Treading carefully... question for all of you good Canonites and Nikonians

theMusicMan

theMusicMan

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,838
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
Hey All

Thought I'd ask this question here after wanting to post it for some time. I reckon that we're a good bunch on here and that you'll offer pragmatic and unbiased opinions on the question.

So, given that the majority of members here are Canon or Nikon owners, can I ask you what you feel of the latest range Olympus DSLR's such as the E-510 (the one I have) and the latest addition to the flock, the Oly E-3.

I have invested quite heavily - for a newcomer - in Olympus gear, already owning the E-510 body and several prosumer level lenses and I have to admit I very much like them and relatively speaking, am genuinely happy with the quality of the images I am starting to produce. There's lots of room to improve of course, but I am more than happy I chose Olympus gear, and will certainly be sticking with it.

I appreciate that for existing SLR owners who perhaps have a lot of kit, and who are considering moving to DSLR's, the backwards compatibility of Canon and Nikon gear is important, but for new photographers, or those looking to renew their gear, then the Oly range seems particularly well suited to this area of the market. In my opinion, the Oly range is particularly 'feature rich' and the resulting feature per pound ratio seems to be a lot higher in Oly cameras than the equivalent Canon or Nikon cameras. Now, I am not trying to say one is better or worse than the other, and I know that there are indeed some absolutely superb Canon and Nikon cameras out there - but it does seem to me that Oly are having a rough ride round these here parts.

As a bare bones new user, if I were to look at the feature set, and look for equivalents across the models and manufacturers, I am certain that the Olympus range offers far more for your pound that other manufacturers.

OK, the 4/3 mount needs more promotion and adoption, and therefore more lenses manufactured for it, but there is a not too bad selection out there already, and it is a selection that is most certainly growing with new lenses regularly appearing. I also read excellent reviews (independant of tp) on the Zuiko lens range, especially the prosumer level lenses, but several members here have made comments that... "it's a lens system one invests in, not the camera." This is though, a mute point as the Oly range - though still limited - nonetheless exhibits and yields excellent results in the same way as Canon/Nikon/Sigma lenses etc do.

So, enough of my ramblings and more of your opinions please if I may.

Please don't misinterpret my post as anti-C/N, it isn't meant to be that at all, I just want your opinions of why the Olympus range is not so popular amongst members here, and also that very few non Olympus users suggest in posts and threads on here from new members looking to invest in kit, the Oly range. I will always suggest the appropriate Canon/Nikon/Oly camera, but Canon or Nion owners don't seem to.

Why is this...? Hoping for a good, clean and fun thread.
 
My opinion is simply that Oly were late into firstly the autofocus market and secondly digital. By the time they started to get their act together Nikon and Canon, and to a lesser degree Pentax, had too strong a foothold .

I know that if Olympus had had something like the 500 rather than the E20/30 models when I was looking I'd probably be with them now. I'd expect their share to grow considerably over the next few years as they do look to offer great value.
 
Well my point & shoot was a camera that I chose through magazine/internet reviews.
I found there had been much information readily available to enable me to make an informed choice.
So, as I had been happy with my camera apart from wanting more control. I spoke to a few pro's, read the usual reviews, trawled a few forums & chose my DSLR.

As someone relatively new to the DSLR market I feel there is plenty of info readily available for both Canon & Nikon as well as add-on equipment as the photographer's needs grow, I needed to be able to access this info easily, so of course this has influenced my choice in brand buying, and for me, as someone needing to soak up as much info & help as possible, there was never really going to be any other choice other than Canon or Nikon.

Im not shy about admitting that I know nothing of the system you use and so because that, I obviously dont feel that I have any experience to point anyone in that direction.
Well ... thats my take on it sprouted! :D
 
Hi theMusicMan

I'm going to be a trator to the cause.

I hear what you are saying above about the Oly range, and new to photography I plumped for what I could afford and the deal I had was very good with the 2 kit lenses.

I am now semi regretting the decission to buy Oly, not because of the quality of the photos, but for the range of equipment. I am now relucant to purchase more kit for it as I see the canon/nikon range a better option.

The nikon/canon equipment seems to have better support, i.e. more product range and there is a better second hand market. I am working to a tight budget, and that prompted my orignal reason for the Oly equipment. I should have carried out more research before purchasding. For the above reasons I do regret purchasing the Oly equipemt. Am I unhappy with the camera, NO.

