Don't get me wrong I love my Nikon and the ergos for me are perfect, which is why I went that direction. I am just annoyed that after a year of Video they haven't found a good way to give manual control to the Video mode. Hopefully anyone that is going to pony up good money for a D300s is more knowledgable than your average Joe, that being the case could likely use manual control and as it sits now the video mode actually works against you in ways. I realize it's just an update but still.
They are nice Cameras and it boggles my mind the conditions I can now shoot in compared to 5 years ago, I was just practicing for Festivus.
Back to the 7D... I would do as others have said (if you can) and rent or borrow a Canon to see if you can adjust to the control layout, I've done that a few times but it still feels strange to me. This may not be a factor for you but... you could consider what those around you are shooting if they don't mind lending lenses, this can help if you know you will only need a lens for a special purpose. Just a thought.
Long time since I've heard from ya. Hope all is well.
Harry http://behret.smugmug.com/NANPA member How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
As a switcher (Nikon from Canon, man of Sleeping With The Enemy) and still having a very fond view of Canon cameras, I think the 7D is clearly Canon's attempt to do a D300/D300s. Up until now, any Canon DSLR save the 1D series were feature-limited not so much by price, but by tier, whereas Nikon has always had multi-tiered "pro-featured" cameras, viz the D200/D300; D700, D3, D3x. All Canon has done is to play to this particular market segment—and I applaud them—this camera looks more like the kind of thing I wished they had done before I switched. Now that they've got one foot in the ring, let's hope the same goes for the 5DmkIII, etc.
I don't think you can find the D300s lackluster compared to the 7D by too wide a margin—Canon just caught up to the D300 and added a few cool niceties and resolution. The D300, on the other hand, already had the vast majority of what's new in the 7D. If I didn't have an investment, I'd be happy with which ever one felt better in my hands. Seriously, you owe it to yourself to rent both the other for a week and see which one you gravitate towards.
Then there are the lenses, but if rumors are to be believed, the playing field will level off soon.
When ever someone suggests switching systems because of the name of the processor makes me wanna pluck my nose hairs.
OP, there are other things you ought to consider, like the flash system, who has the lenses that will meet you needs, ergonomics, features, build and etc...
I briefly took a look through this thread and thought I saw you wanted environmental seals, I believe only the Canon 1D series really has this. the ##D and #D series has only has gimmicky (no real seals) "gapless" plastic body and seals on the CF and Battery doors only.
I looked at the 7D in the flesh and came away pretty impressed. If I were to stick with crop sensor bodies, the 7D makes an argument convincing enough that I would consider a switch. I was extremely impressed after my first hand 7D experience. Go check them out at the store and see which one makes you tick...
As a switcher (Nikon from Canon, man of Sleeping With The Enemy) and still having a very fond view of Canon cameras, I think the 7D is clearly Canon's attempt to do a D300/D300s. Up until now, any Canon DSLR save the 1D series were feature-limited not so much by price, but by tier, whereas Nikon has always had multi-tiered "pro-featured" cameras, viz the D200/D300; D700, D3, D3x. All Canon has done is to play to this particular market segment—and I applaud them—this camera looks more like the kind of thing I wished they had done before I switched. Now that they've got one foot in the ring, let's hope the same goes for the 5DmkIII, etc.
I don't think you can find the D300s lackluster compared to the 7D by too wide a margin—Canon just caught up to the D300 and added a few cool niceties and resolution. The D300, on the other hand, already had the vast majority of what's new in the 7D. If I didn't have an investment, I'd be happy with which ever one felt better in my hands. Seriously, you owe it to yourself to rent both the other for a week and see which one you gravitate towards.
Then there are the lenses, but if rumors are to be believed, the playing field will level off soon.
As a switcher (Nikon from Canon, man of Sleeping With The Enemy) and still having a very fond view of Canon cameras, I think the 7D is clearly Canon's attempt to do a D300/D300s. Up until now, any Canon DSLR save the 1D series were feature-limited not so much by price, but by tier, whereas Nikon has always had multi-tiered "pro-featured" cameras, viz the D200/D300; D700, D3, D3x. All Canon has done is to play to this particular market segment—and I applaud them—this camera looks more like the kind of thing I wished they had done before I switched. Now that they've got one foot in the ring, let's hope the same goes for the 5DmkIII, etc.
