Come on Harry ! Don't say things like that
The kit you gave your kid who " dabbles " is almost like mine ! Except I have a D70s instead of the D100 and I have the sigma 70-300, that I was thinking of upgrading.... yes... to the 55-200VR ...
Well if you come on down here and be my sherpa for 2-3 years and do a good job I might be able to adopt you. :ivar
I have a good set up with expensive bodies and some very expensive glass. Now I only had to work for 40+ years to afford this set-up. When I was working and saving and investing my $ for retirement I couldn't afford all this high price gear. Up to my retirement I was shoooting with glass that has been previously described as "crappy". Fortunately I was too stupid to realize that I was shooting with "crappy" glass and I went out and got some pretty good shots.
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!"
Well if you come on down here and be my sherpa for 2-3 years and do a good job I might be able to adopt you. :ivar
I have a good set up with expensive bodies and some very expensive glass. Now I only had to work for 40+ years to afford this set-up. When I was working and saving and investing my $ for retirement I couldn't afford all this high price gear. Up to my retirement I was shoooting with glass that has been previously described as "crappy". Fortunately I was too stupid to realize that I was shooting with "crappy" glass and I went out and got some pretty good shots.
And then your son could hand me down his kit ? lolol
I just said that because I think it was funny because it was so much like what I have. There are times when I wish for nicer gear, but what I have hasn't let me down. Unless I try to do stuff I know it's not good for, like 200mm in low light at f/5.
How's that 55-200VR ? Have you ever used the sigma 70-300 APO ? Would you say it's an improvement ?
And then your son could hand me down his kit ? lolol
I just said that because I think it was funny because it was so much like what I have. There are times when I wish for nicer gear, but what I have hasn't let me down. Unless I try to do stuff I know it's not good for, like 200mm in low light at f/5.
How's that 55-200VR ? Have you ever used the sigma 70-300 APO ? Would you say it's an improvement ?
The build on the 55-200 isn't the greatest bit it provides good results and the VR is a factor. I haven't used the Sigma but I heard its strong up to 200MM but the IQ goes down over 200mm. I would go with the 55-200.
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!"
He's thrilled with the camera and lenses. Of course some consider these lenses to be "crappy" but my son is a happy camper. I'd be MORE than thrilled if my dad tossed me his old 5D and a few of his lenses (hint, hint dad )
I have shot with a number of gear snobs who had the latest and most expensive bodies and glass. An amazing number of them took some of the most mediocre shots I have ever had the misfortune of viewing. My dad said L glass is bling for photographers who just want to show off their bling Doesn't mean I don't worship my 135 f/2 It's definitely my favorite lens. I'm still debating whether I want to get the 24 1.4, the 20 2.8 or the 85 1.8. With the studio work I'm considering doing the 85 might be pretty nice.
I sure do remember you and its good to "see" you again. I'm hoping to save up some money and go back to Otown to photograph again, now that I know more.
Sigh, I'm alway amazed at how Canon shooters are so concerned over the "plight" of the D40/D40X users.
Amazingly enough there a hundreds of thousands of DSLR users who don't want or need 2.8 glass or L glass, etc. My son dabbles in photography so I gave him my old D100 and I got him the 50mm 1.8, 18-70MM 3.5-5.6 and the 55-200mm VR lenses. He's thrilled with the camera and lenses. Of course some consider these lenses to be "crappy" but my son is a happy camper.
Folks starting out get the D40 or the latest version of the Rebel because its either a starting point or its all they can afford. All those poor souls have to endure the hardships of "crappy" glass because they can't afford or want the higher price glass.
BTW in all seriousness I truly abhor gear snobs who write off kit lenses etc as "crappy". I have shot with a number of gear snobs who had the latest and most expensive bodies and glass. An amazing number of them took some of the most mediocre shots I have ever had the misfortune of viewing.
I'm just reporting what a Nikonian told me. Why people have to endure a "crappy" lens really doesn't pertain to the OP ... but since you brought it up ... I believe that a neophyte to photography should start out with a kit lens and use said lens until it falls apart from wear (or as familiar and comfortable with the lens' capabilities as they are with their hands).
At such point, hopefully, a person will have the skill and expertise to capitalize on the differences between lenses which are crappy and lenses which are good.
