# Birders don't use Canons?



## unfocused (Oct 17, 2011)

Okay, while everyone waits for the announcement (or possibly non-announcement) of a new DSLR, I thought I'd start a new topic for entertainment purposes. 

New movie out in the U.S. "The Big Year" is a semi-comedy about competitive bird watching. I couldn't help but notice the incredible job of product placement done by Nikon. Basically, everyone in the movie (aside from one scene using an Olympus) was using a Nikon camera or Nikon binoculars usually with a Nikon-branded strap prominently displayed.

I didn't see a single Canon in the movie. Just a coincidence I'm sure.  

I don't know what models of DSLRs they were using, but I was amazed at the pictures they all seemed to capture, especially since most of them seemed to be using kit lenses. I guess I must be doing something wrong.

So, let's have some fun. What's your favorite/most amusing/most preposterous film scene involving a camera? What clever photo product placements have you seen in the movies or on television recently?


----------



## kubelik (Oct 17, 2011)

I will say that, when it comes to binoculars and other non-photographic viewing optics, Nikon has a much bigger and deeper selection of equipment. all the binoculars and rangefinders in my house are Nikon, despite us being a Canon household photography-wise. it makes sense that, if folks are going to be purchasing Nikon glass for other equipment, they may just enjoy going all-out Nikon.

I met some Nikon-wielding birders when I was down in Ecuador this year. from chatting with them, there seemed to be two reasons they picked Nikon over Canon:

1. the 200-400 VR, which I believe Canon is about to readily respond to with the even more awesome 200-400+1.4x

2. the perception that Nikon equipment held a bit more cachet to it than Canon equipment did. let's face it, it's an expensive hobby, and people who pursue expensive hobbies have expensive tastes. so possibly more of them buy Nikon.


----------



## dstppy (Oct 17, 2011)

Watch 80s movies, Nikon's been paying big bucks for years for product placement. Been noticing it a lot lately myself. Saw some in an old Resident Evil movie the wife and I were watching the other night. Even in the zombie apocalypse, they wanna be there


----------



## dr croubie (Oct 18, 2011)

July 2010, canon announced their 50,000,000th lens. (since EF in the 80s)
This week, Nikon announced they'd made their 65,000,000th lens. (since 1959)

Seeing as how a lot of the early Nikons can't be used on the modern bodies (and you need a chart to figure out which ones), they're probably about equal in terms of how many lenses are out there that can mount to each system (and canon has the advantage of being able to mount nikon lenses, but not vice-versa).

The lack of a 200-400 is also something that first came to my mind, but in primes they're probably equal, they both have 300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4 (do nikon have an 800mm?), and canon had the 1200mm.

Canon tried to make the 400/4 DO a birding lens, seeing as it's smaller and lighter because of the DO element, but I don't think it really took off from IQ issues.

Bodies aside, I think 3rd-party lenses are the go for birding, sigma has the 150/170-500, the grenade-launcher 200-500/2.8, and the uber-long 300-800mm (although I don't know how well the IQ is on any of these)


----------



## kubelik (Oct 18, 2011)

dr croubie said:


> Bodies aside, I think 3rd-party lenses are the go for birding, sigma has the 150/170-500, the grenade-launcher 200-500/2.8, and the uber-long 300-800mm (although I don't know how well the IQ is on any of these)



I used to shoot all Sigma as I felt that the price of Canon's glass wasn't really justified by the gap in quality. for most lenses, especially in the standard lengths, attached to an APS-C body, I still feel that way.

however, I was majorly let down by the Sigma 150-500 OS. even stopped down, it has harsh, grainy bokeh, the focus is often slightly off, and the overally image quality isn't great -- and this is shooting on a good monopod at high shutter speeds (1/500 and faster) at good apertures (f/8 and smaller). the 100-300 is fairly decent but lacks OS and reach. at the end of the day, I'd much rather shoot my current 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II + 2x III extender and crop down to a 500mm equivalent, rather than shoot on the Sigma at 500mm. it's a night and day difference, and to me, totally justifies the price difference.e


----------



## Rocky (Oct 21, 2011)

unfocused said:


> Okay, while everyone waits for the announcement (or possibly non-announcement) of a new DSLR, I thought I'd start a new topic for entertainment purposes.
> 
> New movie out in the U.S. "The Big Year" is a semi-comedy about competitive bird watching. I couldn't help but notice the incredible job of product placement done by Nikon. Basically, everyone in the movie (aside from one scene using an Olympus) was using a Nikon camera or Nikon binoculars usually with a Nikon-branded strap prominently displayed.
> 
> ...


