Hey, its not the camera, but is behind the camera, right?
I think someone here said that one already.
BTW, I would love a Leica, but it would look funny taped on a 400 lens.

:thumbup:
Don't forget to mention you were at his funeral.

Its called a disagreement from where I come from, not an argument.
So, you think one should not voice his/her opinion bc they will be viewed as arguing?
Remember the original question from the OP was about what (which) camera to purchase and not about behind the camera.
:thumbup:

I thought FORD meant Found On Road Dead? :thumbup:

Thats where your wrong.
There are always two sides to everything when it comes to perspective. Im not gonna stand here and say Nikon is better than Canon or vice versa. I just know the facts about both camera companies and have real world experiences in using both. But, when someone quotes about something I know is not entirely true based on my perspective, then Im gonna voice my opinion. It was not meant as an attack, unless you viewed it as such. Now to make comparisons about McCoys and Hatfield's on your part is really an exaggeration or perhaps trying to fuel the beast. :twisted:

I agree with several here on the 18-200 lens.
Ive only heard if great reviews on the lens.
EX: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200.htm

Truthfully, All entry level consumer cameras are gonna be a good solid choice.
There is very little difference between them, perhaps a couple of MP's between them.
If it were me, I would try to find the best bang for the buck setup or rebate and then start taking pictures as you enjoy your new camera.
Best of luck.

[/quote]
I haven't ever said that Canon is a better camera than any othe brand. Canon is a MUCH larger company and therefore makes a much more complete system.[/quote]

So, what does much larger complete system mean?
I assure you Nikon has every gear tick for tack based on true professional needs when comparing the two. This gives them a complete system.
I don't speak for consumer gear

[/quote]So WHY then, do more people shoot Canon? It wasn't always that way. In fact it wasn't that way until 2004. So what happened? Is it strictly because none of the other company's know how to market?[/quote]

Yes I agree that Canon is a much bigger company in the market including their office products, which is bigger than their camera gear.

[/quote]
Explain why Canon is able to build a 7lb. 500mm lens and no one else can/does?[/quote]

Nikon 500 f/4 VRII is 8.5lb., really not much difference there.


[/quote]Explain why Canon builds f1.2 auto focus lenses and no one else can/does?
Is it because the other companies don't feel their users don't need/want them?[/quote]

What? Nikon builds a 50 f/1.2 lens, are you referring to the the 85 1.2 lens aka. magic cannonball lens?


[/quote]Is it remotely possible that's why so many pros shoot Canon? Or is it because the 1dx is #99 at DXO?
I've always said, forget the cameras, there will be another body next week, go where the lenses are!
I was recommending a system, not a camera. I never mentioned a camera model.
[/quote]

Its obvious you don't shoot college or pro sports much.
Many pros shoot Nikon and I guarantee you that its much larger than you realize. BTW, a big reason why many sports shooters still shot Canon is bc AP, Getty are already committed with $1000's of dollars in gear for their shooters, with many personally owning Nikon, but are told to use the supplied Canon gear.
You say your recommending a system, but yet you turn around and boast about why so many use canon gear bc of this and that, when its clear that your completely biased since your a canon shooter. Do you really know anything about Nikon and its gear or complete systems and its capabilities?

[quote=
There is a reason why 70% of all published photos are shot with Canons!
Genessi, you also get to use those REALLY, REALLY cool white lenses!! That alone is worth the price of admission!! :lol:
Genessi, just get the Canon!! :thumbup:
Again, welcome.
SS[/quote]

This statement may have true if your still living in the past, before the D3 came out in 2007.
How do you define 70% of the market?
I do realize that Canon is at least 100 times larger than Nikon, but that doesn't translate into being the better of the two.
Perhaps, do you mean collectively since they make and sell camcorders, printers, multifunction copiers & fax machines, calculators, etc & etc. They might also make remotes, clappers and lawnmowers for us lazy folks. I personally like the all black thrills to kill lens of the Nikon long lens over the whiteys. Here a true story for you. In buying used canon gear, have ever noticed that the seller usually always say they have a sharp copy lens and they made sure they bought a sharp copy. This is bc it was hard to find a really good sharp copy of lens for many years.
I guarantee you will not find that with Nikon, they are all sharp, unless there was a defect or possibly dropped, which was extremely rare.
Canon really dropped the ball on their MKIII bodies with the sub mirror relax problems. If they would have owned up to problems earlier and have taken care of the true diehard canon shooters, then maybe 1000s would not have jumped ship (including me) onto the newly released Nikon 3D King.