awesome14 Loc: UK

Canon is 25% cheaper than Nikon for comparable specs. This bears out in all applications of rugged use. Nikon is built for reliability under the harshest of conditions. Granted, it's probably not as flexible as its Canon counterparts. But I have never suffered a breakdown in critical situations. Although I do still carry 2 bodies. Nikon uses less and bigger pixels, for better performace at high ISOs, at the expense of lower cropping resolution. Canon equipment is lighter weight, and just how long does one need to keep using a certain body.

Canon are superior at studio and glamour work. Almost all nude female photography is done with Canon equipment. As well as any indoor work. But out in the wilderness where a breakdown could cost thousands, Nikon has always been the preferred choice, because it's more failsafe, whereas Canon much more frequently fails in extreme temps, high humidity, rain, snow, sand and salt water.

Whereas, the pro knows every Canon will eventually fail, Nikon will not. And there are super deals on Nikon glass. If you need a 600mm for a job, you can pic up an older one on eBay for $1,000. And if one even remotely knows what he's doing behind a 35mm camera, long manual focus lenses are many times preferable to the AF versions, because the AF needs a bit of manual adjustment anyway.

And, when you're on a freezing mountain top shooting the night sky, you really only need a piece of tape to mark infinity. I can shoot anything with the newest or oldest equipment. I prefer to move my body to using zooms. Nikon has some primes that are so lightweight and close focusing, it's like having a 300mm macro. I can shoot perfectly fine with the 300mm f/4 P and a a 2x teleconverter it's just like having a 600mm f/8. AF snaps into focus, even indoors, if you can imagine 600mm indoors.

The response of AF at f/8 on the D810 is superb. Nikon firmware is also superior to Canon's in every respect. Many fewer glitches and bugs. And Nikon appeals to hardcore pros, so it gets better feedback from users who have a greater understanding of the hardware. Whereas, Canon users are more artistic and less technically oriented. Nikon RAW is superior in it's postprocessing flexibility and power. It is nearly universal among postprocessing software, because it is trivial to reverse engineer.

While Canon RAW format is frequently poorly implemented in postprocessing programs, because it is difficult to adapt to existing algorithms. However, in the niche markets Canon dominates, glamour, boudois, studio work, bright lighting, lower ISOs (Nikon pro bodies shoot up to about ISO 3 million).Using fewer and larger pixels on the sensor adds flexibility and power to cover more situations, some of which may be impossible with Canon equipment.

Canon is #1 because of the lower price coupled to human ignorance. It's like a one-man band vs a symphony orchestra. If the user shoots Nikon hard, it just asks for more. Shoot Canon hard, and it fails. Expedition shoots--far from civilization, are Nikon territory. Not that Canon are toys. The equipment is quite capable. The user just needs a fall back in case of equipment failure. I carry 2 bodies, but mostly to have 2 lenses quickly at hand. I've never had a failure, even shooting thousands of frames over a week or 2.

I think I may have cleaned a front element once, when no filter was satisfactory, because of reflections between it and the front element. And, I got a smudge. However, amateur photographers like to spend money to have the latest and greatest, kind of like buying new clubs as a substitute for practicing their golf game.

I have never seem this strategy bear out in better results, because photography is largely in ones view of his surroundings. I can spot a great opportunity 100 feet away. By the time I get there, I've got all the technical details worked out. I've chosen my profile, and I only need to position myself to use up the frame.

I can entice animals to walk right up to me. Even certain birds, like the sandhill crane. The camera doesn't frighten animals. Only body motions. There are a few difficult animal subjects, such as the hummingbird moth, foxes, owls, but most insects can be captured if you turn a can of air duster upside down and blast them. It gets them cold, so they can't move. I've had a mother turkey and babes walk right in front of me.

I've had cranes come within 5' of me, and let me shoot 50 frames. Hummimgbirds are creatures of habit, usually feeding at 8-10 locations per day, each at roughly the same time. So, I set up my lighting, time it for the degree of wing speed I want, tripod the camera, and wait with a shutter release in my hand. The body is set on continuous, auto ISO up to 3200, vivid color scheme if jpg, or else RAW.

