Carl 383 Loc: Southampton UK

Looking forward to hearing that.

Bugfan Loc: Toronto, Canada

Yes, it often does seem that there is only Nikon and Canon when it comes to the "best". I think that's partly history. Back in the sixties and seventies in the 35mm film world those were the two manufacturers who tended to innovate the quickest and who pandered to the professionals by having the most extensive collection of accessories and lenses.

Those were also the two makers for whom you could get third party lenses and other accessories since they had a huge market. In those days it wasn't whether Nikon or Canon were the best, it was simply that those were what the pros used since they could get whatever they needed to solve their photographic problems.

It was in the seventies when other makers started to come to prominence. Pentax and Olympus and Minolta all expanded their product lines. I noted that most of the gadgets I'd ever want to own started to show up on those platforms too and the lens offerings were amazing too. But by then Nikon and Canon had been established so if you took a long term view they seemed like the only cameras you could rely on to meet your ever more demanding needs. They also tended to have most of the shelf space in the stores and they still do. That was unfortunate, these other three makers were really good offerings and Minolta in fact became very innovative from what I can remember.

With hindsight it seems like sticking with Nikon and Canon was smart. Minolta is no more though it still exists of course and is called Sony today. Pentax seems to have faded as has Olympus. Both are still around but not as prominent as in the past. And there's a new boy on the block, Sony.

I think it was the attitudes about Nikon and Canon being the professional's camera and perhaps some effective marketing to create this problem. Maybe so, or perhaps these smaller makers made a few strategic mistakes over the years. I can't say. However it certainly looks like those old stalwarts consistently produced solid innovative products and both survived well.

Sony I think is the one who might finally join the professional club. But ... it's hard to overcome decades of attitude. Nikon and Canon are still the alleged choice of the professionals so Sony has to demonstrate not only innovative high quality, which they do, but they need to also have all the gadgets needed for sophisticated photography and they have to demonstrate that they can survive into the future.

Today I note that not all third party lenses are available for Sony but that seems to be changing. So the other makers are beginning to acknowledge Sony as a key player. It certainly seems too that Sony could quite possibly meet all my needs (I shoot Nikon) but I'm not sure since I've never looked into it and since it would cost me too much to switch in any case.

Unfortunately Sony has to also demonstrate longevity and that simply means they're going to have to survive a few decades and stay in the camera business. I know that personally when Sony started selling cameras I had serious doubts about them surviving in that business. Then there was a very long delay before a new high end body showed up and my Nikons were performing at that level, Sony looked like they'd never make it though eventually they did.

Sony's history has been spotty. They have pioneered products and then later stopped making them. So there is a question of how long Sony will be in the camera business before it decides to get into something else. I now think they're in for good but who can say?

There have also been some bad decisions. When Sony won the blue-ray wars that technology never exploded and came down in price the way DVDs had. Look at the cost of DVD media versus the cost of a blank blue ray disk. They tried to infect PCs to prevent people from copying Sony media and when they were caught they denied it and later, after admitting to it, they also pointed out that what they did can't be undone. They've tended to be proprietary too, refusing to adhere to standards They insisted on their memory stick for years instead of SD and CF, they had a flash shoe that would only accept a Sony flash. Experiences like this make people suspicious and that doesn't help Sony grow in the camera business even if they have the best cameras and lenses around.

Perhaps in another decade or so we'll have three brands mentioned all the time, Nikon, Canon and Sony. But for now it remains Nikon and Canon. And frankly, with those two you really can't go wrong as has been proven over and over by a long sixty year history so that's what perpetuates the attitudes.

lukan Loc: Chicago, IL

I agree with the majority of what you said, and for Sony to further "emerge" as a viable choice for professionals they need to proliferate the marketplace better, as well as continue to innovate DSLR and mirrorless technology. I own two Sonys, an A99 and an A77, live in Chicago, and am hard-pressed to be able to go to any kind of store to actually put my hands on one! It was by chance that my friend's son, who works at Calumet, overheard a few months ago that I was interested in seeing/ trying an A99 full-frame based on everything that I heard and read about it but couldn't find anywhere locally that sold it. He said that that his store had ONE left, and that he would call immediately to reserve it for me. When I got to the store, I asked the manager (who unfortunately is no longer there) how many they originally got in to sell, and he said three! He was also quick to add that three was going to be all they would get unless there is a special order. Canon and Nikon, on the other hand are far more plentifully scattered about in every camera store out there. They sell more because they make more and they ship more, and all because people BUY more of those two brands. I ended up buying the A99 and I love it, but if I have a question about it I have to reference Friedman's book, call tech support at Sony, or post the question on the UHH (here!). It might be a while before Sony is considered a professional's DSLR choice.

photon56 Loc: North America

I can tell why I chose Nikon. They have a big selection of refurbished cameras and lens available for very good price. It was a great way for me to get started without shelling out a lot if money. I looked at Sony due to a collection of old Minolta lens I have from my 35mm. But Nikon won me over.