I will purchase more quipement for the camera and am looking at the new 70-300 lens that have just been released and upgrade in a year or two and use this camera to develope my skills with.
 
theMusicMan said:
I will always suggest the appropriate Canon/Nikon/Oly camera, but Canon or Nion owners don't seem to.

Why is this...? Hoping for a good, clean and fun thread.
Click to expand...

Pah!! And there was I, a Nikon owner, suggesting the e510 only the other day to someone looking to upgrade from a compact :p


Seriously though, to try and answer several of your points. Nikon and Canon are THE brand names, the ones everyone have heard of, the ones that have built up a following both within professional and amateur fields for excellence, over many years. Therefore it is only...well, I won't say fair, but obvious I suppose that many people will look to them when going into the slr market, be that film a few years ago and digital now. I suppose you could say that those companies ahve worked hard and produced the goods that has got them the market share they have now. Therefore, it also follows that their range is bigger, and third party accessories are also more widely made/available.

So, bearing that in mind, it follows suit that the bulk of owners on a photography forum will have already pinned their flags to a Nikon or Canon flagpole.
Now, if someone comes in and asks the age old question of 'what shall I buy', as owners, its tough to give a recommendation for anything other what you own, as you have no practical experience of anything else. All you have to go on is what other people say. So, when digipix was asking the question the other day, with a budget in mind, I had listened to yourself previously, and just read a rave review in my favoured magazine, and thought, why not? As an alternative, you get a lot of camera for your money, and for someone starting out with no pre-existing kit, Olympus has to be an option to look at. As does Sony, Pentax, etc....


Phwew... so to summarise, I dont think non nikon/canon cameras get a hard time, I just think its that they are in the minority and therefore we all generally know less about them.
 
Hi,

From the early 70's to the start of the affordable digital age, I was Pentax through and though. Several faultless bodies and many lenses saw me through nearly 30 years....a happy camper.

Pentax were too slow to get going properly with digital so it was a toss up...Canon or Nikon. I chose Nikon but had a couple of body failures straight out of warranty and only 2 lenses in the fold at that time. I looked around and saw plenty of old EOS and EF kit on the second hand market...reasonable enough to get me going, so I switched over.

I'm now happy with what I've got....probably no better than the Nikon equivalent but the confidence had been lost.

I'm too far down the line now and a change would be too costly although I wouldn't be shy of trying another marque if it would take my lenses.

I think Oly may end up being the "Betamax" of DSLR's. The system may be fine but the low volume will limit R & D spending and hence price versus quality won't quite match up.
The final factor is "the badge".....Badges sell things and the big two have got it right. I think people buy Canon and Nikon for themselves whereas the Oly is something that you buy somebody else for Christmas!

Bob
 
For me, taxi hit the nail on the head.

Why struggle with limited choice on accessories and upgrades - maybe a choice of one or two lenses at your desired focal length?

Oly do some good stuff, no denying (although I'm not blown away by the E-3 specs, on paper, but we'll see...) but there simply isn't the wealth of lenses, flashes etc. etc. etc. - not a problem if you're happy with what you have, but i'm just not like that!

Cheers,
James
 
Moos3h has a point, however........

The limited chioce is not necessarily a bad thing.

I have an E-510, and have the 11-22, 14-54 and the 50-200. The only one missing from the list is the 7-14mm (Expensive, but is the widest lens out there and the only rectalinier corrected wide angle there is - apparently).

The point i am trying to make is that choice also means that there are some dire lenses out there for Canon and Nikon including those by the manufacturers, However with the Oly system all of the ZD 'seem' to be top notch glass, and in many ways are equivalent, or better then the high grade lenses from the Canon and Nikon.

The Oly system still has the best dust-reduction system out there, and some wonderfully fast, if un-wonderfully expensive, long lenses thanks to the 2x crop on the FOV.
 
Not to be controversial but I'm often recommending other brands to my Nikons

Canons make good door-stops
Pentaxes are useful as small indoor flowerpots (lens removed)
Olys aren't bad for paperweights
Other brands look nice on the rockery

Seriously though, it's Nikon/Canon for accessory choices and esp at pro-user level; otherwise, they are all good these days and the difference between anything above 6mp with a good lens and any other make will be more down to the tog than the camera

Buy what feels good in the hand and has the range for what you want to shoot, so what if it doesn't have an option for a 1,000mm f5.6 if you're into macro - if that's an XYZ make, then fine
 
