EdJames81

When I went looking for my first dslr camera I went with an open mind, but after trying out some of the entry level models I decided to settle on the Canon 450d. I liked the way it felt in the hand, I liked the layout of the buttons and I found it user friendly.

Over time I invested in Canon glass (many L series lenses) and accessories so when it came to upgrade it seemed natural to stay with Canon. Besides changing over to another brand would have cost a fortune.

Had my entry level dslr been the Nikon D3300 I would be shooting Nikon, had it been the Olympus I would now be shooting Olympus

I’m interested – what was it that made you choose the brand of camera you use?

BudsOwl Loc: Upstate NY and New England

My first film slr was a Miranda Sensorex. When that gave up the ghost, I replaced it with a Canon Rebel, so when I went to DSLR I chose a Canon XTi since I already had Canon lenses. Never looked back. I now have both a 60D and a 6D.
Bud

achesley Loc: SW Louisiana

Picked up a Canon Rebel several years back at a good price on EBay. Like it lots. Did sell it to try out a Sony but was too big for what I was starting to do more and more. So , to a Canon G series for what I was doing and it was great. Just stayed with Canon after that, going to an XS50 and 3Ti. 4 lens for the 3Ti and learning it more and more since slowing down.

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

In early 2012 I had a Kodak bridge camera. Not a bad camera, but I was never really satisfied with it. Had only used it sporadically over several years so I never learned how to get the best out of it. About that time my wife and I were planning for a vacation in autumn to Bora Bora. I decided that if we were going that far, for that kind of money, I was going to have a good camera. Bought a Canon T3i with an 18-55 lens. Then I added a 55-250. Took a digital photography course at the local college, plus, I even opened the camera's user manual occasionally! Now, here I am with a 7DII and a 5DIV and six or seven L lenses! Thanks to my dissatisfaction with that Kodak, I found the joy of digital photography. Not to mention, a very expensive hobby!
I have no idea why I chose Canon, but I'm glad I did, even though I lusted after Nikon back in '68-'69 when I was in 'Nam. Best I could afford then was a Yashica TL Super SLR. Not a bad camera.

Woodworm65 Loc: Lombard, IL

My first camera was a Minolta SRT101 used that for many years until digital came along and then because of using a DSLR Nikon D70 that a friend had I have stuck with Nikon, was very familiar with Nikon and stayed with them and now own a D7200 and looking to the future to also own an FX.

wtompkins Loc: Northern Michigan

I had been a Canon user all my life mainly because that's what I started with way back in 1980. A year ago I bought a Sony a6000 and sold all my Canon gear.... no regrets at all!

mkaplan519

I was a Canon guy most of my life. Back in the film days, I started with the Canon A-1. At that time I couldn't afford Nikon and for some reason, I had no interest in Pentax or Minolta. I stayed with Canon into digital starting with the 10D then 20D, 40D, 50D and then 7D (all crop sensor cameras). I always had an inkling for a full frame camera but did not want to carry 2 bodies. Then Nikon put out the D800. That was the answer to fulfilling my wants. A full frame camera with a high enough resolution so my DX wants could be satisfied yet so were my full frame wants all in 1 camera, so I sold off all my Canon gear and went Nikon. The funny part of this story is that I later upgraded to the D810 and last year purchased a D500. I end up with 2 bodies which I didn't want years ago but I am now enjoying having those options. There are times I take just one or the other with me depending on what I am shooting that day but many times I have a wider lens on the D810 and a telephoto zoom on my D500. A different time in my life I guess but I am enjoying it which is I guess all that matters.
I am happy I made the switch to Nikon. It was worth it for me but still like Canon. Have even thought of Sony but not going there.

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

The SRT101 was a great camera, that was my first slr as well back in the late 70's.... I then picked up a Nikon Film camera back in the 90's. When I went to a DSLR it had to be a Nikon. Have had my D7100 over 4 years now with a bunch of lenses for it, next one will be a Nikon too ;)

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

First SLR was a Minolta SRT 101 - had several lenses with it - great camera. Years later had to buy a Nikon - maybe because of Paul Simon? :) My first DSLR had to be a Nikon too... no thought of anything else.

Graveman Loc: Indiana

When I was shopping for a new camera I ended up choosing between a Nikon and a Canon. Both at the time were comparable in the feel, controls and all the other areas, couldn't really tell much of a difference. Ended up with the Nikon, it was on sale, since then I also bought a Cannon Rebel as my backup camera, from a relative who received it as payment for some work and didn't want to take the time to figure out how to use it.

Davethehiker Loc: South West Pennsylvania

A friend showed me his Sony A100. I was impressed so I bought that camera and a few lenses. I updated and updated and updated. The collection of lenses kept growing and kept me loyal to the brand.

tinplater Loc: Scottsdale, AZ

Ansco 35mm 1955 Chrsitmas present from parents
Minolta SRT 101 1964
Canon Pelix with 1.2 lens 1974
That led to a series of Canon film SLRs
Canon D40 started a decade of Canon digital
Tried Sony and was captured by the quality and compactness of the components. Now have A7rII, A6000, but still hang on to my SL1, 24-70 L 2.8 (works fine on A7rII)

blackest Loc: Ireland

Envy of Ian watson and his pentax, when i was around 12 had a few other camera's then ended up buying a k1000 and another pentax with a faulty shutter at a car boot sale. The k1000 became my film camera. I had a kodak camera that wouldnt do what I wanted. Figured I really wanted a digital back for the k1000 which bought a k200D body and since then a K5.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Let's see:

