Phil wrote:

Nikon was LATE with all electronic mount, LATE with ultrasonic AF, LATE with electronic diaphragm, and they were LATE with image stabilization. More recently they were LATE with fluorite element teles, LATE with diffractive optics (Nikon calls these PF), LATE with blue-spectrum optics, LATE with silent stepper AF, etc etc. Canon pioneered most of those in the film SLR, DSLR and MILC eras. Their dual-pixel AF, silent-stepper AF and other tech in DSLRs with EF mount made Nikon an also-ran for DSLR usage for video for years, and up until this day. (And not a huge surprise really – Canon has been heavily involved in the Cine/Video field for many years, Nikon never showed much interest in it. Which is fine by me because I’m not much interested either, but it’s still a competitive issue nowadays.)

My initial answer talked mainly about legacy compatibility:

As ex-Canon, happy Nikon shooter (switched a couple of years ago), Canon tends to overpromise but then add a killer cripple feature in what would otherwise be good gear. The main vector was video – the Canon 5D III hardware was capable of shooting 4K RAW with Magic Lantern Firmware, but Canon’s version did not only not shoot 4K, the 1080p output was in fact 720p due to line dropping.

Canon promises and promises but is secretly lying to its users. The R5 and R6 are an attempt to repair that reputation but Canon botched even that with overheating fiasco.

Many of your charges against Nikon speak to how Nikon strives to maintain legacy compatibility. I’m really happy about that. I just wish Nikon would not change the eye piece specifications so often (I like the alternative finders and viewfinder hoods) and that Nikon would put out two alternative FTZ adapters.

1. compatible with AF-D screw driven lenses.
2. a smaller, narrower DX FTZ adapter to make the Z50 lower profile with a DX lens on it

Canon does have amazing colour science. I had to up my post-production game to be able to move to Nikon. Canon does have very durable cameras. Nikon D7xx/D8xx/D4/D5 cameras aren’t bad but look tatty long before a 5D x series camera does. Canon does have great after-sales service on the pro gear, even ten years down the line. You overpay but the equipment keeps working or Canon authorised service centres will get you back up and running at very reasonable prices.

Nikon can’t beat out Canon’s colour science (Nikon does have very good and very natural gradations so the situation isn’t bad unlike for Fuji which ends up looking like water colour or Sony which is a constant fight in post-production) but Nikon could certainly improve build quality, lens bags and improve after sales service.

Phil laments that Nikon trails in implementing new technology, although his praise of Canon’s early and hideous cost cutting has an air of Mark Antony’s praise of Caesar:

I was in the camera business when Canon made the EF switch, and my issue with many of the Canon models at that time was the ugly and cheap-feeling plastic body panels on many of them (in contrast to the penultimate FD-mount Canon – the New F1 – which had fabulous build quality), the plastic barrels on a lot of the shorter lenses, and the ‘meh’ if not ‘ugh’ ergonomics.

But looking backwards, from a long-term strategic standpoint all those things were actually harbingers of the direction the entire camera industry – including Nikon – would eventually take. (It also helped that much more aesthetically pleasing and mechanically robust plastic and composite materials were eventually developed which did away with those cheesy-feeling early EF-mount cameras.)

But the electronic diaphragm, image stabilization and ultrasonic AF that came along with that tech just destroyed Nikon’s position in the pro market within 10 years. The F4 had horrible AF (had one, got rid of it, even though I did like some other aspects), the F5 was much improved but by that time Canon was already ahead again in various other quantitative respects.

To this day I prefer a lot of things about Nikons but that does not mean I’m not frustrated at all the missed opportunities. Nowadays (and long before the pandemic) it’s just gotten depressing as Nikon cost-cuts, cost-cuts, cost-cuts until many of the things I liked about the brand don’t exist any more.

I used to be able to drive across town and drop off equipment at a local Nikon service center. That was closed over 20 years ago. Service in general now kind of sucks and they won’t even allow an independent shop to even buy parts from them any more. The marketing swag and interesting ads have mostly disappeared as Nikon has no budget for such things any more. This is not how you create a loyal following.

