mas24 Loc: Southern CA

The finest lenses generally come in the full frame format, such as Canon's "L", Nikon's Gold Ring, and Sony's "Zeiss/GM lenses. These are the best you can own in these particular Brands. And I know one photographer of each Brand, who owns at least one of these lenses. And are completely loyal to them. All of my lenses except one, a Sigma telephoto, are Nikon. And none in the Gold Ring category. I'm perfectly grateful for what I have. I just purchased a new DX version Nikon 35mm f1.8 for $197. One of the best lenses for that price.

cambriaman Loc: Central CA Coast

The reason I started with Nikon was the glass and still is the glass. Although, I am impressed with Sony recent efforts.

Cibafan Loc: Virginia

In my case glass was definitely the reason. The first camera I bought was a Yashica twin lens reflex medium format does that tell you I am up there in years. Then I bought a Nikon F with a 50 mm and a 200mm lens, added a 28mm and 50 mm macro, my wife gave me a Canon A1 with two nice zoom lens and I must say I liked the camera. When digital equipment came along I was looking a Canon and realized my Canon lenses would not work. I bought a Nikon D 70 that used my older lenses and it has been Nikon since. The Digital world changes so fast I quit trying to keep up after a D600, but I have purchased more lenses.

Toment Loc: FL, IL

As Margo Martindale, playing Mags Bennet, said in Justified, "it was in the glass."

whitewolfowner

If you want to shoot serious video, get a camcorder; video on DSLR's have a few advantages over camcorders but mostly disadvantages.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Panasonic's ergonomic layout of controls and logical, clear menu organization is what got me, AFTER I discovered their GH series' video and audio capabilities.

I used Nikons and Canons for years. Canon menus are great, Nikon menus are so-so. I used both about equally from 2003 to 2012, and got really tired of having to think when I picked up a Nikon. I hate thinking about my tools instead of my task. Still, I liked VERY DIFFERENT things about the two big brands back then. I used each for a different purpose.

I really switched because I had a tremendous need and opportunity to mix stills and video in my work. The Panasonic cameras were best at it. I had no problem ditching my old glass and starting over, because not doing it was really not an option for me. I needed the features. I wanted to travel light, and "do it all" with one system.

If you stay with a brand because of the glass, and what you spent on it, I get it. No one likes to admit to himself that he has "sunk costs". You didn't make a mistake. You just changed directions. That's okay! It can work really well.

If you have nothing, and want to hedge your bets, buy Canon dSLRs and Canon L or EF-compatible lenses. They are adaptable to Sony, Panasonic, Fujifilm, and Olympus cameras with smart adapters that retain most of the automation. Nikon lenses can be adapted, but only with manual control.

If menus on your camera offend you, try Canon and Panasonic. They just make sense.

If you have lenses dating back to 1959, I understand. You're stuck with Nikon because they're so damned compatible. My old Nikon glass still works on modern bodies.

If you have most brands, they change mounts every 15-20 years. That can be advantageous, because fresh engineering can work better. Canon has changed lens mounts at least twice since I used an FX back in the late 1960s. I thought both changes made perfect sense.

Fortunately, there's a market for used lenses. And eBay is a wonderful place... So don't feel stuck. If you HAVE to have a new camera platform because it does things you need to do, and your old platform doesn't, JUST SWITCH. It's a pain in the posterior (and wallet), but can be worth it.

Brand loyalty can make sense, or be irrational. It all depends on your circumstances.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Camcorders are so 20th century. These days, we use mirrorless cameras for video!

Check out the video capabilities of the Sony a6xxx and a7S II, the Fujifilm XT-2, and especially the new Lumix GH5.

Independent filmmakers and broadcasters won't waste time with camcorders. But they will use mirrorless gear.

If you don't believe me, watch this short film by Griffin Hammond, shot in 4K/60P video, on the new Lumix GH5. If you have a 4K TV, it will knock your socks off.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoYbqSxPWrA

Griffin made an award winning short film about Sriracha sauce a few years ago, using the Lumix GH3. You can watch it free on Amazon Prime. Here's a movie about how it was made:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXOAx58LBDo

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I agree that it's all about the glass... the cameras themselves are a whole lot less important.

All brands are good and very capable, too, as you say. Probably the biggest limitiations of most systems is the fool behind the viewfinder!

But I have to disagree with you about the cost of Canon glass... With very few exceptions Canon are less expensive than comparable Nikon or Sony glass. Sometimes a whole lot less expensive!




