bnwarner

You could say the Nikon was the leader in film and is still the leader. You could say Canon jumped into digital 12 years before Nikon and is way ahead. The real answer is this! For starters, if you don't plan on traveling with your gear, expand the selection. There are some great "other" cameras out there. Beware, if you DO travel, Canon and Nikon are the safest selections for finding what you need anywhere. Hence the debate the looks like Canon and Nikon are the only cameras on the market.

1. They both make excellent cameras
2. Every 6 months they leap frog each other, so don't think the one that's best today will be best in 6 months.
3. If you already have money invested in one brand, STAY WITH IT! The camera itself is inexpensive compared to the cost of all the equipment.

I've been a professional photographer for over 40 years, and have always shot using Canon equipment. I did a lot of press and combat photography, and the slight advantage of the Canon on durability was the deciding factor back then. Today the difference is that I already have a minor fortune invested in Canon equipment. There's no way I'm replacing all of that.

If none of the three topics above makes a difference or you're completely new to the industry, compare the specs yourself for the current barrage. Look at the TOTAL price, not just the camera. Resolution matters, but not as much as you think. Unless you're shooting billboards, anything 12 meg or higher is plenty. If you're complete amateur, a pocket camera will suffice.

So, which is best? Which cycle are we in?

skooters Loc: Flagstaff, Arizona

Very good answer. :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

SX2002 Loc: Adelaide, South Australia

Only one persons opinion, pro or not...why should a beginner only settle for a compact or pocket camera...I was a beginner over 40 years ago and bought an SLR and loved it...

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

SONY!

mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)

Okay. But what was the question?

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

I like that statement. I think it fits well for some of the raw vs. JPEG discussions here. "Raw matters, but not as much as you think."

Sorry... didn't mean to hijack this thread. What was the final answer between Canon and Nikon again? Oh... If you spell 'cannon' with two 'n's, then Nikon is better. :-)

Ched49 Loc: Pittsburgh, Pa.

ok people, brace yourselves...here we go again.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

No need for that to happen.
It was a good well balanced post.
Anyone who knows their stuff will agree with it.

Of course, muckrakers may try to turn it into a tornado.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

Neither.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

BN, welcome to the Hog.
But, I will say, your last statement is one of the most arrogant, elitist statements I've ever heard made here, EVER!

But since you're a long time pro, you also know that a system is only as good as its lenses and lens selection. And lenses don't leap-frog every other week. Also lens mount plays a big role in the limitations of lens design and limits. Maybe you could explain that a little bit.

Many amateurs with a P&S actually do shoot better than many so-called pros, and vice-versa.

I'd really like a link to your website, the work of a 40 year pro must be really top notch, and should be shared.

Again, welcome to the Hog. I'm looking forward to your expert advice. ;-)
SS

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

;)

Don L G

Yes, Yes, Yes. :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

bnwarner

The cost of investment for someone that is planning on stapping vacation shots doesn't warrant a real investment in equipment. An enthusiast is much more apt to make a real investment than an amateur.

Ched49 Loc: Pittsburgh, Pa.

Muckraker? tornado? Your right Lighthouse, it was a deep, well balanced post. OK people, what circle are we really in?

bnwarner

Good camera if you aren't in need equipment or repairs on a remote shoot, the odds of having Sony replacements available is much less apt to be available.