Whats the point of Nikon camera? Their sensor are made by Sony.

>>3133582
Why would you care? Is your life so bereft of meaning that this is the only thing you can think of to do with your time?

>>3133582
the only legitimate beefs I have with nikon are 1) their software is shit 2) they gimp their cameras and 3) their prices are high
but image quality? some of the best out there. that kind of complaint gives me the impression that you don't know what you're talking about

>>3133582
Are you an idiot or a troll? I'd like to know before I bother responding.

File: low quality bait.jpg (3KB, 125x125px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 125x125px

This is the final reply to this thread. Nobody else will be stupid enough to take this ridiculous bait.

>>3133582
>Obnoxious mount which prevent its user from adapting other lenses.

That's just because they have the oldest mount.
All other mounts are made with shorter flange distances just so they could adapt Nikon glass.

It's also one of the few open standard mounts.
Lots of scientific and industrial equipment uses F-mount as well, not just Nikon cameras.

>Their camera produces shitty image compared to other brands.

hahahaha have you ever seen an IQ test for Nikon?! NASA use them over Canon for fucks sakes. A company that make microscopes vs a company that makes printer cartridges...

>>3133582

Sarnehed; the swedish photography champion!

People spending their free time caring about camera brands. It's so sad.

Can someone link me to the sarnehed archive?

>>3133668
They use nikon because nikon was still starting out when NASA needed cameras, so they could easily change their designs to meet NASA standards whereas canon was already established and would have had to spend a lot of money and resources to make space-compliant cameras

>>3133668
I've seen them are Nikon images looks bleached compared to Canon and Sony.

Also just because NASA uses their camera doesn't make them good, it could just means the cost is low and result is passable. Or Nikon lobbied to win the contract.

>>3134599
>nikon was still starting out when NASA needed cameras, so they could easily change their designs to meet NASA standards whereas canon was already established and would have had to spend a lot of money and resources to make space-compliant cameras

NASA was established in 1958
The Nikon F was released in 1959, but it took 2 years to design.

In any case Canon was just a shitty budget brand back then.

>>3134657
Tru, dat

>>3133582
they're cheap

>>3134470
if you search SarnehedMusic and Photo on facebook, his page has a bunch of albums. looking forward to going through them all later lol

>>3133583
I know mine is.

File: FB_IMG_1503059056351.jpg (141KB, 1440x960px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 1440x960px

>>3134980
Looks like he improved.

>>3134998
No. Just no.

>>3134998
wow i thought it might be cool to keep playing like a rocker until my elderly years. but they look like fucking faggots, i dunno now.

>>3135015
yea well they are, most simply, faggots.
>>3133582
OP should be ashamed

>>3133582
> Obnoxious mount which prevent its user from adapting other lenses.
The only mount that really allows this is still Sony's E-mount. So really, toss everyone else in that pot.

>Their camera produces shitty image compared to other brands.
Nope. it's basically just as good as the other great FF cameras. No substantial differences.

>>3135015
>thinks younger bands look less faggotty?

>>3134982
Then it's time to kys

>>3135314
Fuck this guy.

>>3134982
Don't sweat it anon. Everybody's got to do something with their time, might as well be this.

>>3134998
Well it is not that hard when the only direction he could go was up. Well that is not entirely true, but is mostly true.