Well, before Christmas 2006 I was picking my first DSLR. As you might know, I ended up with a Nikon D50 due to a few reasons and those were:
- it was really snappy (still is, although the AF could be a more accurate and a tad faster)
- Nikkor has lots of very good lenses and accessories
- their flash system is highly regarded
- its 6 MP sensor has very nice noise characteristics, I love it so far and I would only need higher resolution because I tend to crop a lot
- but the bundled software was rubbish if you wanted to tweak your photos more, ViewNX improves that, but I still prefer Raw Therapee

I also considered Pentax, Canon and Olympus, here's what I've learned and considered:

Pentax:
- its older lenses were supposed to be very cheap but still of a fairly high quality - but I didn't want second hand lenses
- good kit lenses
- the K100D had in-camera jpeg processing that I liked more than that of the D50
- at that time, the K100D was more expensive than the D50 by quite a bit
- the Pentax system doesn't appear to be as broad and the Nikon or Canon systems
- the K10D is lovely but its output seems to need lots of sharpening in PP, more than competing cameras (converted from RAW)
- it would seem their compatibility with Sigma and Tamron (or the other way round) is the best from among the big 5, it's said Pentax gives away the specs they need for free
- bundles Silkypix Developer Studio with their cameras for free and it's a very nice tool for Pentax cameras
- genuine lenses don't seem to have very stable shipments
- only two bodies (I don't count the K110D as another one, unfair as it may be) and no real high end body

Canon:
- 350D and 400D have very small grips for my taste (or hands)
- while they can deliver silky smooth output in jpeg, jpegs look waxy
- raw is better by quite a bit, but using raw eliminates most advantages reviewers rave about considering picture quality, as it gives almost the same as output of competing ccd sensors
- otherwise their performance is very nice
- lots of genuine Canon lenses and accessories available and is highly regarded
- Digital Photo Professional is a nice piece of software, would love the ViewNX to be more like it

Olympus:
- E-400 and E-410 seem to be very light and easy to carry around even with the 40-150 mm lens
I had the opportunity to try E-400 with the 40-150 mm lens two days ago (on Sunday, that it) and I loved how lightweight the combo is, the 14-4x (don't know which one) is so small it's cute
I'd love to have the E-410 or its successor as a replacement of my compact camera for longer walks and such
- high quality lenses, but if you want Zuikos, you need to be prepared to shell out quite a bit of money, at least here, but they all seem to be nice
- bundled software was sort of silly, as the results from it weren't very good with the raw files I've tried
- there's still somewhat more noise than can be found on the D50's sensor or even, say, D80's sensor
- the 3 AF points are a little limiting, I often use the edge ones on the D50

Sony:
- A100 seems to be quite a performer, but even raw files seem to be a little noisier than those of, say, Nikon D80
- there's a decent amount of Sony / Minolta accessories available, but it's more expensive here than either Nikon / Canon and it's not as highly regarded (although it doesn't seem to be bad at all)
- there was only one body at the time
- the A700 seems to be nice, but I don't think it has much to offer over the Nikon D200 or Canon 40D
- while Minolta might have had nice lenses, I don't plan on buying second hand gear unless it's dirt cheap

Panasonic:
- nothing for me there, not a good price / performance ratio
 
Like you said in your post musicman, They were not very well promoted so to be quite honest when I was buying my DSLR I never even look that way. I think now they are starting to get their act together and create very good cameras. But most people who have been into DSLR photography for a few years have a canon or nikon because they had the foothold first like dod said and they now have a range of canon or nikon lens which makes them even more unlikley to change. I think in a few years when more and more people come into the DSLR market and look for their first body and lens alot of them will have a good look at Olympus and with pros also starting to use it, I reckon they will be a force in years to come.
 
dod said:
My opinion is simply that Oly were late into firstly the autofocus market and secondly digital. By the time they started to get their act together Nikon and Canon, and to a lesser degree Pentax, had too strong a foothold.
Click to expand...

Totally agree with that statement. They seem to make some pretty good cameras though and they do offer good value for money, but i do wonder if they are a little lacking in their accessory and lens ranges compared to canon or nikon.
 
LadyLens said:
Seriously though, to try and answer several of your points. Nikon and Canon are THE brand names, the ones everyone have heard of, the ones that have built up a following both within professional and amateur fields for excellence, over many years.
I used to sell camera's and the Canon's always outsold the Nikon's...but I alwas preferred the pentax'
In the end...thats what I got....:lol:
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
antc said:
Totally agree with that statement. They seem to make some pretty good cameras though and they do offer good value for money, but i do wonder if they are a little lacking in their accessory and lens ranges compared to canon or nikon.
Click to expand...
Hey Ant - you're absolutely right, the Oly range is lacking in accessories and lenses - but my point is that the current range of lenses covers most of the spectrum. I agree that for a pro, then the range may bot be enough... that's not debatable, but for those new to photography the range is superb and carries all that one may require - and as Chillimonster suggests, at excellent quality too.