I don't think you can find the D300s lackluster compared to the 7D by too wide a margin—Canon just caught up to the D300 and added a few cool niceties and resolution. The D300, on the other hand, already had the vast majority of what's new in the 7D. If I didn't have an investment, I'd be happy with which ever one felt better in my hands. Seriously, you owe it to yourself to rent both the other for a week and see which one you gravitate towards.
Then there are the lenses, but if rumors are to be believed, the playing field will level off soon.
I agree with you that the 7D is catching up on a lot what the D300 has had. However, the thing that has NOT been mentioned yet, is that the D300 was introduced in 2007! While it is mind boggling that Canon took 2 years to "catch up", I would think that the 7D would have "newer" technologies..more "knowledge", better "ISO Control" and so on...NO?
D300s, is just a re-hash and I have not heard that it uses any different chip than the older D300.
I am waiting for a store to have this in stock so I can try it out. I think Ergnomics and ISO are going to play a much more important roles than anything.
I am not sure I would listen to Nikon fanboys stating Nikkor lenses are superior than Canon and vice versa. They both are established camera and lens manufacturers....both are used by numerous professionals. Once you get to use the pro lenses, I would think the difference are minor.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
WildViper
From Nikon D70s > Nikon D300s & D700
Nikon 50/1.8, Tamron 28-75/2.8 1st gen, Nikkor 12-24/4, Nikkor 70-200/2.8 ED VR, SB600, SB900, SB-26 and Gitzo 2 Series Carbon Fiber with Kirk Ballhead
I agree with you that the 7D is catching up on a lot what the D300 has had. However, the thing that has NOT been mentioned yet, is that the D300 was introduced in 2007! While it is mind boggling that Canon took 2 years to "catch up", I would think that the 7D would have "newer" technologies..more "knowledge", better "ISO Control" and so on...NO?
D300s, is just a re-hash and I have not heard that it uses any different chip than the older D300.
I am waiting for a store to have this in stock so I can try it out. I think Ergnomics and ISO are going to play a much more important roles than anything.
I am not sure I would listen to Nikon fanboys stating Nikkor lenses are superior than Canon and vice versa. They both are established camera and lens manufacturers....both are used by numerous professionals. Once you get to use the pro lenses, I would think the difference are minor.
about the lenses..don't trust us "fam bois" do your own research. That said if your not shooting weddings or sports..the differences don't really matter.
I am definitely more interest in the lens upgrades than the camera bodies, though the 7D does look nice. So Canon is gonna retake the lens battle?
I'm thinking Nikon still has a ways to go (primes, constant-aperture zooms). They already have a killer triumvirate in f/2.8 land (14-24, 70-200 II and the 24-70), but they need to get back to making smaller lenses that make SLR photography a less Paparazzo experience, one of the reasons i'm very hesitant to buy and use the 24-70, great as it is.
I bought the 7D strictly for video and have started buying old school Nikon manual primes that I am using with an adapter on the 7D
I did some test still in another thread, and some other work with both,
Bottom line if the video isn't part of the equation then the Nikon is the better camera. Focussing is far better the tracking and acuracy on the D300 is in my opinion clearly better.
As for ergonomics, I think they each have a great feel, and as a Nikon shooter I have been able to get comfortable with the 7D fairly quickly.
I'd add two factors that are probably contributing to differences between the two sets of gear, Canon and Nikon, namely -
1/ the 'Canon' photographer and the 'Nikon' photographer, meaning that broadly speaking owners in each camp likely have needs, preferences, priorities, tastes etc more in common with other shooters of the same brand, and it probably comes through in their photographs, be it ever so subtly. For example, my impression is that most of the photographs published at OneExposure are shot on Nikons, and OneExposure chooses photographs that have a distinctive arty treatment. My conclusion is that arty photographers of that kind are more likely to use Nikon and their photographs are going to be different also technically. I would go further and say that photographers who shoot MF and film are more likely to use Nikon digital. A bit like PC and Mac users. Almost different animals ; )) Therefore, their judgments of the gear are going to be different.
