[jogiba]

A recent status update on Nikon’s Facebook page stated that “A photographer is only as good as the equipment he uses.”

I can appreciate the marketing push for your products over competitors, but limiting a photographer’s skill to the equipment he uses is a pretty dumb thing to say.

Nikon sure has stirred the pot with this one. Some PR guy (or gal) over at Nikon has to be a little red in the face tonight.

While we all love our gear, it’s not about the camera. We still love you Nikon, but give photographers are little more credit, eh?

UPDATE 9/29/11: Nikon followed up with an apology.

Nikon: “A Photographer Is Only as Good as the Equipment He Uses” [Updated]

[IMG]http://www.*******************/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Nikon-Facebook-640x255.jpg[/IMG]


[IMG]http://www.*******************/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Nikon-Facebook-21.jpg[/IMG]

---

Last edited by jogiba; 09-30-2011 at 05:14 AM.

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

Indeed quite stupid. Of course lenses are important. But beyond really bad lenses (and these should be few on the market today) that would limit any photographer, the skill behind the camera is likely to be more important. You may argue about some extreme applications: you don't stand a chance with just a normal zoom, if the task require a 600mm lens, a fisheye, or similar. Yet, an unskilled photographer would mess it up even if he/she could choose gear without limitations. Here Nikon managed to show disrespect to the photographic skills.

[séamuis]

as some of the comments that are being said in the other active thread here about the same topic, I believe most feel that this was just a less than adept marketing person doing what he/she gets paid to do. its just too bad that big companies in this business can’t find marketing people or at least train their hired marketing staff on the ideals, philosophies and general understandings that most people hold in regards to photography and the equipment that the company that hired them is trying to sell. less than ignorant marketing people would greatly help such a company to keep a better image. of course one can argue that the marketing people should take a little initiative in their job and take the time to understand what they are marketing, so as to not release such things that in this modern world will not go unnoticed. also their bosses, who are just as much to blame. it makes you wonder how many people within the structure of big companies like canon, nikon, pentax, etc actually know anything at all about the use, the history, the culture, etc about the products they design, manufacture and sell?

[dadipentak]

Like a politician going for the doofus vote and alienating supporters who really care about policy.

[nickthetasmaniac]

lol, oh dear

[unixrevolution]

But beyond really bad lenses (and these should be few on the market today) that would limit any photographer, the skill behind the camera is likely to be more important.

Ironically, one of the worst on the market now is considered to be the Nikkor 16-85. The Sigma 17-70 trounces it in lab test and on review sites.

It is definitely more about the photographer than his gear.

[SpecialK]

You still need to be able to play the game, but I wonder how many tennis professionals still use wooden raquets?

[Raffwal]

Guys, what'd you expect? Should a camera and lens manufacturer say that it doesn't matter what you shoot with?

[séamuis]

Guys, what'd you expect? Should a camera and lens manufacturer say that it doesn't matter what you shoot with?

no it shouldn't, but thats not the point. the point is that they also shouldn’t basically say that the equipment, in their opinion matters more than the photographer behind it. or namely the photographers skill. basically what was said should never have been said at all, period. nobody, not even the most diehard blind fanboy would likely agree to the idea that Facebook PR injection seemed to be insinuating.

[usn ret]

Ansel Adams made great photographs with the tools he had and they were not Nikons. Great photgraphers make great photographs with whatever equipment they choose to use. Just my $0.02 worth.........Cliff

[magkelly]

You still need to be able to play the game, but I wonder how many tennis professionals still use wooden raquets?

Actually you'd be surprised at how many serious tennis players pro or otherwise prefer a wooden raquet to fiberglass or whatever. They're painted and shellacked like the non-wood ones, hard to tell a wood one on sight now, but a lot of the raquets you see on the court are still made of wood, though you seldom see them still strung with catgut strings. My Dad has a young golfer pal who swears by wood clubs too. He's a semi-pro has a very expensive set that was made like some of the old antique ones with improved finishing materials and he says his game is better with those than with the metal ones. I forget what hard wood they are but they're nearly a work of art to look at. The handles have some metal but the clubs themselves are some sort of hard wood finished to a dark shine. They're awfully pretty, and apparently very functional.

[ManuH]

Actually you'd be surprised at how many serious tennis players pro or otherwise prefer a wooden raquet to fiberglass or whatever.

I HIGHLY doubt that. I've been playing tennis for years and wood became pretty much obsolete in the mid-eighties. Even the old timers like McEnroe had to recognize that graphite was just much better. Its high rigidity allowed bigger rackets with much more power. Any tennis player still using wood would just cripple himself.

[ll_coffee_lP]

It's just a pr flub, don't get your panties in a bunch...

Tagline probably should have read...Great photographers choose great equipment to compliment their skill. Nikon.

c[_]

[magkelly]

I HIGHLY doubt that. I've been playing tennis for years and wood became pretty much obsolete in the mid-eighties. Even the old timers like McEnroe had to recognize that graphite was just much better. Its high rigidity allowed bigger rackets with much more power. Any tennis player still using wood would just cripple himself.

If that's so and I'm not getting in your face, genuine interest here, why then does the local pro shop still carry so many? I don't play but my roommate does and she works there in summer p/t sometimes. I've been in, looked. They have tons of them, all different kinds, but plenty of them are in wood and they're supposed to be mostly pro stuff. Looks like it given how much they cost.

[ManuH]

why then does the local pro shop still carry so many?

Old stock? Vintage section? Maybe you misidentified wood with another material. I don't know but it's almost 30 years that nobody cares for wood racquets except the decorative or collectible vintage ones. A nice read here: The History of Tennis Racquets - Evolution of the Modern Racquet - Part I