Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

axiesdad Loc: Monticello, Indiana

I guess I'll never be a photographer. I've had a D3100 for about five years now and can't even begin to justify spending big bucks for a "better" camera. It would be like a 100+ golfer buying really expensive clubs to improve his game. I think my bag has about a thousand dollars worth of equipment in it, but it's the gear behind the eyepiece that is the big limiter on how good my pictures are.

Ratskinner Loc: Copalis Beach WA

Observation: Canon vs. Nikon, as it is with Men vs. Women. There is plenty of virtue and vice to go around. Dance as well as you can
with who came with,

cambriaman Loc: Central CA Coast

I shoot Nikon, Canon and Sony. I can claim ambivalence. I used to shoot Argus, Exakta and Minolta c'est la vie!

Mr. Fuzzy

I have a Galaxy S9+, are you trying to tell me that this thing has a camera?

Mr. Fuzzy

Canonikon Pshaaa! I have been shooting Pentax since 1976 when I got my first K1000. I finally went DSLR when I got my K50 in 2016.

drklrd Loc: Cincinnati Ohio

drklrd Loc: Cincinnati Ohio

I have shot with many a film camera as a pro and my early days as a beginner. I eventually settled in film on the Bronica SQA versus the Hasselblad and the Canon vs the Nikon. Sold all but the Bronica when I knew film was going out as I was by then rarely using the Canon gear. The Bronica sits on a shelf. Replaced now in the digital world with Nikon. Many lenses and at least 3 bodies are now Nikon. As to why Nikon? Only because I found out more about Nikon than I did about Canon when I decided to buy the gear. Research to find what the other pros were using was also what told me to go Nikon instead of Canon. The photog's using Canon that I knew seemed to think there is too much of a difference in the files saved in the camera between Nikon and Canon. I think other than file format in RAW there may be a difference but not enough to worry about. In jpeg they seem to me to be damned identical. Once you invest in one camera brand and have more than the lens that came with it you become a part of that camera brand since the lenses and the bodies have to match up. Even the off brand lenses are made to match the bodies of cameras. So once you have the initial investment the only way to change over is to sell what you had, take the loss, and move on to the one brand you now want. Not willing to take the loss and Nikon gives me what I want I stay with Nikon. Even if I loved using the old Kodak Tourist for sports shooting back in high school as well as my old 2 1/4 square Mamiya twins lens reflex, both of course film cameras. With the twins lens Mamiya I could actually shoot pin hole shots by drilling a tiny hole in the body cover of that camera since it had a film cover built in to change lenses could be flipped up to make the pinhole shot and flipped down to cover the film again.

hassighedgehog Loc: Corona, CA

With my Pentax K-50 and Panasonic Lumix DMC ZS60 I can laugh at both Nikon and Canon jokes.

PAR4DCR Loc: A Sunny Place

I have a much smaller camera bag!!

Don

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

Just as I have already stated. Your post makes no sense. Neither did the previous one.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Then leave if you are that dense.

Errickcameron

Photographer: one who graphs light.

Errickcameron

Photographer: one who graphs light

TomKat Loc: Not here

Brutally opinionated discussion. Like D’s & R’s.
Let’s just kill each other and sit in silence jeez...Smug Ugly smart asses