As to your "gear snob" comment ... see above. I call gear snobs "collectors".
1. Camera bodies come and go; lenses last much longer.
2. A good lens for me costs about the same as the body - I have four lenses - thus most of the money is in the lenses, not the body.
3. Add in the cost of the other accessories (flash, tripod, memory, filters, bags, remote releases, angle finders) and the cost of the body becomes even less significant.
4. It's been pointed out that there are other players than Canon and Nikon - good point.
5. Someone else suggested that a pile of 8 x 10 pics couldn't be sorted as to which camera took them. I agree.
6. Someone else suggested that the photographer may even have more effect on the result - I agree.
7. Last year Canon had the high ISO edge, now it might be Nikon, next year who?
My recommendation would be to look at the type of photography one does (if one knows), and choose the brand that has the best selection of lenses that suit one's needs.
My secondary recommendation would be to stay with one of the two major players - they have the largest selection of lenses.
If I was starting over, I would look closely at the two major brands, but I wouldn't do the selecting over the internet (mostly it will be biased opinions) or by mail order (pictures and advertising are hard to interpret) - I would go into a real camera store and handle the two cameras for a period of time and choose the one that felt best.
"There is nothing that some man cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper, and he who considers price only is that man’s lawful prey". John Ruskin 1819 - 1900
A few of my photographers think their Nikon 18-200 3.5 to 5.6 is more than satisfactory for PJ. It's gotten to the point that I have to be flat out rude to them so they stop using it. So I agree, it ismostly the photog, but there are limitations to the equipment that they sometimes forget or don't realize. And the more I point out the limitations, the more these few argue with me and try to tell me their pictures are perfectly fine (it's getting annoying to have to point out their photos are underexposed AND motion blurred at the same time because the lens wasn't sufficient)
They then proceed to ask me about a better camera, even though I tell them the lens is what will make better photos.
That's why I'm trying to learn more of the pros and cons, so I can better tell them what they should think about. I just think they think taking a few pictures to make money is ok. They don't realize what we serious Pjers put into our craft.
I like your new avatar , but I am not ready to donate a 5D just yet.:D
Well you could buy the D3 and pass along your 5D. Just a helpful suggestion. :ivar
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!"
If the camera is to be used for photo journalism ... unless you can afford the D3 or D300 ... you gotta go with Canon for this one reason ... Low Noise at High ISO.
As a former news photog I shot most everything with available light ... which means elevated ISO/ASA of 800 to 1600. Canon's CMOS sensors do a much better job at noise reduction at high ISOs than Nikon's CCD sensors.
That single plus in the Canon column is enough to go Canon because nearly every other assignment would probably require an elevated ISO. For news photography ... mmmh ... every thing else between Nikon and Canon cameras is about the same. (If you can afford a D3 or D300 ... then just flip a coin ... cuz you won't see any dif between Nikon and Canon in the paper or in the field.)
That was my self portrait for a class. You can't see it in the avy, but I have my headphones in, repsresenting my two loves. Music and Photography (and a hooded sweatshirt, so technically 3 )
Well you could buy the D3 and pass along your 5D. Just a helpful suggestion.
Now this is a very thoughtful suggestion, one worthy of serious discourse
Although I am considering medical donations, selling DVDs and CDs, and throwing myself into studio and portraiture photography this summer to save up for the 5D MkII. Maybe I should hone my poker skills while I'm at it. And Casino Aztar in Evansville isn't too far. Or maybe some Lottery tickets
It was Canon who introduced EOS cameras and lenses in 1985 which were incompatible with its pre-1985 products. Ancient history but interesting.
I was a T90 user (one of the last cameras with the old FD mount). I stuck with that T90 for many years because 1) it was a really nice body, and 2) I didn't want to buy new lenses. That said, I do think Canon has been well served by their decision to shift to a 100% electrical mount all at once rather than following the more progressive approach Nikon took. When I was (finally) looking to upgrade to a AF film body in 2000, the Nikon's first generation of electric mount lenses were coming out and their lens line was something of a mess. More to the point, at that time only the high end pro bodies would accept electronic mount lenses. As a result, I bought an EOS-3 and never looked back.