I have the superb 11-22mm, and the 14-54mm - both are excellent prosumer lenses and provide excellent results.

I am not trying to suggest here that Canon or Nikon owners should go out and replace their gear with Olympus gear... not at all. But I am suggesting, via experience too, that the Olympus range offers a superb feature per pound/dollar ratio, and is aptly suited to those new to DSLR's.

PS: Sorry to have missed the mention by some of Olympus gear in posts and requests made by new members here. I try to read as many posts on tP as I can but the day job sometimes gets in the way. :)

Kicking thread folks, thanks for keeping it sensible well... all except our very own Diddy... :bat:
 
theMusicMan said:
Kicking thread folks, thanks for keeping it sensible well... all except our very own Diddy... :bat:
Click to expand...

Hey MM!

I said... Seriously though, it's Nikon/Canon for accessory choices and esp at pro-user level; otherwise, they are all good these days and the difference between anything above 6mp with a good lens and any other make will be more down to the tog than the camera

That was sensible - yes?

And so what if I do use Canon cameras are doorstops :lol:

Oops
 
DiddyDave said:
Hey MM!

I said... Seriously though, it's Nikon/Canon for accessory choices and esp at pro-user level; otherwise, they are all good these days and the difference between anything above 6mp with a good lens and any other make will be more down to the tog than the camera

That was sensible - yes?

And so what if I do use Canon cameras are doorstops :lol:

Oops
Click to expand...

:gag: i thought you were letting your photography do the talking now Diddy. And although that comment made sense, your previous wasn't sensible, was childish, thinly veiled by your syntax and expressly against the wishes of the OP :shrug:
 
Jonnyreb said:
And although that comment made sense, your previous wasn't sensible, was childish, thinly veiled by your syntax and expressly against the wishes of the OP :shrug:
Click to expand...

Where's the "hangs head in shame while leaving the building" smilie when you need it?
 
/ school master leaves building.

Marcel - get your coding round DD's request. We'd ask Matty but.... well, you know :)
 
When I bought the Nikon D70, the only alternative I considered was a Canon 300/350D, the Nikon winning on ergonomics for me.

At that time there was no Sony or Pentax to consider. :shrug:

Why not the Olympus? Well the 4/3 system could well have been a technological dead end (and may well still be), the E-300 had, shall I say, a 'different look' to a traditional SLR, and compared to Canon and Nikon, Olympus were quite new to the market with DSLRs.

Having met a few people with Olympus kit, I've found the view through the eyepiece very small, and like looking down a tunnel. After having a film SLR, I like a better viewfinder, and that is indeed one of the reasons I upgraded from the D70. Some of those Olympus owners have mentioned the lack of lens choices, while some have been happy with what they have got. :shrug:

I think where Olympus does win in the market place is value for money, you could get a camera and 2 lenses for the price of other makers 1 lens kit. The falling prices at the lower end of the DSLR market could eat into that advantage though.

Their cameras also seem to be stuck on 10Mp, which could be a good thing as they develop the technology, but from the outside it looks like they are not developing as the other manufacturers seem to be doing. The new E-3 is still only 10Mp, virtually the same as the E-400/410/510.

If I was buying now, I still wouldn't consider the Olympus, no matter how much value for money for the reasons above. I would consider the Pentax/Samsung cameras which seem very good value for money. As for Sony, let's see what their 2nd camera looks like. They may have been a lot of Konica Minolta under the Sony body, but it was their 1st camera in the market, and things are not normally right 1st time. ;)
 
my issue with the latest range of olympus offerings is this four thirds sensor thingy, can anyone explain the advantages of a sensor smaller than the Canon / nikon offerings?. Nikon have caught up with the full frame D3. clearly bigger gives better quality compare 35mm to 120 roll to 5 x 4, the bigger formats improve quality, if at the expence of convenience and speed of use, Olympus appear to have painted themselves into the proverbial corner, with no way of escaping that tiny sensor.
or have I missed something:thinking:
 
Dave Scanlon said:
my issue with the latest range of olympus offerings is this four thirds sensor thingy, can anyone explain the advantages of a sensor smaller than the Canon / nikon offerings?. Nikon have caught up with the full frame D3. clearly bigger gives better quality compare 35mm to 120 roll to 5 x 4, the bigger formats improve quality, if at the expence of convenience and speed of use, Olympus appear to have painted themselves into the proverbial corner, with no way of escaping that tiny sensor.
or have I missed something:thinking:
Click to expand...
Hey dave... yes indeed I think you have missed something. There's another school of thought on that one Dave and it's not one of 'improving image quality' as you suggest.

