freddusel Loc: Nashville

I started out with a Contax RTS II, specifically because Carl Zeiss made the optics for that system. I graduated to medium format and chose Hasselblad, again, because of the Zeiss lenses available for that trusty 500c. I found that my vision was artificially constrained by fixed lens camera design and bought a Linhof Technicardan 45. I used primarily Rodenstock lenses with one particularly good Schneider 300 that would also work well on a Kodak Master View 8x10 that I purchased along the way.
Then came cancer. Serious cancer. My condition, weakness, fatigue, prevented continued work with my beloved large-formatt film medium and caused me to investigate returning to miniature, fixed lens cameras.
As one might surmise from my earlier decisions respecting cameras and lenses, I place a premium on fine detail rendered in exquisite focus.
My research regarding digital technology disclosed a vast volume of conflicting opinions. With my desire to maintain the quality of images that I had been producing with large-formatt film, the density of discrete pixels on the camera sensor was of great importance to me. Also, the quality of the lenses available for any given camera was of equal importance. I also do not like interruptions in the optical focusing path, such as mirrors and penta-prisms. These factors influenced my decision to purchase a mirrorless camera, specifically a Sony a7R II. The full-frame 42 million pixel array renders the size of each discreet pixel to less than 5 microns. This coupled with the manual Carl Zeiss lenses (Loxia) when used at their optimal apertures mimick, but do not equal the resolution slow film produced. When I speak of slow film, I used Agfa 25 exposed at ISO's 8-12.
There is a photographer and equipment reviewer, diglloyd whose testing and reporting I find to be well worth the price of subscription.
In addition to being dying of cancer, I am fairly old, 71 a couple of weeks ago. My age is inversely proportional to my electronic sophistication. My learning this new medium is somewhat hindered because I encounter my camera as primary a computer, albeit with a fine lens sticking out it.
My decisions from the very outset have been based on a specific visionary concept, essentially that of the f .64 Group.
Perhaps these musings and memories may be of use to another photographer, which I used to define as, "One who exposes perfectly fine film to light. "
Best to all and for a look at my very first view camera image, along with an amusing but unpretentious story, I posted it on a thread on this forum that all started with an image of Ansel Adams' deviated septum.

JPL

I have had many different cameras from different brands. Usually I buy what I want based on features/value ratio. I also like to be eco friendly so lately I have stopped buying new lenses, instead I bought a few adapters and use my old lenses on new cameras. This saves lot of money and is the best recycling of old things I have ever done.

n3eg Loc: West coast USA

It started for me in 1981 with my first real camera after being a kid with a polaroid. That was the Pentax Auto 110, the world's smallest interchangeable lens camera and a precursor to micro four thirds. When micro four thirds took off, I was interested in the Kodak S-1 - but a delay in bringing that to the USA market led me to a $399 Olympus E-PL5 kit. I still have it along with (finally!) a Kodak S-1, Panasonic GM1 (same size as the Pentax) and last but not least an Olympus OM-D E-M5 II. The E-M5 II is so good that I actually like the viewfinder!

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

Interesting question. I suspect that most of us are creatures of habit and stick with the familiar.

The first SLR I owned was a Pentax K1000 and later an MESuper. Both were stolen along with all the lenses. Since then, I've owned: Nikon FG, Nikon FG-20, Nikon FM2, Nikon FA, Canon AE-1 program, Mamiya 1000s (645), Fuji 645GSW for film. My first two digital cameras were Canons. I now have a D300 & D7100 as well as most of the above film cameras....

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Well said, Sir. My first 'serious' camera was a Russian Zenit E, it was what I could afford. When I upgraded I got one of the very first Canon AE-1 cameras to land in the UK. Its innovation and revolutionary design was compelling. Since then, Canon's consistency in usability, user interface, and system level capability has kept me loyal. Nothing against any other brands, but it is a good fit for my needs and has been so over many decades.

For myself, this isn't about a brand comparison thing, it is about what works naturally for me. A camera is a tool, and a tool should be an extension of oneself. I treat a camera in the way that I would treat a sword. Only those that know how to use swords can select a good sword for their needs. This is an interesting article and a good analogy: http://austinot.com/angel-sword-best-sword-maker-world. Balance, incisive results, and a range of tools and materials for different situations.

Here's to good relationships with our alloys!

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

When I finally decided to try digital, I was looking to get the Nikon D700 (I did have a Nikon F2 which I liked very much), but when I made that decision, here came the Canon 5D MII and I was impressed by the 22MP (back then I didn't know better). Now that I know mega pixel count really does not matter all that much, I'm still fine with my decision, as I happen to like the camera a lot ( and since then I upgraded to the M III). So, even it was not my first choice, I learned liking the camera. I do not have any regrets!

EdJames81

Wow - so many responses and all interesting experiences/stories. Thanks for sharing!

DRG777 Loc: Metro Detroit

My first digital camera was a Canon point and shoot. When I wanted to upgrade to a DSLR, I just stayed with Canon and got a 50D. I later wanted to add a full frame body, and I got a Canon 6D. A few years after that, I wanted to replace/upgrade the 50D, and after some research I got a Nikon D7200.