My understanding is that Canon patented the electronic mount and Nikon could only shift over when the patent expired 17 years later; since Canon was very much the number 2 camera vendor at the time my guess is that they didn't feel they had much to lose by shifting mounts and they had a lot to gain; much of the advantage Canon had in AF performace during those years (1985-2000ish) was due to the electronic mount and I think that decision directly accounts for the large number of white lenses at sporting events. Finally Nikon appears to be making up for lost ground and updating their entire stock of lenses to electronic mount.
I was a T90 user (one of the last cameras with the old FD mount). I stuck with that T90 for many years because 1) it was a really nice body, and 2) I didn't want to buy new lenses. That said, I do think Canon has been well served by their decision to shift to a 100% electrical mount all at once rather than following the more progressive approach Nikon took. When I was (finally) looking to upgrade to a AF film body in 2000, the Nikon's first generation of electric mount lenses were coming out and their lens line was something of a mess. More to the point, at that time only the high end pro bodies would accept electronic mount lenses. As a result, I bought an EOS-3 and never looked back.
My understanding is that Canon patented the electronic mount and Nikon could only shift over when the patent expired 17 years later; since Canon was very much the number 2 camera vendor at the time my guess is that they didn't feel they had much to lose by shifting mounts and they had a lot to gain; much of the advantage Canon had in AF performace during those years (1985-2000ish) was due to the electronic mount and I think that decision directly accounts for the large number of white lenses at sporting events. Finally Nikon appears to be making up for lost ground and updating their entire stock of lenses to electronic mount.
If the camera is to be used for photo journalism ... unless you can afford the D3 or D300 ... you gotta go with Canon for this one reason ... Low Noise at High ISO.
As a former news photog I shot most everything with available light ... which means elevated ISO/ASA of 800 to 1600. Canon's CMOS sensors do a much better job at noise reduction at high ISOs than Nikon's CCD sensors.
That single plus in the Canon column is enough to go Canon because nearly every other assignment would probably require an elevated ISO. For news photography ... mmmh ... every thing else between Nikon and Canon cameras is about the same. (If you can afford a D3 or D300 ... then just flip a coin ... cuz you won't see any dif between Nikon and Canon in the paper or in the field.)
Gary
Up until the latest releases I'd agree. Now with Nikon's two new bodies even that is muddied. This from someone who chose Canon over Nikon primarily for that advantage.
Today I think it's 6 of one and half-dozen of the other. Look at what lenses you will need & who covers those the best. It seems Nikkor glass is still pricier than Canon in general, so it's a factor to consider.
So basically what you're all saying is, that there is no good answer to my question
The only good answer to the question, "Canon v. Nikon" (... or any other recent dSLR offering for that matter is, ...
"Yes!"
(as in there are really nice offerings from all the players. The similarities in quality and overall functionality, within similar market lines, are vastly greater than the differences.)
There are specific qualities that your application may be sensitive to that would skew particular models to your favor. Analyzing how you shoot and your specific needs are ultimately the best ways to buy any camera, dSLR or not.
Ultimately what I've heard is Nikon is more affordable, but only because they have more diverse lineups. Where as Canon has 4 series (400, 40, 5 and 1's).
I've heard Nikon tends to be greener in shadows, and the ISOs aren't as noise free.
But Canons are of course more expensive, and I think I heard Nikons tend to be a little faster for auto focusing.
But this is all speculation from other phtoogs. I shoot Canon religiously (I would probably be disowned by Pathfinder if I had asked for Nikon stuff ) so I only really know Canon.
The high end Nikon lenses are more expensive than Canon. At this point you can't go wrong with either!
So basically I should tell my photogs to figure it out themselves, cause it's too confusing for me.
Send them here.
We'll ask a few questions and then offer advice based on our collective knowlege and experience. Plus they'll get a chance to meet some really nice people.
I just didn't like the way the Nikon's felt in my hand or looked. I still don't although the D300 was more comfortable to shoot with when my friend had the hand strap on.
That said, I'm in w/ Canon, I love the style, color, and feel, and have no viable reason to switch. Only to buy more equipment.
Not like Canon is going the way of Polaroid because Nikon may have finally temporarily caught up.