2/ the proprietary software in the gear. As technology is refined and refined, the hardware differences might narrow, but not so the software differences. I have said before, that because the manufacturers are in fact moving more quickly than technology in their rate of new gear releases (little if anything in the 7D, D300, D700 is groundbreakingly new), differences in the results produced by these two sets of gear are to a significant degree likely due to software development.
The differences/advances perceived by the consumer might be a kind of sleight of hand. That's how these companies keep the profits coming.
1/ the 'Canon' photographer and the 'Nikon' photographer, meaning that broadly speaking owners in each camp likely have needs, preferences, priorities, tastes etc more in common with other shooters of the same brand, and it probably comes through in their photographs, be it ever so subtly. For example, my impression is that most of the photographs published at OneExposure are shot on Nikons, and OneExposure chooses photographs that have a distinctive arty treatment. My conclusion is that arty photographers of that kind are more likely to use Nikon and their photographs are going to be different also technically. I would go further and say that photographers who shoot MF and film are more likely to use Nikon digital. A bit like PC and Mac users. Almost different animals ; )) Therefore, their judgments of the gear are going to be different.
...
Using Google as a counter, and just looking at the "Pictures" portion of OneExposure (site:1x.com/photos), and searching first by the term "Canon" and then searching for "Nikon" I found:
2390 mentions of the term "Canon" and 1950 mentions of the term "Nikon". Since most of the mentions come from the field "Equipment used:" I think it is reasonable to assume that there are a majority of the images posted are from Canon users. (There are some hits from the camera name used in the image title, but I don't think they skew the results terribly.)
You may do your own search and come to your own conclusions:
... 2/ the proprietary software in the gear. As technology is refined and refined, the hardware differences might narrow, but not so the software differences. I have said before, that because the manufacturers are in fact moving more quickly than technology in their rate of new gear releases (little if anything in the 7D, D300, D700 is groundbreakingly new), differences in the results produced by these two sets of gear are to a significant degree likely due to software development.
...
Neil
There are tangible and measurable differences in every aspect of digital camera manufacture. Hardware, firmware and software have all progressed.
Imaging chips have moved from CCD to CMOS in less than a decade, and the size of photosites have shrunk because of serious changes in manufacturing, allowing ever greater density. Noise levels are actually gaining on a per unit area measure, despite the shrinkage. More electronics are now integrated into the imager than ever before and even the electronics at each photosite has increased. The latest chips are able to transfer 14 bits of data, compared to 12 bits just a couple of years ago, and it is increasingly more common to find more channels to strip the data from the chip, allowing ever greater transfer speeds and file sizes.
Image processors (still talking about hardware) are becoming more competent at handling the larger data sizes, the 14 bit structures, and at faster speeds with greater accuracy. The power handling has become more efficient allowing longer battery life with less heat dissipation.
Even the implementation of "video capture" in a CMOS imager is relatively new.
While it may not seem to be "groundbreaking" I can assure you that it is, and it will likely continue at the more-or-less steady rate of improvement for the foreseeable future.
Just the number of full-frame dSLRs that we have now versus 5 years ago is rather staggering, and that several are "reasonably priced" is nothing short of amazing. (MY previous employer bought a Kodak 460-DSC, 6 MPix dSLR in 1995 for the then (as now) rather staggering price of $16,000USD, and it was a crop 1.3x chip. To see FF 35mm format dSLRs under $3000 now seems like a dream come true. )
Impressive return, Ziggy, making it worthwhile for me to have posted my rubbish!
Yet, I think my points still stand, that there are Canon-Nikon biases at work, not only in comparisons and judgments about gear, but also in the samples those are based on, and that it might be advantageous to extend the terms of reference to other things than a new button for this here and a bigger number for something somewhere else.
As I think you know from my point of view in other threads about cameras and technology, I am at least as far from being a Luddite as you.
So, I don't wish to take away anything from what you have said, rather to supplement the terms this thread has been running on, and to keep in our minds that while for us cameras and gear are almost spiritual, for the bean-counting manufacturers they are a source of income.
