Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

You are right, the more pro and knowledgeable one is the more likely they use Canon equipment.

canon Lee

Hi torch man....To be fair, its not the Canon bodies that are at issue with NASA, but their lenses ...https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/9952054
Not likely that the rest of us would be shooting in outer space...

canon Lee

To add to my original question; how many here photograph for Money? Are in the business of photography and what manufacture's camera do you use, & why?????

BebuLamar

I don't photograph for money. When I was in my 20's I thought about it but one day in my music class my teacher told me if I want to make money with music I would have to spend at least the same amount of time and effort studying my audience as in studying my music. I thought about it and decided that I won't do anything art related for money.

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

Actually, when the Mother Ship picks us all up, I'll be snappin' pics out the window.

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

Does Nikon no longer market a white 70-200mm f/2.8?

no nameJoe

I have and use both nikon , Sony dslr a canon point and soot , also a yasika 635 and a minolta 370 the truth is that all of the cameras are much better tools than I am a photographer ,the cameras can only be as good as the person using them regardless of brand.

John Battle Loc: Tacoma, WA, USA

Fun question! I'm "reentering" photography after many decades (I'm 72 now). I got interested by taking a course in junior high school (using 35mm film cameras like the Argus C3). We also used "press cameras," with two large negatives in a cartridge. Then for most of my life it was point-and-shoot for casual use on the family and vacations, with 35 mm color slides.

Now that I'm retired and planning some longer trips with some of my children from time to time, I wanted to get really good photos. In my earlier days Nikon was considered by those who taught me as the pinnacle of quality in the general market. So, when buying my new equipment last year, I decided to go with Nikon. I did read some Nikon/Canon articles and evaluations online, and decided to still go with Nikon.

I got a D750, and have started on the "Holy Trinity," with the 24-70 and 14-28 /f2.8 zoom lenses, and hope to add the 70-200 when funds permit. Now I'm in the "getting used to them" stage. The resulting photos seem better than before, especially with the primitive PP I'm learning in Lightroom.

Two of my daughters love taking pictures with crop cameras (one a Nikon and the other a Canon), and my daughter with the Canon occasionally does professional work with it. Both my daughters have tried my camera and lenses, and they both say they like them much better than their own. So that's encouraging!

Indiana Loc: Huntington, Indiana

Well, from my own personal reading and research, Nikon makes a better camera, while Canon makes a better lens. But I don't see Nikon users with Canon lens, nor do I see Canon users with Nikon bodies. I think we all buy what we find as a personal preference, be it name recognition or whatever. I guess I always felt Canon made the consumer camera and lens, while Nikon made the professional camera and lens. I bought into the Nikon system back in the transparencies' day, and never found a viable reason to change brands. I think both systems are great, and apparently others feel the same way. I have seen a lot of high quality photos taken with crappy equipment, so, maybe it's all relative. I like my Nikon D850 and also my Canon Power Shot S100.

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

In my twenties I shot for money - as a part time gig in college and beyond. At the time, like virtually every working pro shooting 35mm, I was a Nikon guy. Leica was too finicky and expensive to risk in hard use, and Canon was not yet up to the task. Obviously, in today's working FF digital world it's more of a level playing field. I'd call it even among the working pros I know, with a slight edge to Nikon for newspaper photographers in general and for Canon on the sports pages. I have many ties in the journalism field, and among "art" photographers as well.


Andy

Fotomacher Loc: Toronto

I know that I should refrain from jumping into this fray - NASA has 50 Nikon D5’s for use by their astronauts. They did not go anywhere else. It is well known that Canon has a bigger marketing spend, Nikon puts their money into product. And for the compatibility issues mentioned: no one who buys D3xxx or D5xxx bodies is interested in pro quality FX AF glass. Or AIs glass which is manual focus. Except for the 105mm f/2.5 AI lens, almost no one wants pre-AIs.

I am biased but no other camera maker allows you to put a pro-quality 35 year old lens on a digital body you bought new this week and shoot in aperture priority. Except Nikon.

JeffR Loc: Rehoboth Beach, Delaware

I agree, depends on the venue. You see a preponderance of white lenses at sporting events, but not so many at other type events. At a press conference I saw the other day, there were at least thirty photographers and I only spotted two white zooms.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

You can very easily do that with Canon. So don't be too quick with generalities.
Also great video with the old FD, FL, R and S Mount lenses.
Then you can put the full range of nikon, Minolta and Olympus old lenses on the body and do the same.

retina_reflex Loc: Los Angeles

Now I know this is an old thread, but as someone who went through the Nikon vs. Canon controversy during the past 40 years, I think Ken Rockwell has a fairly good explanation of the ongoing "war" between the manufacturers. See if this makes sense to anyone:

" Nikon invented the world's first 300mm f/2.8 lens in 1971. It was a hog and no one bought it.

Nikon's first popular 300mm f/2.8 ED-IF came out in 1977. It added internal focusing, so a single fingertip could flick the focus. It was adopted immediately as standard issue for every news and sports photographer. These were extremely popular, but you had to have the skill of a pro to follow-focus manually on sports.

Nikon's first auto focus 300mm lenses from 1986 through 1996 had such horribly slow autofocus that pro sports shooters all moved to Canon, whose AF system and EF 300/2.8 L of 1987 focused much faster than anything from Nikon until 1996!

Nikon considered auto focus just a gimmick for amateurs, and didn't bother to develop it for professional use in the 1980s. Canon thought otherwise in the 1980s, and today we know who guessed right.

Nikon's 300/2.8s have had super-fast AF ever since the first AFS version of 1996, but few pro sports shooters had any reason to move back to Nikon until the D3 of 2007, after which Nikon and Canon have pretty much shared the pro market.".................

Now Ken is specifically addressing the 300mm 2.8 in this short explanation, but the same held true for all the fast tele's through the entire line. Nikon has since gotten to a level equal to the Canon high end zooms (in most cases), but changing camera brands is a tough choice for a pro. Working as a photo journalist for almost 30 years, I had to make that exact choice. Since only a portion of my work revolved around sports, I stuck with Nikon and never regretted it. Now I shoot only for pleasure, and don't have to worry about all that crap.

IBM

For sure I agree with every thing here , anyway it makes no difference to what ever type that a U.H.Hogger would buy .
There is none bought in the same price ranges that would make one ioota of a difference to his pictures from nikon, canon
Olympus, sony, Pentax, , if you were a pro you may find a difference in the most costly ,but not in the run of the mill
$600 to $2700 , any one bought for the same price , would more likely be saddled with the same operation and features. Tell
Some one puts a cool thing in one model, then has king tell next year , then every one has it , tell the next thing comes along .