I take a dropper bottle with sugar solution, and fill the flower blossoms they feed on, so they'll stay in place for an extra second. Nikon also makes longer, wider and faster lenses, the 6mm Nikkor being an excellent example. As a cabinet maker is able to add and subtartct fudge factors to produce a hand made chest of drawers that operates as smoothly as a ball-bearing file cabinet, even 300 years later, whereas, the amateur can take the most precision meaurements, and end up with drawers that don't close completely. The photographer can get the shot he wants the same way: fudge factors; built in latitude so as to allow for slight errors while still producing professional grade shots.

With AI processing, neural networks can be generated from huge datasets, and resolution can be added to digital images, out of focus images can be made sharp without the undesireable effects of sharpen filters. It's called unstable diffusion. Predictable noise is added to an image, and them it is taken out. Since it is difficult to differentiate the added noise from the pre existing noise, and given the neural network connected to millions of sharp images, unstable diffusion makes pass after pass, removing noise in the form of a blurred image, and replacing it with less noise, until it reaches a sharp image according to it's neural network.

To build such a machine requires about $1,000 in equipment, and the AI software is free. Further, a prompt can be added to accept written descriptions of a piece of artwork, and the program will produce the described image, in photorealistic, animation, hentai, soft anime, hard anime, HDR, and several other outputs. The data sets with premade neural networks are available for free download.

Such a system can produce photorealistic images exported to several image formats, that are indistingiishable from actual photographs of real objects,scenes, people--even specific living or dead people---in any manner of dress, or the way God dresses people. It can produce images of human females so beautiful it is difficult to takes your eyes off them.

That extreme of sensual beauty does not exist in reality. And the subjects of the artwork only exists as bytes on a storage drive. So, the user of such a system can feed it a picture of a real person, specify what changes to make, and an image corresponding to the the text description will be generated in seconds!

AI postprocessing is so far advanced from photo editors, it's like comparing a supercomputer to an abacus. Obviously there are objectionable uses to such technology, such are the key-phrase, 'remove clothing.' In the last few years, billions of such images have been created in the likeness of real, living females. So, it's up to the user to act responsibly, and install a block to prevent such use.

The barriers to creative expression in art have been eliminated. One can specify 'mean dragon', 'detailed', 'breathing fire', 'flying', 'mountains', 'warrior goddess riding on back', goddess wearing corset, choker, sfw, high heels, long thick blond hair in braid, perfect body, miss universe model, diamond jewelry, wielding sword, scandanavian, tall, long legs, perfect face, angry, pouty lips, athletic, muscular, age 30s, dark sky, castle, lightning, giant red ants, medieval, knights in armour on horseback, photorealistic, AI watermark

Within seconds the AI program will produce what is described in image prompt, sfw is a catchall, safe for workplace, which prevents nudity and/or obscene immodesty in the image, AI watermark marks the image with AI, in case a viewer might think the dragon is a real dragon.

And, every image is unique, theoretically, so the maker has a copyright to use the image, and prevent others from using it. As I mentioned, one may also use and existing image, such as from a camera, as a base, and specify alterations to it, such as 'resolution' 300dpi, size 2450x3270, noise reduction, passes 20, depth 5, interpolation, anime, vector, raster, HDR,

And the results are simply unbelievable. This is the next generation of postprocessing. The unstable diffusion system can be customized with plugins limited only by the imagination. With very powerful computing hardware--$3000-$10,000--the system will produce video in 1080p.

Since immoral losers set the ideal in human conduct at the minimum legal requirement, the mischievous have produced billions of images of females with clothing removed. If any females read this, do not keep digital images of your face on Internet-connected devices. Do not post them online, noot even privately. Do not send them to others. And if you date, choose well.