They still “punch above their weight” in a market now dominated by various companies many times their size, but I miss the days when they were truly on top of the heap or at the very least sharing it with one other company and producing lots of breakthrough tech on jewel-like products.

Nowadays, more often than not, they are just adding things on the tick-list that their competitors added a year or 2 prior. Sad.

In my response, I point out that Nikon builds cameras and lenses for photographers who have to weigh budget and price rather than studio photographers with three assistants to carry their lens bags and unlimited budget:

I’m not much interested in €3000 f1.2 wide angle lenses. There’s not enough depth of field at f1.2, those early Canon ultra wide ultra fast lenses don’t particularly resolve and that much glass is too heavy and expensive to carry around. So the argument about how 35mm needs more than a 44mm lens diameter was basically nonsense and marketing until IBIS came along (just a few years ago really).

I really like those legacy Nikon lenses. The 35-70mm f2.8 is a gem both to shoot and to handle. Canon leapt too soon and made really plasticky and horrible lenses and bodies for years. Over the last dozen years, both Nikon and Canon make great lenses and great bodies. I’m tired to death of the Canon cripple hammer and will never reboard that ship. Sure Nikon runs about six months behind (average) on “exciting” new features, but unlike Canon Nikon for now does not trick its customers selling crippled gear.

I’ve really never been disappointed in any Nikon cameras. Even the D3300 I bought for my five year old son has been an absolute gem to use, and in terms of image quality, build quality. The Nikon 24MP APS-C sensor is stunning. This is from a guy who shoots with a D850 and a Z6. Canon’s lower end cameras of the same period were absolute pieces of plastic junk. Great colour science but almost unusable.

PhilK points out that Nikon does not build its own sensors:

Unfortunately, as with many other mass-produced products, the reasons people choose to buy one brand over another don’t necessarily align with the product line characteristics that you or I think is most important from a shooting perspective.

There have always been “horse races” for specs and features in the camera market (like with so many other products) and the fact that these “bragging rights” are important for how your brand is perceived is re-emphasized by Nikon’s choice to produce the extremely extravagant and very niche f0.95 Noct for Z.

I guarantee you that Nikon has been dying to one-up Canon like that for decades, especially given the fact that Canon had to go to Nikon to get lenses for their first cameras, and in the interim Canon has been “one-upping” Nikon with 50mm f/1.0 lenses, 85mm f/1.2 lenses, etc etc.

So the argument about how 35mm needs more than a 44mm lens diameter was basically nonsense

It’s not nonsense, unless you want to be like one of those so-called “Artisan” lenses with poor IQ and ridiculous vignetting. (“But that makes it “arty”!!)

> Sure Nikon runs about six months behind (average) on “exciting” new features

I put together a list on this once upon a time. IIRC the “feature delay” on key tech like ultrasonic AF and IS/VR was more like 2-5 years. Stepper-actuated diaphragm? How about ~20 years?

FL teles? Maybe 15-20 years on those too.

Now if I personally considered those things “showstoppers” I wouldn’t be here posting on NR today. But they are certainly major competitive factors and one of various reasons why Canon is in a much better place in the market today than Nikon is.

The Nikon 24MP APS-C sensor is stunning. Oh, you mean the Sony sensor that they sold to several other Nikon competitors as well?

List of all Nikon DSLR cameras and their sensor manufacturer/designer

What is the sensor inside NIKON D3300?

Answer: Sony IMX-193-AQK.

And what were those models from other competitors with essentially the same sensor?

Apparently:

> “Sony a6000, various Sony SLT models, Nikon D3300,D3400,D5300,D5500, Pentax K3,K3II, probably other Pentax”

The sensor manufacturing really is a non-issue.²

That’s great sleuthing work tracking feature lag, feature by feature. In exchange for feature lag, Nikon shooters enjoyed backward compatibility….

About the sensor: I’ve had a Sony A6300 and A6500 (in my Canon days, for video/travel). The Nikon realization of this same sensor is on another level than what Sony did with it. Same thing with what Fuji does with these Sony sensors. I’m not really fussed about who built the silicon. I’m more worried about visible high ISO noise (Nikon does pointillism luminance noise, Canon does colour blotches, chroma noise), rolling shutter, quality of HD footage (who wants to shoot 4K all the time), ability to raise the shadows and quality of the colours.