Basil Loc: New Mexico

When I was in the Air Force I was stationed at a remote unit in Greece back in early 80's. Being that there wasn't a lot to do on the site, I decided to buy a camera the next time I was at the main base. The Base Exchange there had both Canon and Nikon, but I knew very little about either brand, except I knew they were both major brands. After reading through some of the features of the cameras they had for sale, and taking into account price, I ended up with a Canon T-70 (which I still own). When it finally came time to invest in a Digital camera, I stayed with Canon because I had been happy with the T-70.

nicksr1125 Loc: Mesa, AZ

My last film camera was a Minolta Maxxum 7000i. A friend offered me her Sony A100 when she upgraded to the A700. Two years ago I gave my A100 to a homeschool group that had a photography class & needed cameras. Purchased an Alpha 850. Now have 6 lenses & other assorted accessories to go along with it.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

I had a couple of little better than toys that used 120 film as a kid.
Used my Dad's Polaroid.
1966 got an Argus C3 at a pawn shop near the main gate to Ft Ord, CA.
1968 got a Miranda Sensorex and a few lenses on R&R in Tokyo.
1970s bought a second Sensorex so I could use two types of film at once, just about the time the company went out of business.
Bought an Olympus OM-1 with one lens from a pawn shop at a big gun show at the LA Fair grounds just because I had a high end spotting scope that came with an adapter for an Olympus SLR.

Got a near mint Bronica med format with two lenses and accessories.

First digital was an Olympus fixed lens zoom.

First DSLR was a Sigma SD10 (attracted to the foveon sensor idea) later got an SD14 body from ebay as an upgrade. total of 7 lenses before I switched to Canon - I still have the SD10, 3 lenses and a macro ring flash.

Became dissatisfied with the Sigma body features and other things so I got a Canon 6D in order to be able to swap lenses and accessories with my daughter who I bought a T2i for when she graduated from HS in 2012 (she insisted on that camera because she had learned how to use one doing an internship at the regional Girl Scout HQ summer 2011, I wanted to get her a T4i but it was double the money and she is "frugal")

Added a 7DII because I got into birds.

Now have 8 lenses for the Canons (daughter has 6 total I bought for her and we do swap lenses).
Lens list available to use:
Canon EF-S 18-55, 55-250, 28-135, Tamron APS-C 10-24, Canon EF 50 f/1.8 mk I and mk II, 24-105L, 70-300, 100 macro, 100-400L mk I and mk II, Tamron 180 macro, Tamron 150-600, Bower 14 mm. Kenko Pro 300 1.4X & 2.0X, Canon 1.4X III extenders. Two flashes, 4 tripods, 4 heads and misc other stuff.

Lusting after a better FF with better AF and bigger MP sensor like the 5DIV or maybe the 6DII-depending on its specs when it comes out. Maybe swap the 100-400L mk I and Tamron 150-600 towards a newer model long tele.

bfur396

While many cite the tech info and such in making their decisions about what camera they have, my story is simple: While in the USAF in Japan in the early 1960's I had some extra $$ (how many of us can say that?) and being single, decided to splurge on a camera, photography being a developing hobby of mine. I ended up getting a Nikon F (yes an F with no number!) with an auto exposure system (which really didn't work) and 4 lenses (50mm, 105mm, 135 and 200mm). I still have the camera which is in really great condition and 3 of the 4 lenses. The main reason for getting the F was I was told it was the best camera available in the Base Exchange and it cost a whopping $260 (remember 1963 dollars). So no research or real study went into the purchase. Just recently pulled it out to reacquaint myself with film and it has been fun to deal with only manual exposure and even remembering to crank the film forward after a shot. Have to also refrain from trying to "chimp" and also had to remember that each shot cost 50-75 cents, not to mention that I don't have hundreds of shots available!

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Ed, thanks for asking(again lol).
My first 35mm was an Argus C3 then Petri, Pentax, Canon then Nikon, all film.
I first tried a small digi that wasn't very good so I next went to a Nikon P&S determined to stay away from film and SLR's but a year with a digi P&S taught me that a P&S was NOT gonna cut it. In 07 I was determined to get a Nikon D200 since my newspaper friends used them. I had not considered Canon but a friend had just moved up from a Canon 20D and offered to let me use it till I found a camera. So now I was finally shooting and started to research brands. I started first researching all the lenses. I saw Canon had the fasted short lenses then looked at all the long ones and Nikon had no VR. When I looked into why, it came down to the mount! Then looked at the tech help and Canon had a reputation of professional support as well as printers and papers with tech support all under the same roof.
So I started looking at FF and the 5Dll was rumored. The D700 was only 12mp so I dumped the Nikon dream and bought the Canon 5ll a year later instead of the Nikon. I currently shoot with a 7Dll and a 5Ds.
I actually have no brand loyalty and if someone comes along with a more extensive lens line and better support, I'll dump the Canon!! LoL
SS

Acountry330 Loc: Dothan,Ala USA

My first film camera was a Nikon Nikromat. So when it came time to get a digital there was no other choice but Nikon. Love my D-800.

JR45 Loc: Montgomery County, TX

Several years ago, when I decided to upgrade to digital from film (Minolta X-700), I worked as a volunteer
at the local PGA event and was able to talk to the pros covering the event. They all said that both Nikon
and Canon were good.

A few days later I went to the local shop to look and buy. They had sold their last Canon the evening before,
so I ended up with a D100.

When I decided to get a new camera last year, the D7200 fit the budget.