Tomcat5133 Loc: Gladwyne PA

I had Nikon cameras and glass for years. On my desk right now is a AF Nikkor 85mm 1.8. Not sure how old it is.
Have a metabones convertor on it. A few years ago I started acquiring Sony mirrorless camera's.
And their camcorders which were great for the price. Sony glass has been catching up for the last few years.
It was video I got frustrated with Nikon. So slowly a lot of the Nikon glass was traded. Had cameras like the NEX series.
Size and image quality won out. Excuse me for saying again it was the Nikon D7000 and a video I did in a school for
disabled children that hooked me on video. Then bought the Sony HXR‑NX30 camcorder with great floating lens in good
image quality. This started the Sony innovation grab bag. The a7s impressed me. The XDCam's were amazing for the price.
Did I give up stills? No.Got a call a couple weeks ago about a year end school celebration in an hour here. Could I shoot some images.
Grabbed my Sony 6300 and 16 70 Zeiss lens and ran over to the culture center. Great group shots and performers
on stage. No flash shots. I now have some good Sony glass which is a investment.
I would love to have Canon glass for my video and stills but the glass is to expensive. If we have a lot invested
in decent or exceptional glass I think this is what keeps us with a brand. Their is no Canon or Nikon or Sony
battle like some do here. They are all very good creators of wonderful image makers. It is the glass we own.

rjaywallace Loc: Wisconsin

I agree that glass with great inherent qualities In addition to better image quality keeps us with a brand.
Lately for me that has been Fuji. /Ralph

dck22

MtnMan Loc: ID

No. It is the control approach.

I tried a Sony mirrorless. While it took great images and had better programming features I just couldn't work with the control approach and Sonyspeak in the menus and organization.

I now also have a Panasonic and although their control approach also differs from Nikon somehow I'm able to work with it.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Tom, outside of a light-tight box, the lens makes it. I've been using Zeiss, Nikkor, or Schneider-Kreuznach optics for decades. I've recently tried a KMZ 50mm and found it to be superb and now looking to purchase a 35mm. It's definitely the glass.
--Bob

Lenscracker

I agree. I have never given up my Canon lenses except for some trade-ins on other Canon lenses. However, I did buy a Pentax K-1 and several of their lenses this winter because the K-1 camera has features that no Canon has... features that I really need. I now use the K-1 most of the time. I am keeping my Canons and L series lenses for the times they are the better choice to use. I can't part with those Canon lenses.

Haydon

Yes my Canon lenses keep me imprisoned with the brand but I'm fine with that. What holds me back in talent, which many people think can be bought with a camera and lens.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

...and plugins, add-ons, and spiffy accessories.
--Bob

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Not for me. I've been shooting various Nikon cameras since the late 1960s. In the beginning, I had the basic 50mm. I added a W/A and a tele. I have no reason to switch from Nikon, but if I did, I'd sell everything on ebay and switch to a new system - not that that's going to happen, though.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Glass delivers the goods, not the camera. But more important is the skill, knowledge, and experience of the photographer that makes the REAL difference.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

Personally, I like my Nikon Glass. I have one Tamron (the 10-24mm wide zoom DX) and, while it produces excellent color) and okay pics, it tends to fisheye at 10mm. If I keep it at 12 or above, it works ok but it is a DX lens and that means that the field of view at 10mm is similar to a 15mm FX lens and at 24mm it is similar to a 36mm lens. This is why I added an FX camera (so that I didn't have the short lens penalty). On longer lenses, the 50% penalty becomes an asset. Making a 50mm seem like a 75mm lens (keeping in mind that it is still a DX) and a 400mm lens seem like a 600mm lens. I have now gotten to a point where most of my lenses are FX and can easily go from my FX to DX camera with no issues. HOWEVER, good FX glass is considerably more expensive than DX. The offset is that I can invest in good FX glass and use it effectively on my DX camera and still get many of the advantages of the better lens. Keep in mind that generally speaking, FX lenses (the good ones anyway) tend to be heavier (better and larger glass and metal barrels) but better quality. DX lenses tend to be built for consumer cameras and are generally lighter weight with plastic parts and smaller glass and less expensive. This isn't a bad thing but is something that should be considered when purchasing lenses. My lenses will or should outlast all of my camera bodies and be usable well into the future.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

You are right for those of us who do not have limitless funds.
When it comes down to it all have very good optics as far as glass is concerned.

Capn_Dave

I did say that at one time.... It's the lenses. However on a trip to Indonesia I had problems with A camera that was in warranty. Brand X said
they would not honor the warranty because I did not buy it in that part of the world. That was enough for me. When I returned home, I sold
every piece of Brand X and bought new Canon equipment. I didn't really know if Canon's warranty was better, as I was pissed. On another trip
to Oz years latter I needed Canon some warranty work. I thought I am going to have to buy new camera equipment again. Canon said no problem
can you bring it in. Well I still shoot with Canon.

Plieku69 Loc: The Gopher State, south end

Maybe, maybe not. I had a Canon G3 and was on Canon's email list. Wanting to up grade (and not knowing about UHH) I went shopping at Best Buy. Holding the T3i and holding the Nikon equivalent, the Conon just felt better, with less of a plastic feel. I had always respected the Nikon name, going back to my early film days.

So now I have a T3i and an 80D and I picked up a Nikon D70 from a new hire as he needed money. I like the Nikon, enough that I added a upgrade lens to replace the kit lens. Even then I felt the Nikon kit lens to be much better than Canon's kit lens. The Nikon is my go everyplace camera.

Three camera's is more than enough so no more upgrades for a while.

Ken

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

While I look to Nikon glass first there are other that produce some really good glass. I bought a Tamron 15-30 to back up my Nikon 14-24 when I dropped it twice and had to send it in for repairs. I like it a lot.