As far as the OneExposure stats are concerned, the ratio published to unpublished is, my impression again, 1 to 200. Until I see figures to show otherwise, I stick by my impression that more published pics (as opposed to all pics, including those submitted to screening and critique, or in homepage galleries) are shot by Nikon than Canon. Until then, I say evidently more Nikon users make the OneExposure grade, and more Canon shooters are wannabes.
Impressive return, Ziggy, making it worthwhile for me to have posted my rubbish!
Yet, I think my points still stand, that there are Canon-Nikon biases at work, not only in comparisons and judgments about gear, but also in the samples those are based on, and that it might be advantageous to extend the terms of reference to other things than a new button for this here and a bigger number for something somewhere else.
As I think you know from my point of view in other threads about cameras and technology, I am at least as far from being a Luddite as you.
So, I don't wish to take away anything from what you have said, rather to supplement the terms this thread has been running on, and to keep in our minds that while for us cameras and gear are almost spiritual, for the bean-counting manufacturers they are a source of income.
As far as the OneExposure stats are concerned, the ratio published to unpublished is, my impression again, 1 to 200. Until I see figures to show otherwise, I stick by my impression that more published pics (as opposed to all pics, including those submitted to screening and critique, or in homepage galleries) are shot by Nikon than Canon. Until then, I say evidently more Nikon users make the OneExposure grade, and more Canon shooters are wannabes.
Neil (Canonized)
to add to the discussion (and me being FAR out of my league with all of the experience most have here...)
I think the concept of X vs. Y company is gone and it's more of a comfort level for people. Technology in all of the advanced cameras from each manufacturer are so good now, I doubt the quality of the equipment is what is getting photos published...it comes down to the skill of the user. Things to consider would be the background of the photogs...why are they actually using Nikon? Why Canon? Is it because there is an actual appreciable difference in quality so great that they succeed? I feel it's more that they happen to stick with one system (in general...some switch back and forth, etc)...some may have been "born" into a particular system (ex. Dad used Nikon, so I use Nikon...Mom used Canon...so I use Canon...). The list could go on and on. Much like the PC vs. Mac debate. Many people use Macs because that is all they have ever known since school...some only use PCs because that's what they use in the office at work...
Just some things to think about. Great topic!
Canon 7D and some stuff that sticks on the end of it.
I am much more towards the Art end of the spectrum and shoot Nikon but not because of that. There are basically 2 reasons:
1) I got a Nikon FE from a family friend with 3 lenses for my first photo class.
2) There is a shop that specializes in Nikon gear and has tons of used glass a town over.
I have shot Canon though with my EOS 650 and a T70, both work fine....well the T70 is broken now, but the EOS 650 is fine and it is not because of the cameras I am not a Canon user. I had Nikon lenses, so when I wanted to have a motorized camera with a lit up light meter for concert work I moved to the N70 since instead of buying Canon glass.
Then I was hooked and soon after added a D50 and more and more lenses.
When I became disabled and before I was on proper medication for the pain I needed the lightest system as possible, and ended up with Olympus. This was a surprisingly easy switch since I am not one to tweak every feature, I need to know the basic camera functions, and shoot a few times to know how to adjust my style for its output.
Right now as long as it was ergonomically correct I could shoot with any system. The only ones that offer big differences in output that I have found are Olympus and Fuji for their out of camera JPEGs and the later's dynaminc range.
Now onto Ziggy's point about technology:
In the digitial SLR world we do have one limiting factor and that is our Cameras are still for the most part complex machines. Parts especially in the electronics are becoming cheaper but the mechanical bits will keep the price high.
The future in high quality and very affordable cameras is being seen in the current EP-1, and GF1. The lenses will still cost money but with so few mechanical parts (just a shutter and dust remover/IS) the electronics will fall and theoretically they will be very cheap in the years to come.
Right now they are charging a premium partially I am guessing because the initial buyers are willing to pay and also the R&D/minituization of some parts.
Now to break down the parts of these cameras:
The electronics/image processing parts will be a lot cheaper because a simpiler chipset will be needed. Remember your cell phone now has more computing power than your desktop did in 2000.
