Canon or Nikon

[epicwelshman]

That's a battle cry, not a reason to buy. Have any thoughts behind that?



You always seem to have good words.

If there were no automatic exposure modes or automatic focus on these cameras, would half of these people be photographers? Could they have survived the early 1970s with their favourite brand? I seem to remember several people returning their SLRs because they couldn't load the film and wasted a lot of rolls doing it.

You do make a good point. If cameras suddenly reverted back to film and manual exposure/focus then I'd absolutely still be a photographer. If photography had never advanced would I have jumped in as much as I have? It's hard to say. The ease of use of current cameras make becoming a photographer very easy.

A lot of people still seem to be fanboys. I shoot Nikon, personally, but if someone wanted a Canon/Pentax/Olympus then good for them. Camera brand for most people is a personal choice that doesn't impact the actual photography one bit.

Frankly, get whatever brand you want, and let the photos speak for themselves.

 

[Westside guy]

TIf there were no automatic exposure modes or automatic focus on these cameras, would half of these people be photographers? Could they have survived the early 1970s with their favourite brand? I seem to remember several people returning their SLRs because they couldn't load the film and wasted a lot of rolls doing it.

Well, so what? Back in the film days I shot with a Pentax K1000. No bells or whistles at all - fully manual, except for a light meter. But you know what? Autofocus is handy to have, most of the time. Shooting in program mode has its place as well. Technology marches on, and the bar for entry into the SLR club has been lowered... and I think it's a good thing. Most people buying dSLRs will not ever be great photographers. But I bet a few of the folks that would have been too intimidated to ever start out, back in the 70s, will discover a passion for photography and make a name for themselves. And even those who don't achieve greatness will still have fun, which is really the whole point.

I understand the feeling of losing that exclusive little club that was SLR photography back in the day. I felt that way about those "newbie computer users" back in the 80s, when PCs (including Macs) lowered that particular bar (at the time I worked on a mini-mainframe, back when 10MB disks were the size of a stove and you had to thread mag tape by hand). But really, in the end it's all progress. All we can do is roll with it.

 

[Digital Skunk]

I shoot Nikon because that's what the job gives me. I bought a D200 since I have a plethora of glass at my disposal. When it came time for to choose a system that I wanted to seriously invest in I was going to go Canon, but Nikon's D300 and D3 kept me on their side of the fence.

Bottom line, look at what the companies offer and pick what is a must have for you whether it be a certain type of lens, certain camera body feature, certain feel in your hand, or certain accessory.

Truth be told both companies are terrible and ignore the needs of the serious pro. I wish Sony/Pentax/Olympus would come out with a good competing camera on the high end so Nikon and Canon would start innovating and stop copying gimmicky features.

As for everyone being a photographer... GOOD! That mean those that call themselves pros are going to have to start proving it and start adding things to their arsenal of skills that set them above the rest. Media convergence is hitting many industries hard and old grey haired shooters are struggling to keep up with the younglings. There are high school students that could shoot circles around many established photographers. The old Ansel Adams knock offs aren't going to cut it anymore so get your camera whatever it may be and start shooting.

 

[Clix Pix]

If there were no automatic exposure modes or automatic focus on these cameras, would half of these people be photographers? Could they have survived the early 1970s with their favourite brand? I seem to remember several people returning their SLRs because they couldn't load the film and wasted a lot of rolls doing it.

You're right on the money here! Today's new digital cameras, especially the more recent crop of seemingly easy-to-use and affordable digital SLRs, have attracted people to photography who in the past probably didn't have a camera at all or had one that they pulled out once in a blue moon for "special" occasions and then wondered why the photos turned out so poorly....

As one who cut my photographic teeth on first a Brownie Hawkeye, then a Kodak Instamatic, followed in the 1970's by a Minolta something-or-other SLR and later another couple of Minoiltas before in the early 1990's I made the leap to my first Nikon SLR, the N90, I hear you loud and clear! Nowadays it seems as though nearly everybody has a digital camera and they're using them all over the place. One reason why, of course, is that once the initial investment is made in camera and memory, one can shoot to his/her heart's content without concern....unlike the old days of film. Another reason is that for those who have the time and the inclination to do so, it's easy to fix those shots in some photo editing program....

There are a lot of people running around today with digital cameras, either P&S or DSLRs, but not all of them could truly be called "photographers."

 

[compuwar]

Well, so what? Back in the film days I shot with a Pentax K1000. No bells or whistles at all - fully manual, except for a light meter. But you know what? Autofocus is handy to have, most of the time. Shooting in program mode has its place as well. Technology marches on, and the bar for entry into the SLR club has been lowered... and I think it's a good thing. Most people buying dSLRs will not ever be great photographers.

The point, as I see it is that the brand fans don't evaluate things, because either they don't have the skills to do an open evaluation or because they really do think the camera makes a great deal of difference in the generic case (look at most of the recommendations in this tread- a lot of the recommending folks have a generic one-camera-brand-fits-all recommendation without even differentiating models within that brand- and they always recommend the same brand no matter who asks or what sort of shooting they do, as if the camera brand makes all that much difference.

Put a dozen prints from any of the major DSLR makers on a table, and those same folks couldn't pick which camera made which print with any regularity because a photographer knows it's about the exposure, while a camera user thinks it's all about the camera-- it's not about the exclusivity of the term "photographer" though, it's about the differentiation between someone who understands the processes and someone who pushes a button and just takes another picture if that one doesn't work out- that's not saying they won't create art even, it's just saying they're not a photographer (or insert another term that means they know what they're doing.)

But I bet a few of the folks that would have been too intimidated to ever start out, back in the 70s, will discover a passion for photography and make a name for themselves. And even those who don't achieve greatness will still have fun, which is really the whole point.

That's ok, a lot of folks who started out in the 70's don't have all that good a grasp... But I think the differentiation again is about knowledge and the application of that knowledge. Just because I can change my oil, air filter, plugs and wires doesn't mean I'm an auto mechanic.

I understand the feeling of losing that exclusive little club that was SLR photography back in the day. I felt that way about those "newbie computer

SLR photography has pretty much always been a big club, if you want to see exclusivity then go to large format, where you don't get auto *anything*. Now, does that make a LF proponent an elitist, or a specialist, or a craftsman, or an artist, or a Luddite?

But really, the argument being put forth is for craft, which isn't the same as exclusivity (though at times it shares a limited set of folks.)

 

[milozauckerman]

I've had a D70 for a couple of years and an Elan 7e for six-ish. Enjoyed what time I've spent with an F100 and EOS 3, played with the D80, 5d and 40d today.

I'm buying into Canon because I prefer their lens lineup (USM primes, L primes, etc.). But in terms of body, the Nikons and Canons are too close to call. If there's a specific feature you need (top-shelf autofocus in the D300, a full-frame sensor under three grand in the 5d), that will lead you one way or the other. But for 'photography' as a general pursuit, they're all pretty good.