Bugfan Loc: Toronto, Canada

You also raise an excellent point. I often get the feeling that cameras are a sideline for Sony and that they basically dabble in them. To Nikon and Canon they are a calling, a sacred mission. Interestingly too, both Canon and Nikon have many other product lines too, not only cameras, but perhaps less other product lines than Sony.

Still, who are you going to buy from? A maker who can give you whatever you need and advances the technology constantly so that you always have something to migrate towards, or would you buy from a maker who generally has what you need but is slow to expand functionality to allow you to advance and who simply dabbles in the camera business? I don't think you or anyone else needs to answer that question, it's kind of obvious.

I think that too is one of Sony's weaknesses, cameras are not just another product in a line of many different offerings, they are a calling for those of us who take pictures. Perhaps when Sony starts to understand that they will finally start to become seen as a more viable alternative to Nikon and Canon. The real question will be whether they will ever understand.

In the meantime it will remain the same two players - Nikon and Canon.

lukan Loc: Chicago, IL

It might be Canikon, Olympus, Sony and all the others. Sony feels to me like they actually have a calling, albeit in their camera division. Their DSLRs are all extremely good, especially from what I've seen and used, and several professional photographers and reviewers seem to agree with me. Olympus is an exceptionally passionate technological innovator, in a similar but different sense than Sony, and enjoys the reputation of making some of the absolute finest lenses in the industry. All the others might be really good at one thing or another, but will remain bit players with strong appeal to the amateur hobbyist, depending on his likes, needs and budget.
Sony feels like the next major camera company to "break out", if you will, and they have the deep pockets to do it right, from lens design to sensor and imaging software to video technology. I think Sony could emerge as a co-leader right alongside Canon and Nikon, and sooner than we think.

cntry Loc: Colorado

That is Sony's biggest problem! Very few stores carry them, whether it's the stores choice or Sony's, I'm not sure but it definitely does affect their sales. When I went looking for my Sony A35 (too many Minolta lenses to switch), the only store I found that carried Sony was Sears. (We only have a couple dedicated camera stores within a 50 mile radius and they are too high to even consider.) I looked in Best Buy and was talking to the salesperson when someone else walked up and asked about the Sony A55. The salesperson talked them into a Nikon, even though he admitted it didn't have the features of the Sony for the same price, but it "was what's available". I was set on Sony so kept looking and was willing to order if necessary, not everyone is willing to do that and it costs Sony sales.
When I bought my A65V, I went straight online and saved my gas and time running around looking for it.

ddonlewis

As the old saying goes, perception is reality. I've been following the photo business for 50 years and Canon and Nikon have been the big guns the entire time. There have been other players that were as good or better; you had Pentax and the Asahi lenses, you had Minolta and the Rokkor lenses, you had Olympus and there great lenses and accessories, but in the end the heavy weights remained. We forget this is a BUSINESS. I had a Volvo in the 80's that had a diesel engine that I loved. Volvo stopped selling them in the U.S. after 5 years because of sales. I personally don't think there is enough oxygen left after Nikon's and Canon's to keep the other big players interested in the long run. Let's be honest, the only way to beat a +-$700 Nikon/Canon is with a full frame for big bucks from the other players. That business model is a tough sell.

Marionsho Loc: Kansas

Living in a small town, I have no choice but to order online. Wal-Mart is here but they don't sell much. I would have to travel 80 miles one way to even look at a Canon, and a LOT farther than that to see a Nikon. Kinda sucks. I would love to work with a local dealer but…..

lukan Loc: Chicago, IL

That's what you get for being in hiding... :)
Olympus and Sony are contenders that you might never experience and absolutely rival Canon and Nikon, with better design.

lukan Loc: Chicago, IL

Your A65 is absolutely a winner and one of the best cameras in its class.

anotherview Loc: California

If you do go with the Canon 6D, then you may wish to consider the new Sigma 24-105mm f/4 lens. The reviewers have found it performs better than the Canon lens. The Sigma lens costs way less, too.

On the other hand, I carried the 6D with the EF 24-105mm mounted on it as my walkaround lens for a while, and took some worthy pictures. The 6D produces very low noise images.

Good luck.

Marionsho Loc: Kansas

Yes I'm in hiding but…. stupid me, I tried to introduce myself and musta done something wrong, because it didn't go through. I tried to post pictures and did something wrong and they didn't go through. I gave up. I finally made it a point to post a picture and figured it out. I successfully posted a couple and now I can post some more, now that I know how easy it is. I'm a regular here, according to the website, so I better figure out how to introduce myself and actually make it stick. Some people in hiding here are, maybe, in the witness protection program and wish to remain that way. Maybe.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Actually, they are probably huge celebrities, and already have more paparazzi than they can handle. You know what I mean, right? :lol:
SS

amehta Loc: Boston

I think witness protection program is more likely. I have nothing else to say on the subject. ;-)