The LCD in the back will be much cheaper if it is even still a LCD. (And the new technologies are slimmer and use less energy)
Battery technology is a huge field right now so expect those to come down as well, and have more capacity.
And being such a large industry I am sure the manufacturing of imaging sensors like the other electronics will be improves/made cheaper to produce.
It will be up to the marketing departments of course but systems like m4/3 offer the chance to make bodies not much more than current compacts in the not too distant future.
Comments
Don't get me wrong I love my Nikon and the ergos for me are perfect, which is why I went that direction. I am just annoyed that after a year of Video they haven't found a good way to give manual control to the Video mode. Hopefully anyone that is going to pony up good money for a D300s is more knowledgable than your average Joe, that being the case could likely use manual control and as it sits now the video mode actually works against you in ways. I realize it's just an update but still.
They are nice Cameras and it boggles my mind the conditions I can now shoot in compared to 5 years ago, I was just practicing for Festivus.
Back to the 7D... I would do as others have said (if you can) and rent or borrow a Canon to see if you can adjust to the control layout, I've done that a few times but it still feels strange to me. This may not be a factor for you but... you could consider what those around you are shooting if they don't mind lending lenses, this can help if you know you will only need a lens for a special purpose. Just a thought.
Hey Jim,
Long time since I've heard from ya. Hope all is well.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
As a switcher (Nikon from Canon, man of Sleeping With The Enemy) and still having a very fond view of Canon cameras, I think the 7D is clearly Canon's attempt to do a D300/D300s. Up until now, any Canon DSLR save the 1D series were feature-limited not so much by price, but by tier, whereas Nikon has always had multi-tiered "pro-featured" cameras, viz the D200/D300; D700, D3, D3x. All Canon has done is to play to this particular market segment—and I applaud them—this camera looks more like the kind of thing I wished they had done before I switched. Now that they've got one foot in the ring, let's hope the same goes for the 5DmkIII, etc.
I don't think you can find the D300s lackluster compared to the 7D by too wide a margin—Canon just caught up to the D300 and added a few cool niceties and resolution. The D300, on the other hand, already had the vast majority of what's new in the 7D. If I didn't have an investment, I'd be happy with which ever one felt better in my hands. Seriously, you owe it to yourself to rent both the other for a week and see which one you gravitate towards.
Then there are the lenses, but if rumors are to be believed, the playing field will level off soon.
When ever someone suggests switching systems because of the name of the processor makes me wanna pluck my nose hairs.
OP, there are other things you ought to consider, like the flash system, who has the lenses that will meet you needs, ergonomics, features, build and etc...
I briefly took a look through this thread and thought I saw you wanted environmental seals, I believe only the Canon 1D series really has this. the ##D and #D series has only has gimmicky (no real seals) "gapless" plastic body and seals on the CF and Battery doors only.
I looked at the 7D in the flesh and came away pretty impressed. If I were to stick with crop sensor bodies, the 7D makes an argument convincing enough that I would consider a switch. I was extremely impressed after my first hand 7D experience. Go check them out at the store and see which one makes you tick...
I'd trust this man, good words! great advice.
I agree with you that the 7D is catching up on a lot what the D300 has had. However, the thing that has NOT been mentioned yet, is that the D300 was introduced in 2007! While it is mind boggling that Canon took 2 years to "catch up", I would think that the 7D would have "newer" technologies..more "knowledge", better "ISO Control" and so on...NO?
D300s, is just a re-hash and I have not heard that it uses any different chip than the older D300.
I am waiting for a store to have this in stock so I can try it out. I think Ergnomics and ISO are going to play a much more important roles than anything.
I am not sure I would listen to Nikon fanboys stating Nikkor lenses are superior than Canon and vice versa. They both are established camera and lens manufacturers....both are used by numerous professionals. Once you get to use the pro lenses, I would think the difference are minor.
WildViper
From Nikon D70s > Nikon D300s & D700
Nikon 50/1.8, Tamron 28-75/2.8 1st gen, Nikkor 12-24/4, Nikkor 70-200/2.8 ED VR, SB600, SB900, SB-26 and Gitzo 2 Series Carbon Fiber with Kirk Ballhead
about the lenses..don't trust us "fam bois" do your own research. That said if your not shooting weddings or sports..the differences don't really matter.
