B]

one of the problems with relying on pure data from review sites such as PZ is that it's not always indicative of what a lens my be truly like. I have the 105, and I have played with the 150 sigma and have a few sample images, and the few brief images I got with the sigma look more promising. Of course I am referring to close up photos. I think that at close up distances the sigma is better. All PS tests are made at close to or at infinity focus, the have no dedicated macro testing method!
Nothing really wrong with the 105VR, it's just that there are better alternatives available for macro.

Not dismissing the Sigma and it is definitely not coming from any belief that I think Nikon is superior because it is a Nikon, but there are very few alternatives for Nikon that I have seen that are actually better than the Nikon 105. Different, yes, but not actually better per se and I think this might be what you may have seen with the Sigma as it is a 150mm lens not a 105mm lens and therefore you get a differing perspective and f2.8 on 150mm as opposed to f2.8 on 105mm which can impart a different look especially through the VF due to a shallowere DOF. I have shot with quite a few macros and the 105 is definitely the best for overall IQ. Researching and reading many comments on the two, the consensus is that they are both excellent and there is no difference as far as sharpness, which is borne out by the PZ tests, and it really comes down to personal preference for focal length, whether you need VR and if you are going to use the lens for both macro and other more "normal" shooting like portraiture etc.

[arthurking83]

the differences in DOF is only an issue for subject matter that is further away(ie., not close to or approaching the macro realm anyhow).
At macro level DOF is the same irrespective of focal length.
I used to think that Nikon basically made unbeatable lenses if they had a gold ring around their filter threads too .. but Bjorn Rorslett then suddenly came to my rescue, when I found his rating site.
He's writings on the 105VR are not very favourable(as a macro lens), and I thought I was simply expecting too much from a lens. Maybe I have a less than ideal copy, but then again my lens is excellent when not focused at infinity(of course dependent on my ability at the time of exposure).

But when I did end up getting mine, it wasn't merely for macro subjects, it was also about easier to achieve close focused subject matter(ie. not exactly macro, but not far off) and portraits, because of a post on DPR once convinced me that the bokeh of this lens is as good as it gets too .... then again so is the Tammy 90 and subsequently the 150 Sigma too. Originally the Sigma didn't have OS, but now I read that the newer version does.
I got mine as more of an all rounder lens.. so I'm happy with the lens, and probably never release it ... I'm just not overly excited by it's macro ability.

[Bennymiata]

The new Sigma 150mm macro with OS is definitely better than the old version, and from my own Canon 60mm macro, and the times I've used the Canon 100mm macros, the new Sigma beats them hands down, especially in colour and contrast.

There is a definite feeling out there that the Canon/Nikon lenses are better than the aftermarket lenses, and one of my brothers-in-law definitely thought so, until he started to borrow some of my lenses and found out that some of the aftermarket lenses are as good, if not better than the OEM lenses, for a fraction of the cost.

Having said that, I do agree that using high quality lenses and bodies will get you a better quality picture than poor quality items will, but you don't always need to get OEM lenses to get that high quality image you've always wanted.
There are alternatives that perform extremely well, you just have to pick and choose them a little more carefully.