Canon really does have better colour science for Caucasian skin tones and faces but otherwise the Nikon editions of these Sony sensors are awesome. Comparatively speaking, Sony’s own versions offer poor quality HD, terrible rolling shutter and troublesome colours.

Someone’s photographic/video priorities at Nikon line up with mine.

A photographer can enjoy non-crippled long lasting 35mm gear for reasonable prices from Nikon. No other manufacturer offers this.

Photo credit: yours truly, with Nikon D3300 with Sony IMX-193-AQK sensor.

I’m a great advocate for Native rights. There’s no excuse in the world for the genocide wreaked on Native Americans by both Americans and British (Canadians were British in those days). The Redskins name and logo were a reminder to me of the proud past of Native Americans before the white man arrived with his fire sticks and his fences.

Any name change does not sit well with me. Right now the Redskins are running with WFT, or the Washington Football Team. As per se, this is not really a name change (the colours have remained burgundy and gold). Hence I’m still on board. WFT or more usually read WTF team is quite amusing.

There’s been a lot of talk about the name options and here’s most of what people have come up with. There’s some very inventive and funny (mostly satirical) names suggested. They fall into several categories: Political Serious, Political Satiric, Animal, Roman.

Political Names – Serious

The first suggestion is very serious but honestly it’s the funniest of all.

Washington Feds. The new America’s Team. And everyone could hate Washington. The Feds are coming to town. Smash the Feds. Run the Feds into the ground. Destroy the Feds. Bury the Feds.

RBSchultz suggests:

How about the Washington Bandits. That fits with what most Americans think of the politicians in D.C. Steal from the poor and ill represented and give to the rich.

Washington Feds has that covered Rob. Another serious but very dull name would be the Washington Americans. Far too generic, meaningless.

Political Names – Satiric

Lots to choose from here.

• Washington Riots.
• Washington Insurrection.
• Washington Revolution.

Or simply:

The Washington Insurrectionists, they will lie, burn, loot and desecrate until the game is won.

In a similar vein, Washington Red Ink.

Or going for the might of DC and its military: Washington Nukes. According to dolph924.

The “Nukes.” Short and easy for headline writers to spell. Associated with Washington. Connotes power and devastation of opponents.

With Americans so unhinged these last eight years, one can’t tell if they are joking or not any more.

Or they could just go for the Washington Woke as they are the ones advocating a name change. Here’s an idea for the mascot:

Animal mascots

We could start with a mythical animal. DC Dragons. The burgundy and gold could still work here. For some reason the Washington Rottweilers made me snicker, as it’s so in your face. Probably not, but “who are you playing tonight”. Answer “the Rottweilers” has a certain panache.

Red Tails is popular with many but they couldn’t be football fans. As TruthTeller04 says:

Red Tails sounds like porno even though its the name of a WWII Black fighter squadron which most people wouldn’t know or associate with.

30yr-Army-COL is even less optimistic about what would happen with this name:

Unfortunately, Red Tails invites too many cheap headline jokes with every loss .. “Reds Get Tails Whipped” … “Tails Red After Spanking” … need I go on?

A more serious suggestion:

Red Hawks is the best name. We actually have both red tailed hawks and I see red shouldered hawks every day as I walk in the woods. It would scan equally well. They could fly in a hawk to start each game.

Red Hawks is a noble name which answers existing traditions and has an easy mascot/logo. Great idea.

Roman style names

There’s a Roman push as well:

• Washington Gladiators
• Washington Legion
• Washington Centurions

Roman could work as red and burgundy figures big in historical movies about Ancient Rome. I don’t like Gladiators or Legion much but the WFT could easily put a centurion logo on the side of the helmet. Has a stupid American Empire type of brute forcce ring to it. It works.

Washington Warriors. Originally I thought but that would just be jumping back into the pseudo-racism wars. PaolasMax offers a solution for Warriors:

Warriors with a Greek Hoplite soldier on the helmet. I doubt Greeks will be offended and football will always be a violent game.