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
I am definitely more interest in the lens upgrades than the camera bodies, though the 7D does look nice. So Canon is gonna retake the lens battle?
www.tednghiem.com
I'm thinking Nikon still has a ways to go (primes, constant-aperture zooms). They already have a killer triumvirate in f/2.8 land (14-24, 70-200 II and the 24-70), but they need to get back to making smaller lenses that make SLR photography a less Paparazzo experience, one of the reasons i'm very hesitant to buy and use the 24-70, great as it is.
I bought the 7D strictly for video and have started buying old school Nikon manual primes that I am using with an adapter on the 7D
I did some test still in another thread, and some other work with both,
Bottom line if the video isn't part of the equation then the Nikon is the better camera. Focussing is far better the tracking and acuracy on the D300 is in my opinion clearly better.
As for ergonomics, I think they each have a great feel, and as a Nikon shooter I have been able to get comfortable with the 7D fairly quickly.
Keith Tharp.com - Champion Photo
twin Mark IV's & a bunch of "L" glass
site ∙ facebook
I'd add two factors that are probably contributing to differences between the two sets of gear, Canon and Nikon, namely -
1/ the 'Canon' photographer and the 'Nikon' photographer, meaning that broadly speaking owners in each camp likely have needs, preferences, priorities, tastes etc more in common with other shooters of the same brand, and it probably comes through in their photographs, be it ever so subtly. For example, my impression is that most of the photographs published at OneExposure are shot on Nikons, and OneExposure chooses photographs that have a distinctive arty treatment. My conclusion is that arty photographers of that kind are more likely to use Nikon and their photographs are going to be different also technically. I would go further and say that photographers who shoot MF and film are more likely to use Nikon digital. A bit like PC and Mac users. Almost different animals ; )) Therefore, their judgments of the gear are going to be different.
2/ the proprietary software in the gear. As technology is refined and refined, the hardware differences might narrow, but not so the software differences. I have said before, that because the manufacturers are in fact moving more quickly than technology in their rate of new gear releases (little if anything in the 7D, D300, D700 is groundbreakingly new), differences in the results produced by these two sets of gear are to a significant degree likely due to software development.
The differences/advances perceived by the consumer might be a kind of sleight of hand. That's how these companies keep the profits coming.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Using Google as a counter, and just looking at the "Pictures" portion of OneExposure (site:1x.com/photos), and searching first by the term "Canon" and then searching for "Nikon" I found:
2390 mentions of the term "Canon" and 1950 mentions of the term "Nikon". Since most of the mentions come from the field "Equipment used:" I think it is reasonable to assume that there are a majority of the images posted are from Canon users. (There are some hits from the camera name used in the image title, but I don't think they skew the results terribly.)
You may do your own search and come to your own conclusions:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site:1x.com/photos+%2Bcanon&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site:1x.com/photos+%2Bnikon&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
There are tangible and measurable differences in every aspect of digital camera manufacture. Hardware, firmware and software have all progressed.
Imaging chips have moved from CCD to CMOS in less than a decade, and the size of photosites have shrunk because of serious changes in manufacturing, allowing ever greater density. Noise levels are actually gaining on a per unit area measure, despite the shrinkage. More electronics are now integrated into the imager than ever before and even the electronics at each photosite has increased. The latest chips are able to transfer 14 bits of data, compared to 12 bits just a couple of years ago, and it is increasingly more common to find more channels to strip the data from the chip, allowing ever greater transfer speeds and file sizes.
Image processors (still talking about hardware) are becoming more competent at handling the larger data sizes, the 14 bit structures, and at faster speeds with greater accuracy. The power handling has become more efficient allowing longer battery life with less heat dissipation.
Even the implementation of "video capture" in a CMOS imager is relatively new.
While it may not seem to be "groundbreaking" I can assure you that it is, and it will likely continue at the more-or-less steady rate of improvement for the foreseeable future.