Canon 40D : Canon 400D : Canon Elan 7NE : Canon 580EX : 2 x Canon 430EX : Canon 24-70 f2.8L : Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L USM : Canon 28-135mm f/3.5 IS : 18-55mm f/3.5 : 4GB Sandisk Extreme III : 2GB Sandisk Extreme III : 2 x 1GB Sandisk Ultra II : Sekonik L358
So basically I should tell my photogs to figure it out themselves, cause it's too confusing for me.
Once again .. unless your photogs can afford a D3 or a D300 ... then Canon is the manufacturer of choice because Canon has an advantage over Nikon in low noise at elevated ISOs.
If they can afford a D3 or a D300 ... then all things are pretty much equal in IQ ... so back to the coin toss or look at other factors than IQ ... i.e. affordability ... access to glass ... and last and also least importantly ... how the camera feels.
The entry level Nikon cannot autofocus all Nikkor lenses.
All of Canon cameras will autofocus all Canon lenses that autofocus.
All but the most expensive Nikon cameras (D3 & D300) use an inferior CCD sensor.
All Canon cameras use the superior CMOS sensor.
That being said ( ... I hate that phrase), at photos sized 8x10 and smaller and at ISO of 400- ... you won't be able to distinguish between a Canon and a Nikon images (toss a bunch of prints on a tabletop and you won't be able to separate them into a Canon and/or a Nikon pile).
I'm with Ziggy on "feel". When you purchase a SLR you are actually buying a camera system. Look at the system and make sure that the manufacturer supports your principle passion. i.e. infrared photography, macro, sports, astro, et cetera. As a former news photog, I've learned that buying a camera because it feels good is a bit of poppycock. You will adapt and usually quite quickly, to whatever camera system you choose. All modern cameras are designed for the human hand and human brain ... so unless you have something going on out of the ordinary ... you will easily adapt to most/all camera designs.
Use "feel" as the last and least important qualifier for your camera purchase. As most cameras are so similar in cost and image quality ... feel may just be your deciding factor ... but once again ... feel is the least important factor to consider.
Gary
My d200 uses the same lenses my F100 uses which use the same lenses my FE still uses. When I get my D3 it will use every lense I own all the way back to 1977. If I look around and want to buy glass back to 1947 I can get the early ones modified. But I doubt I will buy any pre 1977 Nikon lenses. But they are great glass and cheap.
My AE1 still takes great photos, but I can not buy a new one that will use the lenses I own for it.
Canon vs Nikon, if you read the manuals and spend time learning how to use your camera you will take great shots. If I show you a print and ask if it came for one of my three Nikons or my Canon you will not be able to tell. I really want an 8MM for my Nikon. And unless I can use my Canon glass on a current body I see no reason to think one day Canon will not change mounts again. And make those perfect lenses obsolete, great way to sell a lot more glass. If Canon does that again Nikon will own the market for years after that.
My vote for the best camera is ..... the manual you are willing to read.
The Nikon does fit in my hand better than my Canon. But I am still mad about the lense thing. Not really. It just made buying an F100 the best choice since I had both Nikon and Canon lenses at the time and a new Canon would not use the old Canon glass. four perfect lense, still in use, on a 40 year old camera that look like it was bought yesterday. I had better Canon glass than Nikon at the time. Would never trust Canon again. And my Nikon takes such great phots when I remember to set it right, and when I don't? Well thats what lightroom is for.
Comments
Well if you come on down here and be my sherpa for 2-3 years and do a good job I might be able to adopt you. :ivar
I have a good set up with expensive bodies and some very expensive glass. Now I only had to work for 40+ years to afford this set-up. When I was working and saving and investing my $ for retirement I couldn't afford all this high price gear. Up to my retirement I was shoooting with glass that has been previously described as "crappy". Fortunately I was too stupid to realize that I was shooting with "crappy" glass and I went out and got some pretty good shots.
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!"
http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/cpg_digital_slr.asp
http://www.jonathanswinton.com
http://www.swintoncounseling.com
And then your son could hand me down his kit ? lolol
I just said that because I think it was funny because it was so much like what I have. There are times when I wish for nicer gear, but what I have hasn't let me down. Unless I try to do stuff I know it's not good for, like 200mm in low light at f/5.