Nowadays ,Moviemaker is doing "hiden Advertisement "also. The movie make show off the product in the movie plot with pre-agreement thet the manufacture will pay a fee to the movie maker. As you examplesays , all binoculars and cameras are Nikon (except one sceene). If it is not prearranged, I cannot think of any other reason.


----------



## michaelm (Oct 21, 2011)

I always like to look for cameras that have the label covered up and try to guess the model. But other than cameras I'm always amused when all the Mac's with funny labels like a pear shape or some other object to obscure the Apple logo.

One thing I bet makes us all laugh is the photo editing software on cop shows or spy shows. I like how they will bring up a totally blurred image and type a couple of keys and suddenly the image creates data that was not there and suddenly the image looks great. Or when they magically hit a single key and the editing software turns an object around or creates a face that is behind a post or tree or something.


----------



## kubelik (Oct 21, 2011)

michaelm said:


> One thing I bet makes us all laugh is the photo editing software on cop shows or spy shows. I like how they will bring up a totally blurred image and type a couple of keys and suddenly the image creates data that was not there and suddenly the image looks great. Or when they magically hit a single key and the editing software turns an object around or creates a face that is behind a post or tree or something.



apparently they have access to the Adobe de-blurring tool! http://tv.adobe.com/watch/max-2011-sneak-peeks/max-2011-sneak-peek-image-deblurring/ ... I still can't believe this is real, but Adobe seems to be pretty serious about it.


----------



## Meh (Oct 21, 2011)

kubelik said:


> michaelm said:
> 
> 
> > One thing I bet makes us all laugh is the photo editing software on cop shows or spy shows. I like how they will bring up a totally blurred image and type a couple of keys and suddenly the image creates data that was not there and suddenly the image looks great. Or when they magically hit a single key and the editing software turns an object around or creates a face that is behind a post or tree or something.
> ...



There are a few algorithms that can sharpen images but most likely this is just an implementation of a Richardson-Lucy Deconvolution. Already available for free in RawTherapee. It works best for simple camera movements that caused the blur... it's less effective or non-effective for complex or multiple movements (for example camera shake + lateral movement).


----------



## weixing (Oct 21, 2011)

Hi,
If I remember correctly, Nikon had a large range of binoculars and spotting scope, but Canon only had a limited range of IS binoculars (all are quite expensive), so I'm not surprise to see that Nikon equipment are more common in visual birders... I use a Canon 60D with EF 400mm F5.6L for birding photography, but use a Nikon binocular for searching the birds.

Anyway, in birding photography, Nikon and Canon are both as common. In fact, for entry birder who are on budget (like me), Canon might be a better choice as it had the very good budget birders lens, EF 400mm F5.6L, which Nikon don't have. Also, used Canon Super Telephoto lens are more common and cheaper in the used market than Nikon version.

Have a nice day.


----------



## Hillsilly (Oct 21, 2011)

Do most police forces use Nikon? They're always using Nikons in CSI, NCIS, Dexter, The Wire, Law and Order etc. Most always have the logo prominently displayed on the camera strap, so I assume its paid product placement. 

Its interesting seeing old cameras in movies. In the Godfather, there is a wedding photographer with a Sinar large format camera. Couldn't imagine anyone doing that these days. Rear Window is another of my favourite "camera" movies with James Stewart showing his photographic prowess. Just googled it and found it is an "Exakta" that he uses. Product placement hasn't really helped LF camera sales or Exakta. Do people pay much attention to it?


----------



## Rocky (Oct 21, 2011)

Hillsilly said:


> Rear Window is another of my favourite "camera" movies with James Stewart showing his photographic prowess. Just googled it and found it is an "Exakta" that he uses. Product placement hasn't really helped LF camera sales or Exakta. Do people pay much attention to it?



In the Rear "Rear Window", the Exakta name plate was covered up. So people do not know what it is unless you own one. Inthose days, movie maker do the opposite. They try the best not to show any name band to avoid law suite. Exakta is an "odd ball". Everything is left-handed.


----------



## bycostello (Oct 21, 2011)

it is all about product placement these days...


----------



## sparda79 (Oct 21, 2011)

I know Austin Stevens and I've seen Jeff Corwin using a Canon on their nature shows. But I doubt they are product placements.

Also the reporter 'Miguel Diaz' in Early Edition used a Canon film SLR.


----------



## PeterJ (Oct 21, 2011)

Not a movie but recently on TV news I saw a photographer with a 70-200 after a sporting event trying to take a few snaps of competitors holding the camera in the the air what must have been 50cm from the subject. Hope they had a few extension tubes in place :.


