Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

1. Not in the slightest!
2. Yes!
3. Agreed!
If the camera is a pain to use, you won't use it!

chapjohn Loc: Tigard, Oregon

More than a brand or model of camera/lens, it is mostly about knowing what the camera and lens can do. When you know that then can you make adjustments to get respectable images.

Because you asked about brand...SONY is the only option that makes sense.

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

But would you buy a Honda or Toyota pick up truck...

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

That is some leapin logic...

traderjohn Loc: New York City

Lexus is Toyota.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Billy - I'm right with you there. Unfortunately, the world of Pentax - is slimming, considerably. The latest B&H catalogue - delivered two weeks ago, shows just a dozen of each - Canon, and Nikon DSLRs, plus - a two-page spread - is dedicated to the new mirrorless models, from BOTH companies. In contrast. the Sony pages - show just 4 of their FF MILCs, and only four of their APS-C compacts. But, NONE - of their SLT line (and I have THREE - so, don't feel bad.) The Pentax page - shows THREE only - the FF K-1, the new KP, and the K-70 … that's IT! … So, this - kinda - dictates the picture, here at UHH, I expect …

Personally, I LOVE my K-50, and take it with me, just about everywhere. I also have the Pentax 6x7.
If I could ever afford to do so, I would go to MF Digital, and my first choice, would be the 645Z - if that's any comfort to you. It is my feeling, Ricoh, has chosen NOT to pitch Pentax too much, preferring to spend their advertising budget - on their OWN designs, rather than pushing a dying brand ….

ecurb1105

Cameras can be as personal as a custom suite. I agree that the photographer behind the camera is much more important then the brand of camera. I suggest you fly to New York and go to BH or Adorama and try different cameras, find the ones that fit your hands, face and eyes. Check the camera menus for understandability. For instance, I hated the feel of Minolta Maxxim cameras, but I shot Nikons since the 1960s.

Tomcat5133 Loc: Gladwyne PA

The way I understand it most sensors are made by Sony. Or under the instructions
of other camera companies. The differences are in the software that is designed for
the specific camera. It is the software that gives Canon that look they like. More real
out of the camera and a bit warmer. I like Sony images. It is a personal preference
unless I can afford medium format camera or a Arri Alexa for my video.

Well as far as car's go their is really no American car anymore. A great many of the parts
are made all over the world. 65% of your Chevy is made from foreign parts.
Now how we gave invention and production of TV's and camera's and all sorts of stuff.

Pharma biggest manufacturer in the world Germany.
We let our government reward American manufacturers to move production and
making of good overseas. The lobbyists working for big money let the American thing
move overseas and congress fell for the bribe.

HeyYou Loc: SE Michigan

These occasional posts are such a hoot! I’m trying hard to avoid saying something judgmental - maybe because at one time we’ve all been there - so I will be kind.
(Having said that - full disclosure - I am a Pentax fanboy - but I will still resist the temptation...)

IT IS THE PHOTOGRAPHER !

awesome14 Loc: UK

If it's your first DSLR, then the whole field is open. You have no investment in glass, which frees you up a lot. If you're in the position of starting out in DSLR photography, Canon gives you more for the money. Nikon gives you a better selection of glass, because virtually every F mount lens Nikon ever made will work on its current DSLR bodies. But all Canon lenses from 1987 to present work on current DSLR bodies.

Nikons are preferred for remote locations and harsh environments, because they can tolerate a bit more banging around than Canon gear. But Canon has more experience with digital-imaging technology. So, the Canon electronics are more mature and elegant. Nikon uses larger pixels in their imaging sensors, which results in lower resolution but also lower noise!

At today's MP numbers, higher resolution sensors matter only for cropping or print size. 36 MP at 1.5 aspect will give you a 24x16", 300 ppi printout. That's pretty large. Going much larger is really more in the specialty area. And, with digital tools you can increase the size of the printout to 36x24".

For studio work, outdoor modeling, sports events, and any other work in done in a predictable time frame and mild environment, you'll see a lot of white lenses (Canon).