Canon introduced their first SLRs using "R-mount" lenses, but only made four models between 1959 and 1962 (three or four years).

In 1964 they introduced the FX you mentioned, the first to use the new "FL mount" lenses. Some years later they introduced "FD" and "FDn" lenses, but those and the cameras using them were almost entirely cross-compatible with the earlier FL lenses and cameras. That system remained in use until the late 1980s... roughly 25 years.

The first EOS cameras and EF lenses - incompatible with the earlier FL/FD - were introduced in 1987. So they have now been in continuous production for 30 years. Aside from some "crop only" EF-S lenses made specifically for the APS-C sensor DSLRs, there are virtually no compatibility issues among Canon EOS cameras and EF lenses made the past 30 years.

The Canon EOS/EF mount is large diameter with a short lens register... which makes it ideal and versatile to adapt other systems' vintage, manual focus lenses to use upon them. The modern Sony mount is similarly versatile. Nikon, Pentax and Olympus are less versatile... primarily usable only with their own vintage mount lenses.

Tomcat5133 Loc: Gladwyne PA

I have camcorders. They are great. But if I want a quality interchangeable lens camcorder (I have fixed XDCams)
will have to go for at least $6000-10,000K. This is what started the whole DSLR, Mirrorless video production surge.
I was at NAB in Vegas a couple of weeks ago and their were reporting crews all over shooting with DSLR and
mirrorless cameras working for Canon and Sony and other bloggers etc.
I have a lot of glass and camera like the 2 a7s's will give me hi-quality low light images. And by the way
The Sony a6000,6300 I have are being used to acquire great video mostly for the net etc.
Thanks Tom.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Panasonic and Olympus share the same 90+ native lenses. They can use hundreds more, with adapters. MetaBones makes both Smart Adapters and SpeedBoosters that retain nearly all automatic features of Canon EF lenses on Olympus and Panasonic bodies. They also adapt many other brands of dSLR and cine lenses to m4/3...

At the same time, the best experience is using brand-native lenses, if you can afford it.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

R, FL and FD are the same mount. The R lenses mounted just fine on the latest FDn cameras. So for SLR Canon stuck with the same mount from the beginning until the EF mount of 1987.
They did not have a strong professional presence in 1987 so it didn't hurt them and the new EF system was so advanced and superior the pros largely dumped Nikon and the rest is history for the last 30 years. There are millions of new photographers who were not born when the EF system was introduced or were too young to care. You need to be over 45 to 50 to even remember the FD system.

Cibafan Loc: Virginia

I remember. My first wedding was shot using a 4x5 speed graphic and royal pan film.

whitewolfowner

Burk, it all depends on what one is shooting. Video cameras are still the king though. Yes, many are going for the still cameras for video because of convenience and size but they have their limitations.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

If you are doing a hollywood production or a TV show, then yes, there are appropriate high end camcorders for that. For most casual video users on this forum, a hybrid camera likely makes better sense.

I haven't found any real limitations to what I can do with a mirrorless camera in my work. The dSLR crowd may have some limits I don't. But if you are an independent filmmaker, ad agency, documentary filmmaker on a budget, corporate trainer, and the like, a mirrorless camera from Sony, Panasonic, or Fujifilm may be all you need. Besides, it makes a great stills camera.

I can do a lot more with video on the GH4 than I used to do with a "commercial and industrial" level camcorder costing twice as much. I'm able to record everything I need, in one take, with the same system simultaneously capturing stills and video. I work out of one bag that fits under an airline seat.

I used to carry two Pelican cases with a Canon still camera system in one, and a Canon video camcorder in the other. I had to have help getting to the airport with one checked bag, one carry-on bag, and at least two cases for a cross-country trip... as many as four cases, if I took lights. I had to think completely differently when I put down one camera and picked up another.

I can't tell you how liberating it is to use ONE system for stills and video, and to simply extract the stills I need for manuals and PDF files and online eLearning content, straight from the video, in many cases. I'm really excited, because two camera companies share the same lenses. And those camera companies are racing to out-do each other with each new camera they release.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

The body records the image. The body gets updated over a couple years.

The glass produces the image (if the photographer uses it correctly). The glass gets updated over a couple decades.

So which is more important? Since the glass produces the image it's very important, but the body has to be capable of recording the image accurately and processing it to produce the best image. (and the body has to have enough bells, whistles, gongs, and horns to make the user happy).