How's that 55-200VR ? Have you ever used the sigma 70-300 APO ? Would you say it's an improvement ?
Facebook
500px
The build on the 55-200 isn't the greatest bit it provides good results and the VR is a factor. I haven't used the Sigma but I heard its strong up to 200MM but the IQ goes down over 200mm. I would go with the 55-200.
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!"
I'd be MORE than thrilled if my dad tossed me his old 5D and a few of his lenses
I have shot with a number of gear snobs who had the latest and most expensive bodies and glass. An amazing number of them took some of the most mediocre shots I have ever had the misfortune of viewing.
I sure do remember you and its good to "see" you again.
I'm hoping to save up some money and go back to Otown to photograph again, now that I know more.
I'm just reporting what a Nikonian told me. Why people have to endure a "crappy" lens really doesn't pertain to the OP ... but since you brought it up ... I believe that a neophyte to photography should start out with a kit lens and use said lens until it falls apart from wear (or as familiar and comfortable with the lens' capabilities as they are with their hands).
At such point, hopefully, a person will have the skill and expertise to capitalize on the differences between lenses which are crappy and lenses which are good.
As to your "gear snob" comment ... see above. I call gear snobs "collectors".
Gary
Unsharp at any Speed
2. A good lens for me costs about the same as the body - I have four lenses - thus most of the money is in the lenses, not the body.
3. Add in the cost of the other accessories (flash, tripod, memory, filters, bags, remote releases, angle finders) and the cost of the body becomes even less significant.
4. It's been pointed out that there are other players than Canon and Nikon - good point.
5. Someone else suggested that a pile of 8 x 10 pics couldn't be sorted as to which camera took them. I agree.
6. Someone else suggested that the photographer may even have more effect on the result - I agree.
7. Last year Canon had the high ISO edge, now it might be Nikon, next year who?
My recommendation would be to look at the type of photography one does (if one knows), and choose the brand that has the best selection of lenses that suit one's needs.
My secondary recommendation would be to stay with one of the two major players - they have the largest selection of lenses.
If I was starting over, I would look closely at the two major brands, but I wouldn't do the selecting over the internet (mostly it will be biased opinions) or by mail order (pictures and advertising are hard to interpret) - I would go into a real camera store and handle the two cameras for a period of time and choose the one that felt best.
They then proceed to ask me about a better camera, even though I tell them the lens is what will make better photos.
That's why I'm trying to learn more of the pros and cons, so I can better tell them what they should think about. I just think they think taking a few pictures to make money is ok. They don't realize what we serious Pjers put into our craft.
For anyone serious about high mag macro pics, then no-one else offers an equivalent lens to Canon's MPE 65.
pp
Flickr
I like your new avatar
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Well you could buy the D3 and pass along your 5D. Just a helpful suggestion. :ivar
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!"
And I get deeper and deeper
The more I see the more I fall no place to hide
You better take the call I get deeper and deeper...The Fixx
If the camera is to be used for photo journalism ... unless you can afford the D3 or D300 ... you gotta go with Canon for this one reason ... Low Noise at High ISO.
As a former news photog I shot most everything with available light ... which means elevated ISO/ASA of 800 to 1600. Canon's CMOS sensors do a much better job at noise reduction at high ISOs than Nikon's CCD sensors.
That single plus in the Canon column is enough to go Canon because nearly every other assignment would probably require an elevated ISO. For news photography ... mmmh ... every thing else between Nikon and Canon cameras is about the same. (If you can afford a D3 or D300 ... then just flip a coin ... cuz you won't see any dif between Nikon and Canon in the paper or in the field.)
Gary
Unsharp at any Speed
Harry, I have seriously considered just that
I will wait a year, and see what is Canon's response to the glove thrown into the ring by Nikon.
What a great pair of choices we all have to consider now!