----------



## sbryson (Nov 9, 2011)

100,000 stock images on here taken by friends who all use Canons to my knowledge, but they have been tempted by ISO capability of the Nikons.

http://www.worldwildlifeimages.com/

I know that Andy Rouse switched from Canon to Nikon primarily for the 200-400mm lens (hopefully Canon's will come out, a Canon guy at London Pro Solutions show a few weeks back said "It's only prototype, it might never make it to market") and Rouse does enjoying showing the low noise at high ISO's of the D3s enabling high shutter speeds.


----------



## Hillsilly (Nov 9, 2011)

There may not be any Canons in the birding movie, but Nikon people seem to be getting upset at the number of Canons appearing in their Nikon ads.

For example, 35 seconds into this one...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO2bWt6RelQ


----------



## match14 (Nov 9, 2011)

Has anyone seen the movie "Unknown" with Liam Neeson. In it there is a scene with a Wrong way round Canon 7D.


----------



## FrutigerSans (Nov 9, 2011)

match14 said:


> Has anyone seen the movie "Unknown" with Liam Neeson. In it there is a scene with a Wrong way round Canon 7D.



Yea I noticed that! I was thinking â€œAhah! Because i know what a 7D is I know you flipped this shot horizontally!"


----------



## briansquibb (Nov 9, 2011)

Want to see Canons? Look at the sports channels 

I suspect that there is huge brand loyalty - mine came from the early EOS film cameras. This is rather like Windows PCs and MACs

I dont believe there is any major differences between the two brands just minor things that occur at different snapshots in time. Will Andy Rouse be eating his hat about the comments he made about his Nikon when the 1DX comes onstream or will he slide back into the Canon camp?


----------



## Eisbaer (Nov 9, 2011)

Canon or not, what I like most are all these remarkable filme scenes with that famous and brillant photographer (female, very pretty, very nice, but misunderstood, wretchedly in love, bad relationships, evil stepparents, all that stuff) going for some shootings. The weather is fine, everybody is in a good temper, camera in hand, click and run. You know, they work their wonders along the way, we have to crawl through mud to catch this shy bird finally. That's the difference. 

Best regards
Eisbaer


----------



## sbryson (Nov 9, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> I dont believe there is any major differences between the two brands just minor things that occur at different snapshots in time. Will Andy Rouse be eating his hat about the comments he made about his Nikon when the 1DX comes onstream or will he slide back into the Canon camp?



When I mentioned the 1DX he didn't seem at all bothered, it might have been a front but I believe he knows something about the replacement D3s. 

If he'd told me what he knows I'd not be repeating it as it would be detrimental to his business and let's face it that supports him and his family. But when questioned on an upcoming Nikon D3s replacment, or even if he knew anything his response was a professional, _"I can't say"_ and _"I can't comment about that"_. It was clear that the conversation was not going to go any further. And let's be honest here, any Canon advocate that thinks that Nikon has been blown out the water is delusional. I'm quite prepared to believe that the "D4" will be at least as good as the 1DX and Andy moved from Canon for the 200-400mm, not for the ISO capabilities _(I think that was a bonus when he got the D3s)_. 

I moved to Canon from Pentax in the mid 80's when I got a T90 as a teenager and after that was stolen I only recently got back into photography going straight for a 7D. I love Canon products but at the moment the only thing keeping me Canon, if I move up to a pro body, is the 200-400mm and 8-15mm, not the 1DX - I'd decided that before I found out about Andy Rouse move. I believe Nikon make more of the firmware capabilities than Canon are prepared to. Also the 580EX II doesn't come close to the SB900 or Nikon's CLS - speaking to a Canon rep at a recent show I was told _'The 1DX has improved communication with the 580EX II but there won't be a replacement for the flash at the moment'_. Great but I have a 7D.  Also, although I'm not affected by it the lack of provision of a lens hood with lower end Canons annoys me. 

Brand loyalty is great and I'll always prefer Canon but these are tools to do a job.


----------



## briansquibb (Nov 9, 2011)

sbryson said:


> And let's be honest here, any Canon advocate that thinks that Nikon has been blown out the water is delusional. I'm quite prepared to believe that the "D4" will be at least as good as the 1DX and Andy moved from Canon for the 200-400mm, not for the ISO capabilities _(I think that was a bonus when he got the D3s)_.



That was the point I was trying to make - each brand has a 'lead' at a snapshot of time. I would expect Nikon to respond to Canon and then Canon to respond to Nikon. As an amateur I wont be switching as I have over Â£10k in lens and the advantage I would get from moving to a Nikon lens or body would be insignificant. Although I might just buy one to sit alongside the Canons if I had a specific need.

