Why do pros shooting 35mm use Nikon and Canon more often than other brands
(like Olympus)? Here's what I think:
1) MARKETING. Nikon was the first to offer a big, heavy, BLACK, industrial
strength, modern SLR and told the world that its Nikon F was a
"professional" SYSTEM camera. Prior to the Nikon F, most pros used awkward
and unwieldy Speed Graphics or Rolleiflexes (with no interchangeable lenses)
or Leicas with their collection of GOOGLY and MOOGLY and HOOTCHY-COOTCHY
accessories. These were, and are, beautiful machines, but Nikon gave pros a
big, bulletproof brick on which they could hang a variety of lenses darned
near instantly. And, the Nikon was a WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get)
SLR with a built-in light meter, already. Besides...perhaps most
significantly...a big ole black Nikon was a MAN'S camera. Hang a long tele
on it, and you've got yourself a WEAPON, boy! Its looks were just the
thing to appeal to the rugged "take no prisoners" self image many
photojournalists have.
News shooters ate 'em up. True, the pictures weren't as pretty as those
from a Leica or a Rollei or a big ole 4 x 5 Anniversary Speed Graphic,
but - hey - a newspaper photo got mashed through a 65-line screen anyway so
even Ansel Adams wouldn't look better than you or me on the front page! As
it became fashionable among lensmen to be seen at a news event with a manly
Nikon, the pro market grew exponentially. And, that led to:
2) EASY AVAILABILITY. Smart dealers stocked up on lots of new Nikon bodies
and lenses and bits. Because working pros need "fail-safe" gear, second
bodies and even third and fourth bodies were bought. Inevitably, as trades
were made, the supply of used Nikons grew, too. Really smart dealers
started RENTING new and used Nikons. Pros loved this. Forget a tele on
your trip to Timbuktu? No problem. Nikon get nicked in Nairobi? No
problem. Just feel like travelling light? No problem! Now a photog could
go almost anywhere on the planet and be equipped with his familiar and
comfortable tools. (Easy and nearly universal purchase and rental
availability is one of the main reasons Hasselblad enjoys the majority of
medium format pro business, too).
Canon came later, but followed the same marketing route with the premiere of
its tank-like F1. In order to compete, Canon has had to invest a lot in
developing and publicizing superior and innovative optics and, now,
electronics. Some truly remarkable inventions are the result of this
competition.
Olympus, on the other hand, is an enthusiast's camera. It's no ALPA, but an
OM-series camera is more exclusive...and thus harder to find, support and
service...than a Nikon or Canon or even Minolta or Pentax. Ever try to rent
an OM-3ti? Olympus didn't invent the 35mm SLR pro market, like Nikon did.
Olympus didn't exploit the market like Canon did. Olympus didn't even try
to make a blatant appeal to the hobbyist or family snapshooter, like Minolta
and Pentax. Olympus...late...presented the world with a small, elegant,
innovative jewel of a photographic tool. The ads said it was rugged and
dependable, but it sure didn't look like it. It was...uh...pretty! The
Canon looked like a cannon and the Nikon would take a bullet for ya!
Olympus also said it took really pretty pictures. Well, maybe...but as
every working pro knows, sheer quality isn't everything. Years ago, it is
said, two photojournalists journeyed into the Himalayas. One took his Leica
SL. The other had a Yashica. Guess which camera DIDN'T freeze up in the
mountain storms? That's right, the one WITHOUT the tight Teutonic
tolerances!
At any rate, let the cops and taxi drivers use their Fords and Chevies.
We'll enjoy our little Porsches!
Craig Roberts
Boston
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|