For wildlife, extreme outdoors sports, long or unpredictable assignments, remote locations, you'll see more Nikon gear, because Nikon gear is a bit tougher, which increases reliability in harsh environments or where replacement supplies are scarce and/or difficult to obtain.

If you don't plan on shooting so much that you wear out the DSLR body in five years (about 300,000 shots), you probably don't require the durability of Nikon. For most non-professionals Canon is probably the correct choice.

But if you know someone with a good supply of recent gear. you might want to get whatever he has, because then you can share gear. If you go out on a shoot, you'll both have more gear on hand between the two of you.

But, like many others in this thread have said, "Gear does not make great photographs!" I don't care what is in my hands, Nikon, Canon, point-and-shoot, smart phone; if the thing is working, I'll get good shots with it, because that's how I see the world: in terms of what looks good in a photo. I'm also willing to assume risk, and expend time and effort to get the shots I want!

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

I am sure there are many here, who would give you a good argument on that score. I've seen many beat-up old Canons, which were never the worse for wear, and then there are many folks who have had hurt Nikons and lenses … I even had an 85mm f1.8 - which totally seized up on me. So, the point in saying this is - you can't make a GLOBAL STATEMENT about which brand - Nikon or Canon - is more rugged. Pentax makes a fine product, too - and many of its frames are steel - which can't be said about the latest entries from Canon and Nikon - which rely on plastic composites, and/or - magnesium. Sony, also, uses these combinations, in part. So, it's nonsense - about which brands are more rugged - don't take any notice of that. You should decide on a brand, based on how it feels in your hands, first of all, and then also - compare the Viewfinder displays, and the menus, and other controls. Then, if you wish to - compare the specs, on-line … and compare prices, too. No point in agreeing to pay $2000 for a camera, when you can get all YOU want in a camera, for half of that, or a quarter of it, or, even less. Right? Only YOU can decide!

AirWalter Loc: Tipp City, Ohio

I am far from being an expert, however I have learned that it is all about the shooter behind the camera and lens.

CWGordon

The remarks of ChrisT seem on-target. I have had a camera made by each of the major makers; I cannot make a blanket assessment on any facet of any camera. As for Magnesium in a camera frame: Is that not strong enough? I think I am not strong enough to damage my Nikons. Plastic composites? They are here to stay. They make sense and are less likely, I would think, to dent and should flex a bit on any contact, thereby absorbing shock. Obviously, weight is a very big factor in using Magnesium and plastic. How much would our DSLR’s weigh if we had all steel (brass, copper, gold) camera bodies and how about big lenses with all that glass, who wants to haul around all of that metal? I like some heft to my gear, but I am get ting older and appreciate manufacturer efforts to lighten the load.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Admin agreed to separate the T from the Chris, about a year ago, CW. There was quite an uproar about my phraseology, initially, and I decided the best way to settle things down a bit, was to request the space. Frankly, I didn't know it would cause such angst amongst UHH members, neither - did I know - a space between the two - would be acceptable. But, it was, so - now, it's written as Chris T. … Now, then - on these compositions - the amount of steel used in Pentax bodies is insignificant, really - just enough to give the cameras some heft, and enough to stand up to sudden drops. If a Pentax is dropped from a high place, more than likely - it will stand up to most things. If the body is cracked, it's not such a big deal to get a new shell. But, if an all-plastic body is dropped, it will - all too likely - shatter - even if it has a light metal like magnesium. Magnesium creates a little heft, but it might create some strain after a while, if used all day long - just as steel will. After the Tennis industry gave up on wood - because it broke all the time - they went to metal. But, a lot of folks complained of tennis elbow, so, after that, they went to metal-plastic composites like Kevlar, Boron and Graphite - all of which could be used for cameras, if the camera industry could ever get away from steel, magnesium and all-plastic composites - the latter of which - is hardly ideal. Composites may stand up to regular use - banging against fences and rocks, accidentally - but it won't stand up to accidental drops, like metal-based frames will, CW ...

scsdesphotography Loc: Southeastern Michigan