If you have a larger sensor with the same number of megapixels, then the light coming in through the lens has to be spread out over a greater physical distance and thus is more prone to (sorry... I forget the correct 'physics' term here - is it parallelism??) going out of shape on the edges of the image. With a smaller sensor with the same number of megapixels, this effect is greatly, no... significantly reduced.

Another positive attribute due to using a smaller sensor is the physical size of the camera and associated lenses. The E-400 is the smallest DSLR in existence and still more than capable of producing superb quality images. The lenses are much lighter too meaning you can adequately hand-hold a larger lens.

Also, imagine the number of megapixels that can be made to fit on a physically larger sensor the same size as a the sensor used in Nikon or Canon bodies - yet with only 10 MPx.

Another thing that is in my opinion very much under-rated is the in camera IS. As far as I can tell, IS on other makes of camera is actually built into only certain very much more expensive lenses, and not into the camera body. With the Olympus you get IS with every/any lens you choose to use and not just the very expensive ones that are fitted out with IS.

You see folks... these are the reasons I have stated several times... the features per pound/dollar ratio you get with Olympus cameras compared to other manufacturers is much, much higher. And there's not a trade off in quality either.
 
John,

The term for the light path you're referring to is 'Telecentric' ie. the light through the lens is hitting the sensor straighter.
 
Telecentricity is a special property of certain multi-element lens designs in which the chief rays for all points across the object or image are collimated. For example, telecentricity occurs when the chief rays are parallel to the optical axis, in object and/or image space. Another way of describing telecentricity is to state that the entrance pupil and/or exit pupil of the system is located at infinity

Got that? :D
 
Thanks Chilli - that's the term.

It's when light hitting the edges of the sensor originating from the same point (rear of lens) has a greater angle of impact and is thus slightly mis-shaped whereas light hitting the middle of the sensor and thus hasn't been sent out of the rear of the lens at an angle hits the sensor directly. If the angle of impact is greater (which is is on physically larger sensors) then the image is also greatly mis-shaped.

/end of science lesson!! :) but my words.

Nice Google search there Dave :)
 
theMusicMan said:
Another thing that is in my opinion very much under-rated is the in camera IS. As far as I can tell, IS on other makes of camera is actually built into only certain very much more expensive lenses, and not into the camera body. With the Olympus you get IS with every/any lens you choose to use and not just the very expensive ones that are fitted out with IS.
Click to expand...

But don't the Sony and Pentax/Samsung cameras have built in image stabilisation?


There are for/against arguments for in body IS, the most important argument for, is for the most of us the price of those expensive lenses you mention. On the other hand, you can see the IS working through an IS lens.

It would be nice for Canon and Nikon (and Fuji) to offer the option, but while they think their lens systems with IS are better at the job, and no doubt profitable, that will be the way it will be. ;) :lol:
 
LOL. Why the agonizing? You pays your money and you makes your choice!

There's nothing wrong with Olympus, they in fact produced the first digital compact camera, and I bought one. IIRC it was around 0.75mp and awful quality - but they were first to the market.

Nikon and Canon are simply regarded as the professional systems in these formats. Lots of worthy camera have never enjoyed the 'pro' tag, Pentax never has although it has a pretty good system of lenses behind it.

There are no other manufacturers who provide the range of lenses and accessories which Canon and Nikon do which is why you'll find them in labs all over the world being used for scientific rather than photographic purposes.

Can you get a 500mm or 600mm lens for your Oly?- I honestly don't know, but if you can't it's going to be a severe handicap should you ever turn to wildlife or some sports photography.

The reason that people tend to recommend these two brands is because they provide different entry level body choices, but they're backed by a huge system regardless of which body you buy. Both manufacturers are also offering sensor choices which include full frame.

As I understand it image stabilisation in the body is the cheaper option overall (obviously), but IS in the individual lens is the more effective.

Sorry.. that last statement implies I actually understand why! :D
 
CT said:
As I understand it image stabilisation in the body is the cheaper option overall (obviously), but IS in the individual lens is the more effective.

Sorry.. that last statement implies I actually understand why! :D
Click to expand...