Washington Warriors is powerful.

Who and what is behind the name change

The name change is about erasing Native Americans:

Also will we keep the fight song? I love it, but doesn’t it have a Native American tinge to it (especially in the verse)? The chorus is ok but when you sing the “Run or pass and score, we want a lot more” part of the verse the tune turns into a heavy drum and trumpet sound synonymous with a Native American war chant. If we want to get rid of any connections to Native Americans we might have to say goodbye to the song. I know this will hurt some as it makes me sad to type about it. Maybe we just keep the chorus tune as is and update the verse tune to sound less like a war chant as we’ll be updating the lyrics to possibly fit a new team name any ways.

So who wants this name change? Is it Native Indians? Certainly not.

It’s black activists (half of those are pimply, angry, unhealthy, excessively tattoed whites) are the ones advocating for the name change. Native Americans offer serious competition for discrimination and reparations. Have to push those Navajos out of the way one way or the other.

Native Americans are not against the Redskins franchise or name. Or at least not until busloads of activists had insisted they be insisted. Noka Lucien writes about the original columnist McCartney:

Give Robert credit; while he regularly opined against the Redskins name, when the study commissioned by his paper showed a majority of the American Indians approved of the name, he penned a column stating he stood corrected.

Sticksandstones carves a sharp point on the stick:

Or maybe all the people “offended” are the thinnest skinned people in the world. Maybe the fact that White liberals are bothered by this more than Native Americans (7% at the last survey) shows that all of this slur talk is just stupid virtue signaling. Changing the Redskins is as stupid as changing the Bullets to the Wizards because of violence in DC. Like the name change has helped people from being shot in DC; give me a break.

When someone suggested asking Native Americans what they think first, Angel astutely pointed out:

Why would Native Americans have a say in the new name? The majority didn’t have a say when Washington Redskins was dropped.

Changing the name was a bad idea. It’s not too late to go back. I’m an advocate of the generic name for another five or ten years until the pendulum swings back and the Redskins name and logo can be added back. The dark years could just be forgotten.

New name already decided?

Chuck L. Head takes a cynical view of the whole process:

Anyone who thinks them asking the fans input at this point is more than smoke and mirrors is naive to say the least. They haven’t been NOT working to get the rights to what name they want for over a year. The decision was made long ago and it’s the legal rebranding details that are the long lead items. Plus new uniform designs and stadium rework and the like.

The original planned alternate name was reported to have been the Warriors keeping the colors and logo. Info is they lost out on a lot of the rights stuff and were in a real conflict with the GS Warriors and such. That was shortly after the decision to change as it had been the backup plan for years. The knew the odds were they were eventually going to have to make the change.

So they have already decided what the new name will be and are getting all of their legal ducks in a row before coming out with the big splash as to the new name. The fan poll is no more than the misdirection nonsense the Wizards did when they changed their name. They could care less what the fans think. It’s all marketing and legal wrangling.

I think Chuck is wrong and the debate is still live. There’s three or four top candidates with a favourite but the final die has not been cast.

What name would retain this Redskin fan

The best choice would be to go back to Redskins, which pays hommage to Native Americans and keeps their history in the public eye. Next choices would be Washington Wolves (without the Red). Colours stay the same. People consider the politicians in DC to be wolves, the residents seem to roam and attack like wolves. Very fitting all around and is short and strong.

Next choice Washington Warriors with the Greek hoplite shield on the side of the helmet. Final choice Washington Centurions with a Roman style centurion helmet as logo, with just the plume on the top of the helmet.

Which of these would I accept to continue as a Redskins fan?

• Redskins (of course)
• Wolves
• Red Hawks
• Warriors

Not a huge fan of Rome or empires so not sure I’d stay on for the Centurions, though I think the name and design is fine in itself. Red Wolves originally I liked but seems a weak compromise without much personality. I’d probably accept it. On the other hand, Red Tails sounds like deer or a brothel and not a football team. Definitely an ex-Redskin fan in that case.