boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

One of the things that Nikon has done (that Canon has not) is to have maintained it's mount so that the legacy lenses can still be used. My old Fd lenses can not be used on my 7d unless with an adapter which looses light as well as sharpness.

MadMikeOne Loc: So. NJ Shore - a bit west of Atlantic City

I have only 2 things to say about this thread so far:
1. Thanks for teaching me something I did not know
2. Thanks for the laughs

G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

So who makes the sensors? oops....

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

:thumbup:

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

I wouldn't expect Canon to enter this field if they didn't consider their sensor to be at least as good as the competition.

lukan Loc: Chicago, IL

I haven't cared either way between Canon and Nikon, but I must say all the Nikon shooters (of which there are fewer and fewer) ogle my 1DX and 70-200 f2.8L Mkii when they hear the shutter at 12 fps frame rate and we compare results from the sidelines of football games. Same with the 135mm, and the 100mm macro, and the 24-70mm f2.8L Mkii; mainly because the autofocus, the image processors and camera's software (along with the lenses) simply make great pictures at what seems to be a higher keeper rate than the competition... any competition. These combinations, even with the 5DMk3, yield superb images and are just EASY to use, especially for anything involving action.
The true innovator is actually Olympus. They've always made great optics; were the first to measure light directly off the film plane to determine exposure, developed the best articulating touch screen, developed the best 5-axis in-camera stabilization, developed the best weatherproofing, and on and on. They do everything very well and make quality products.
Canon and Nikon leapfrog each other about two years, but at the compact camera end, and at the top end, I prefer Canon ever so slightly over Nikon.
Had the D4S been available under the same parameters as the 1DX, I would and could be easily shooting with it today... but I'd then be one of the guys ogling the shooter with the badass 1DX. :D :thumbup:

lukan Loc: Chicago, IL

Oh, ok. That means I should just throw away my Canon equipment that makes superior images, and whose ergonomics I like, right? Canon today is junk because in 1935 or 1942 Canon's predecessor camera body had a Nikkor lens on it? By the same reasoning then, Contax (Contaflex) is junk because they had a Zeiss-Ikon lens on the front of it during approximately the same time period? I didn't think so.
Shoot with what you believe to be the Holy Grail, and happy shooting, regardless the brand!

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Bill, doing your stand-up routine again are you?
Now THAT'S FUNNY!! :lol: :lol:
Hey, the ONLY person we can be sure of that MT knows more than, is YOU! :lol:
Thanks for the laugh. :lol: :roll: :D :thumbup:
SS

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Thanks you for your well reasoned response. However, my point in that discussion had to do with business strategy not photographic technology. The later I would never argue with MT.

RichardSM Loc: Back in Texas

There is one thing that can be said is "how Canon got it's Reputation" is that it is a great and wonderful company it's a solid technological manufacturer of fine products I sure hope I'm around for 25 more year to see it get even better?

lukan Loc: Chicago, IL

Canon has huge resources, as do Nikon, Sony, Panasonic and Olympus (but not as much). I'd like to see ANY ONE of these companies push their innovations to further advance the edge of the art. When one does something great, soon they all have their iterations of it, and everyone benefits. :thumbup: :D

RichardSM Loc: Back in Texas

Canon's holding around the world. See site below.
http://www.canon.com/corporate/information/group/list04.html