People that move from windows to mac turn into the most ardent fanbois, constantly justifying why they swapped. I suspect it will be the same with Canon and Nikon convertees.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 13, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> People that move from windows to mac turn into the most ardent fanbois, constantly justifying why they swapped. I suspect it will be the same with Canon and Nikon convertees.



Yeah, but people who switch from Windows to Mac don't turn around and switch back.


----------



## briansquibb (Nov 13, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > People that move from windows to mac turn into the most ardent fanbois, constantly justifying why they swapped. I suspect it will be the same with Canon and Nikon convertees.
> ...



Of course they dont - people are reluctant to admit they got it wrong and spent a pile doing it


----------



## docsavage123 (Nov 13, 2011)

Andy Rouse switched from Canon to Nikon because Nikon gave him all the goodies to switch. Art Wolfe switched from Nikon to Canon years ago because Canon gave him the equipment.Ole Jorgen Liodden (did the canon field tests) switched to Nikon due to Canon not providing him with a new 1Ds model to test, despite it coming out that Nikon gave him D3s,300,400,500 lenses for free - hell who would not switch if its free.

As for birders using Nikons, I live in the UK and it is nearly always 7 canons to 1 nikon at birding sites, I was at a seal shoot at Donna Nook yesterday. There were 20 shooters and 1 Pro guide who did not bring a camera but is a canon shooter. The list of cameras was as follows:
1 Bridge camera (Panasonic i think)
1 Sony DSLR
3 Nikon Shooters.
15 Canon Shooters.

The majority of nikon shooters I see have sigma lenses on the front of their cameras as the costs of 300 f2.8/400/500 etc is well out of the price range. I use the 400 F5.6 and they tell me they would love for a nikon version of that lens.

I watched the Abu Dabai Grand Prix again all Canon glass. Im sure if Jerry Bruckheimer made a Grand Prix movie all the big shooters would have black glass and nikon bodies on, the close ups would have the prosumer D3100/D5100 rather than what is normally seen. All down to product placement!


----------



## AprilForever (Nov 13, 2011)

Here is South Florida, I frequently go to the Everglades for photography. There are usually a lot of serious bird photographers, nearly all of them use Canon. The masses use a mixture of lenses and cameras, but the serious shooters all use Canon with almost no exception. The ratio is probably more than 15:1 Canon to Nikon.


----------



## Eagle Eye (Nov 14, 2011)

Hillsilly said:


> Do most police forces use Nikon? They're always using Nikons in CSI, NCIS, Dexter, The Wire, Law and Order etc. Most always have the logo prominently displayed on the camera strap, so I assume its paid product placement.
> 
> Its interesting seeing old cameras in movies. In the Godfather, there is a wedding photographer with a Sinar large format camera. Couldn't imagine anyone doing that these days. Rear Window is another of my favourite "camera" movies with James Stewart showing his photographic prowess. Just googled it and found it is an "Exakta" that he uses. Product placement hasn't really helped LF camera sales or Exakta. Do people pay much attention to it?




In the United States, yes; it's mostly due to the Nikon flash system (integral to forensic photography) and the edge that it had in the past. The Virginia Department of Forensic Science and the FBI both use Nikons (FBI has some Canons mingled in for surveillance, but they're rare). I've come across just a handful of departments that use Canon.


----------



## dr croubie (Nov 14, 2011)

Hillsilly said:


> Do most police forces use Nikon? They're always using Nikons in CSI, NCIS, Dexter, The Wire, Law and Order etc. Most always have the logo prominently displayed on the camera strap, so I assume its paid product placement.
> 
> Its interesting seeing old cameras in movies. In the Godfather, there is a wedding photographer with a Sinar large format camera. Couldn't imagine anyone doing that these days. Rear Window is another of my favourite "camera" movies with James Stewart showing his photographic prowess. Just googled it and found it is an "Exakta" that he uses. Product placement hasn't really helped LF camera sales or Exakta. Do people pay much attention to it?


Exacta 66, or Ihagee Exacta? One memory i've got of a movie is The Closet (a French Depardieu film), in the beginning and ending sequences the guy is shooting I think with a Mamiya 645 or Hassy, but noone bothered to brand-place it too obviously. Same with Austin Powers shooting with his (I think) Hassy in one of the films. (it's an MF black-cube either way).

My problem with product placement is when it's too obvious, like a whole group of people are using the same product (like a film of birders all using nikons), then it's too unrealistic and doesn't work as advertising.
If instead, there were a whole group of people and they all had different equipment, but the main characters (or those with speaking / close-up shots) had the one brand, that's better advertising imho.


----------