1968 --- borrowed a Canon FX
1969 --- bought a Nikkormat FTn
1970 --- had a Yashicamat 124G at school
1971 --- inherited a Nikon FTN
1979 --- had a Nikon FM at work
1979 --- had a Camerz Classic long roll portrait camera at work
1980 --- had a Yashicamat 124G at work
1981 --- added a Nikon F3 at work
1983 --- added a Calumet 4x5 at work
1985 --- added a pin-registered F3 body at work
1986 --- added a Bronica ETRSi at work
1986 --- added a Canon A-1
1996 --- added a Camerz ZII long roll portrait camera at work
2002 --- added a Nikon D100 at work
2003 --- added a Nikon D70 at work
2004 --- added a Canon 20D at work
2005 --- added a Canon 30D at work
2006 --- added a Canon 5D at work
2007 --- added a Canon 40D at work
2009 --- added a Canon 50D at work
2010 --- added a Canon 7D at work

2012 --- started training project management consulting... looked at everything out there for three years... Waited until someone built what I needed...

2015 --- bought a Panasonic Lumix GH4

There were many, many reasons to buy or use a particular camera along the way. I was brand loyal to Canon and Nikon for decades, and for different reasons.

I bought the GH4 for its balance of features... I do a mix of video and stills, and the GH4 is absolutely perfect for that. When I was at Herff Jones Photography, I had a Nikon D70 and a Canon EOS Dxx of some sort (see above). I also had a separate, heavy Canon GL2 video camera. It drove me crazy that the color of the video and the color of the still camera NEVER matched. It drove me crazy to use three completely different cameras with different menu structures, different lenses, different everything. It drove me crazy to use CF Cards and tape!

The GH4 has solved all that. One bag with two LED lights, two mics, a body, two lenses, spare batteries and SD cards, gray card, ColorChecker, two shoe-mount flashes... and it fits under an airline seat! Add my iPhone 7 Plus to the mix, and that's a guerrilla training content development kit.

The GH4 is 1/4 the size, bulk and weight of a full frame kit, and 1/3 the size, bulk, and weight of an APS-C kit, similarly configured. It has more depth of field at a given aperture, which is usually a GOOD thing for documenting processes. It performs satisfactorily in every respect for the purpose I intended it for when I bought it. The ergonomics are first rate. The body is solid, die-cast Titanium, with weather sealing throughout. The lens OIS is great.

I have the 12-35mm f/2.8 weather-sealed pro zoom and the 35-100mm f/2.8 weather-sealed pro zoom, both of which are light, sharp, and great performers. I know I can get any kind of lens I need to put on the GH4 body, because there are around 90 Micro Four Thirds lenses. Adapters fit just about any full frame lens on it, from the likes of Canon, Nikon, Sony, Alpa, Contarex, Contax, and others.

I can record excellent 4K video, from which I can extract matching 8.2MP JPEGs. Or, I can record video and separate, full resolution matching JPEGs. Or, I can record raw images, and raw plus JPEG images. The options let me do what I need to do.

If I did something else — some other kind of photography — I would have bought something else. Every system is a compromise of some sort. You give up the strengths of some other system to get the strengths you need for the work you do most.

There is plenty of information available on the Internet these days, between YouTube and review sites. You can know every feature about a camera, even download the manual, before you buy or rent to try. I read the reviews and skimmed the manuals of the top choices I had. I tried the GH4 and instantly knew that was "it." I had tried a Sony A6000, and a Fujifilm X-Pro1, and an Olympus OM-D EM-1, each of which was strong in other areas, but none of which had what I needed.

I knew, from borrowing a Canon 5DIII, that the video was good in low light, but average in good light. And I hated the 5DIII's audio limitations, and the lack of an electronic viewfinder. I usually work in bright, controlled light. So the small sensor of the GH4 was not an issue.

I will probably stick with Micro Four Thirds as my platform of choice. It's only going to get better, and I'm only going to get older and want to carry less. I carried a 42 lb. bag of Nikons and lenses and filters and flashes and film and batteries and... back when I was in my 20s. That got old, however. My need then was full frame slides for projection to huge screen sizes, and that kit was great for it. My need now is for images to use in letter-size booklets and PDFs of those booklets, plus video clips that reside on corporate web sites, plus personal work (portraits, still life work, travel...). I don't need full frame or APS-C gear for that. I made 700 exposures at my niece's wedding last April, and liked 500 of them, a shocking yield for me! I was used to 1 of 6 with older gear. So I'm set...

G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

I made the mistake of asking the shop owner !!!!
His choice was a Sony A 230. It worked but had no live view (The new thing).
I persevered for a while and then added the Canon 450. It did things a little better than the Sony - Like Bulb and a longer open shutter time. Still no real live view though.
In a moment of madness I traded the A230 and bought a used Sony SLTA65 ...It made sense to keep my lenses and other Sony kit. It has live view but I rarely use it!!!!
I have added a couple of lenses to the mix and the P&S was bought to take really close close-ups before I bought a cell phone.
All told I probably spent about £1600 over 5-6 years so no great fortune.

I doubt much will change unless a good Canon5 Mk 1 comes really low down in price!!! Then it will be the Sony that goes...(it still has a value!)

Have fun