DIfferent focal lengths requiring different algorithms?

CT said:
Sorry.. that last statement implies I actually understand why! :D
Click to expand...

ditto :D
 
DiddyDave said:
yup - there's even a pdf by the 'clever' bloke too - well worth a read if you've nowt better to do and fancy a brain overload

'mis-shaped'? Incorrect surely

/end of English lesson

Oh soz, humour again!
Click to expand...

Aye, I'm not perfect by any stretch of the imagination having gained an 'E' in English Language when I did this at 'O' level. Weird though isn't it... ended up with a degree in Business Management, additional post graduate degree, and am 6 months (just the dissertation) away from an MBA.

Oh, and my '/end of physics lesson' comment wasn't aimed at you Dave, though your '/end of English lesson' comment was certainly aimed at me:shrug:

'Brain overload...' no thanks, Stephen Donaldson provides my current bedtime reading.:D
 
I think it's horses for courses.

My take on this general topic is that Nikon & Canon have good coverage at all levels of price and quaity and are therefore trading on their system. Whereas Olympus (as well as Sony & Pentax/Samsung) are, in my view, trading on their features - the main one being Image Stabilisation in the body.

I agree that when buying a first camera Olympus (and to the same degree Sony & Pentax/Samsung) appear to offer a lot for your money but as I say when buying your first DSLR you buy into a system, that system has to meet your needs both now and in the future. I think this is why many users on here use Canon or Nikon - there is simply more choice when it comes to options.


As for my specific views on the Olympus system I think it revolves around the small sensor with a 2x crop seems ideal for wildlife on a budget especially as the 70-300mm f4-5.6 lens becoming equiv of 140-600mm f4-5.6 at under £300 it is great. However the 2x crop is a problem for wide angle you don't have a budget choice as the only lenses I can find for wide angle are the £550 11-22mm (equiv of 22-44mm) or the 7-14mm (equiv 14-28mm) at £1200.

I've never even held an Olympus but if I was looking with what I know now I would be concerned about cost of the wide angle lenses (especially when compared to the Sigma 10-20 that is avialable for all other DSLRs) and about problems that the sensor size may bring. I'm specifically talking about noise and diffraction. Knowing that above f11 diffraction starts to soften the photo on my 10MP D80, I would guess the Olympus 10MP sensor is diffraction limited to about f8, but I could be wrong.

Ultimately is must come down to what your needs are as a user. If Olympus meets your needs then :thumbs:
 
I dont think I could stand the wider dof the smaller sensor would give you. One of the biggest reasons for me to upgrade to a FF body would be for the larger sensor and narrower depth of field.
 
My first 'real' camera was a Pentax (Spotmatic), then I went for Olympus (OM-1n) and finally ended up with Nikon. Why?
Because it's the camera that at the time suited my needs...
The Pentax had a screw-thread lens mount, so was shelved due to incompatiblity with newer K-Mount lenses, even though it was beautifully-made, had a stunning (at that time) lens and handled deliciously...
The Olympus was too light and flimsy and I kept breaking them (I admit I was swayed by a very persuasive advertising campaign running at the time) - I went through four camera bodies before giving up.
Eventually I borrowed a Nikon F2AS and was so impressed, I bought one the following week. Since then I've always owned Nikon (apart from brief lapses with my Leicas, Pentax 6x7 and Hasselblads and a Canon A1, which despite taking a bath in the Bahamas, survives to this day...) as it's the camera I kind of grew of age with.
Niklon for me does the job while other marques don't. Canon, I believe, have the edge on image quality if your benchmark is sharpness and a smoothness of image. Nikon have the edge on colour rendition - to my eye - and also have a build-quality that's better than everything else out on the market. This is at the Pro-end of the spectrum and becomes less of a factor lower down the food-chain. I personally saw Canons die in Afghanistan from the heat and dust, while my D2x's soldiered on in temps of 60C - it was too hot to touch the bodies with my bare hands and I had to work with leather flying gloves on. I worried that the cement holding the lens elements in place might melt! The thought that my cameras will go on working in conditions where I feel like throwing in the towel is a great morale-boost.

So as always it comes down to these factors:
What kind of photography do you want to do?
How much can you afford?
Is the 'feel' of the camera right?
That last one shouldn't be overlooked - when a camera 'feels' right in your hands, it encourages you to pick it up and use it more - one of the reasons my Leicas are now used as attractive ornaments is that I can't get on with the whole rangefinder-thing...

But...At the end of the day, the proof is in the Photos.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top