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Now this is a very thoughtful suggestion, one worthy of serious discourse
Although I am considering medical donations, selling DVDs and CDs, and throwing myself into studio and portraiture photography this summer to save up for the 5D MkII. Maybe I should hone my poker skills while I'm at it. And Casino Aztar in Evansville isn't too far. Or maybe some Lottery tickets
I was a T90 user (one of the last cameras with the old FD mount). I stuck with that T90 for many years because 1) it was a really nice body, and 2) I didn't want to buy new lenses. That said, I do think Canon has been well served by their decision to shift to a 100% electrical mount all at once rather than following the more progressive approach Nikon took. When I was (finally) looking to upgrade to a AF film body in 2000, the Nikon's first generation of electric mount lenses were coming out and their lens line was something of a mess. More to the point, at that time only the high end pro bodies would accept electronic mount lenses. As a result, I bought an EOS-3 and never looked back.
My understanding is that Canon patented the electronic mount and Nikon could only shift over when the patent expired 17 years later; since Canon was very much the number 2 camera vendor at the time my guess is that they didn't feel they had much to lose by shifting mounts and they had a lot to gain; much of the advantage Canon had in AF performace during those years (1985-2000ish) was due to the electronic mount and I think that decision directly accounts for the large number of white lenses at sporting events. Finally Nikon appears to be making up for lost ground and updating their entire stock of lenses to electronic mount.
Good post!
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Up until the latest releases I'd agree. Now with Nikon's two new bodies even that is muddied. This from someone who chose Canon over Nikon primarily for that advantage.
Today I think it's 6 of one and half-dozen of the other. Look at what lenses you will need & who covers those the best. It seems Nikkor glass is still pricier than Canon in general, so it's a factor to consider.
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
A man with real good tastes!
Judging Canon V. Nikons is like asking why the sky is blue, asking whether I like oranges or mangos, etc.
www.tednghiem.com
The only good answer to the question, "Canon v. Nikon" (... or any other recent dSLR offering for that matter is, ...
"Yes!"
(as in there are really nice offerings from all the players. The similarities in quality and overall functionality, within similar market lines, are vastly greater than the differences.)
There are specific qualities that your application may be sensitive to that would skew particular models to your favor. Analyzing how you shoot and your specific needs are ultimately the best ways to buy any camera, dSLR or not.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
The high end Nikon lenses are more expensive than Canon. At this point you can't go wrong with either!
My website | NANPA Member
Send them here.
We'll ask a few questions and then offer advice based on our collective knowlege and experience. Plus they'll get a chance to meet some really nice people.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
That said, I'm in w/ Canon, I love the style, color, and feel, and have no viable reason to switch. Only to buy more equipment.
Not like Canon is going the way of Polaroid because Nikon may have finally temporarily caught up.
dak.smugmug.com
Once again .. unless your photogs can afford a D3 or a D300 ... then Canon is the manufacturer of choice because Canon has an advantage over Nikon in low noise at elevated ISOs.
If they can afford a D3 or a D300 ... then all things are pretty much equal in IQ ... so back to the coin toss or look at other factors than IQ ... i.e. affordability ... access to glass ... and last and also least importantly ... how the camera feels.
Gary
Unsharp at any Speed
My d200 uses the same lenses my F100 uses which use the same lenses my FE still uses. When I get my D3 it will use every lense I own all the way back to 1977. If I look around and want to buy glass back to 1947 I can get the early ones modified. But I doubt I will buy any pre 1977 Nikon lenses. But they are great glass and cheap.
My AE1 still takes great photos, but I can not buy a new one that will use the lenses I own for it.
Canon vs Nikon, if you read the manuals and spend time learning how to use your camera you will take great shots. If I show you a print and ask if it came for one of my three Nikons or my Canon you will not be able to tell. I really want an 8MM for my Nikon. And unless I can use my Canon glass on a current body I see no reason to think one day Canon will not change mounts again. And make those perfect lenses obsolete, great way to sell a lot more glass. If Canon does that again Nikon will own the market for years after that.
My vote for the best camera is ..... the manual you are willing to read.
The Nikon does fit in my hand better than my Canon. But I am still mad about the lense thing. Not really. It just made buying an F100 the best choice since I had both Nikon and Canon lenses at the time and a new Canon would not use the old Canon glass. four perfect lense, still in use, on a 40 year old camera that look like it was bought yesterday. I had better Canon glass than Nikon at the time. Would never trust Canon again. And my Nikon takes such great phots when I remember to set it right, and when I don't? Well thats what lightroom is for.