Revenge porn is now unstoppable. No legislation is possible to prevent nudifier sites. It is not possible to develop a comprehensive list of everything artists are not permitted to depict, and make the definitions sufficiently narrow to create a legitimate legal framework, while wide enough to prevent circumvention. Copyright laws apply, but offenders earn no income from their exploits, so there are,no tangible damages to be awarded in a lawsuit.

Even if there were, the amount recovered would be less than the expense involved in identifying the offender(s), serving them, legal fees, and one's own time. Generally, copyright claims must not exceed losses from imfringement. Since depicting mude females that don't exist, only the face, cannot be made illegal, no matter how disturbing, because there is no physical harm done, nor monetary loses that can be sustantiated.

The only protection is prevention. When a female sends a photo to her boyfriend, he promptly sends it to his male contact list group. Then, each of those contacts do the same. They all rate the female on a scale of 1-10, an send their ratings back to the originator. By the time the proliferation is complete, millions of males have rated the female, and have her photo on their phones. Eventually, it will be posted online, many times in nudified form.

There is simply no way to stop the process once it starts. So, females must not start it.

Bridges Loc: Memphis, Charleston SC, now Nazareth PA

Bill, Nikon is getting very close, and considering the jump start Sony had, they have been closing the gap rather quickly. In another generation or two, you may be able to get back to your Nikon roots!

genocolo Loc: Vail and Gasparilla Island

Read Ken Rockwell’s as always excellent reviews of those

MJPerini

Welcome, your simple question about a budget constrained camera, has managed to stimulate our members best and worst tendencies. Take the good, ignore the bad.
The truth is either camera you mentioned is capable of really fine pictures. Since you are buying new, I would suggest a bias toward mirrorless, simply because it is the future and has some advantages. I would also suggest that you buy one camera and one good lens to start -- a constant aperture mid range zoom -say f/4 or better will be a great start.
If your budget precludes that, then either wait, or look at the DSLR offerings which could save money.
You do not provide any information on what you currently own, or what type of photography interests you most.
Nor do you provide your level of experience.
There are lots of genuinely helpful and experienced folks here that would be happy to help. Each of us can only offer what our experience as taught us. Great pictures can be made with any modern camera. Decision making should be based on the kind of pictures you want to make and the budget available at the moment.
I hope this helps a bit
Good Luck, and always remember that what you ultimately choose yo buy (or not buy) has to be your decision.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

iPhone spanks them all...

This was a trivial "grab shot" made with the 5X lens on the iPhone 15 Pro Max.

(Download)

drexcamp Loc: Brownsburg, IN

Just wow, billnikon! Great shot.

clint f. Loc: Priest Lake Idaho, Spokane Wa

Grudgingly yes, even better than the F-1. It was the top of the line in 1972 or 73, but sadly that was over 50 years ago. I love film but digital sure is better for nearly everything.

clint f. Loc: Priest Lake Idaho, Spokane Wa

You’ve got photography all figured out. Next, the meaning of life maybe?

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

If I am following you here, you're saying that the OP should get the R8 then?

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

I’m hoping that was chemically induced and will wear off. I hope he’s not stuck with it permanently.

clint f. Loc: Priest Lake Idaho, Spokane Wa

Good point, I should be more circumspect.

RodeoMan Loc: St Joseph, Missouri

You seem to have an inordinate interest in the sexualization of the human female and its godly directed imperative to be a reproductive vessel for the human male.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Seriously, you guys read more than the first paragraph of that nonsense? My eyes stopped focusing before the end of the second paragraph.

RodeoMan Loc: St Joseph, Missouri

This is interesting. I have no idea about the incidents of repairs regarding Canon vs Nikon or for any other brand for the matter. Where did you get your data? I find it also find it interesting that pros know that Canon is destined to fail while the Nikon keeps right on going. I suspect that some Canons do fail and most keep going and the same for Nikons and other brands. And as far as you being Dr Doolittle and having some sort of spirtual connection with the animals, I don't even want to get into that.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

A recent study found that 68% of the statistics on 37% of the discussion boards are 84% made up.