Just the number of full-frame dSLRs that we have now versus 5 years ago is rather staggering, and that several are "reasonably priced" is nothing short of amazing. (MY previous employer bought a Kodak 460-DSC, 6 MPix dSLR in 1995 for the then (as now) rather staggering price of $16,000USD, and it was a crop 1.3x chip. To see FF 35mm format dSLRs under $3000 now seems like a dream come true.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Yet, I think my points still stand, that there are Canon-Nikon biases at work, not only in comparisons and judgments about gear, but also in the samples those are based on, and that it might be advantageous to extend the terms of reference to other things than a new button for this here and a bigger number for something somewhere else.
As I think you know from my point of view in other threads about cameras and technology, I am at least as far from being a Luddite as you.
So, I don't wish to take away anything from what you have said, rather to supplement the terms this thread has been running on, and to keep in our minds that while for us cameras and gear are almost spiritual, for the bean-counting manufacturers they are a source of income.
As far as the OneExposure stats are concerned, the ratio published to unpublished is, my impression again, 1 to 200. Until I see figures to show otherwise, I stick by my impression that more published pics (as opposed to all pics, including those submitted to screening and critique, or in homepage galleries) are shot by Nikon than Canon. Until then, I say evidently more Nikon users make the OneExposure grade, and more Canon shooters are wannabes.
Neil (Canonized)
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
to add to the discussion (and me being FAR out of my league with all of the experience most have here...)
I think the concept of X vs. Y company is gone and it's more of a comfort level for people. Technology in all of the advanced cameras from each manufacturer are so good now, I doubt the quality of the equipment is what is getting photos published...it comes down to the skill of the user. Things to consider would be the background of the photogs...why are they actually using Nikon? Why Canon? Is it because there is an actual appreciable difference in quality so great that they succeed? I feel it's more that they happen to stick with one system (in general...some switch back and forth, etc)...some may have been "born" into a particular system (ex. Dad used Nikon, so I use Nikon...Mom used Canon...so I use Canon...). The list could go on and on. Much like the PC vs. Mac debate. Many people use Macs because that is all they have ever known since school...some only use PCs because that's what they use in the office at work...
Just some things to think about. Great topic!
1) I got a Nikon FE from a family friend with 3 lenses for my first photo class.
2) There is a shop that specializes in Nikon gear and has tons of used glass a town over.
I have shot Canon though with my EOS 650 and a T70, both work fine....well the T70 is broken now, but the EOS 650 is fine and it is not because of the cameras I am not a Canon user. I had Nikon lenses, so when I wanted to have a motorized camera with a lit up light meter for concert work I moved to the N70 since instead of buying Canon glass.
Then I was hooked and soon after added a D50 and more and more lenses.
When I became disabled and before I was on proper medication for the pain I needed the lightest system as possible, and ended up with Olympus. This was a surprisingly easy switch since I am not one to tweak every feature, I need to know the basic camera functions, and shoot a few times to know how to adjust my style for its output.
Right now as long as it was ergonomically correct I could shoot with any system. The only ones that offer big differences in output that I have found are Olympus and Fuji for their out of camera JPEGs and the later's dynaminc range.
Now onto Ziggy's point about technology:
In the digitial SLR world we do have one limiting factor and that is our Cameras are still for the most part complex machines. Parts especially in the electronics are becoming cheaper but the mechanical bits will keep the price high.
The future in high quality and very affordable cameras is being seen in the current EP-1, and GF1. The lenses will still cost money but with so few mechanical parts (just a shutter and dust remover/IS) the electronics will fall and theoretically they will be very cheap in the years to come.
Right now they are charging a premium partially I am guessing because the initial buyers are willing to pay and also the R&D/minituization of some parts.
Now to break down the parts of these cameras:
The electronics/image processing parts will be a lot cheaper because a simpiler chipset will be needed. Remember your cell phone now has more computing power than your desktop did in 2000.
The LCD in the back will be much cheaper if it is even still a LCD. (And the new technologies are slimmer and use less energy)
Battery technology is a huge field right now so expect those to come down as well, and have more capacity.
And being such a large industry I am sure the manufacturing of imaging sensors like the other electronics will be improves/made cheaper to produce.
It will be up to the marketing departments of course but systems like m4/3 offer the chance to make bodies not much more than current compacts in the not too distant future.