Canon or Nikon?

[wideopen]

Although I'm a new member, I'd like to throw my 2 cents in.

Thats what FF is all about!

[Walkabout]

This is a classic warlord question...hahahaha! Brings out the best and worst of both users. Personally, I think they are both top notch machines. As far as who has the edge? As in many competitive match-ups, it changes from time to time. I have been using Nikon equipment, cameras and lenses since I started in 1992. 6006, 8008, N90s, F5's, and the digi's from D100, D200, D300 and just ordered a D700. No problems, seriously, not a one, with any of them, and I used them hard under sometimes hard conditions...BUT...have to agree with most of the others, you can't go wrong on either end. I happened to get a good deal on my first Nikon kit, 6006 with a 35-80mm lens, was a mite bit cheaper than the current equivilant that Canon had...and I've always believed, had I gotten a better deal on the Canon, would be equally happy with my gear. Sure, I call my mates who use Canons members of "Al Canona", evildoers of the highest order! Rapscallion troubadours singing the praises of the evil Canonnites...

It may come down to how the cameras feel. Take your time, shop around, try them out in the store, get a sense of them...bottom line, I don't think there is truly a wrong answer on this one. We are fortunate to have two such well built brands to choose from. not, of course, that that is ALL we have to choose from, of course, but for the purpose of the Nikon vs Canon question...

As far as the noise issue, I don't really see it in the Nikon, I have been using a D300 in some very lowlight images, at an iso of 1250, blown up to 2x3 foot prints. And the D700 makes the D300 look like an amateur, but a bit out of your price range you mentioned.

I re-read my post here, and I fear I am being of no help to you...hahahaha!

other than to say, I've had no troubles with my Nikon gear, had excellent results, and all my Canon mates say the same thing. Safe bet either way, would be my two-cents.
Have a ****load of fun either way!

[Dropy]

Well all i know is i will stick with my canon. i Don't know much about Nikon cpt what a few have told me and i know i like the feel of my Canon. I have spoken with photographers who use Nikon and they wish they had gone Canon, i have not heard other way around though. I feel it is all just personal preferrence. Both are good rigs from what i have read/heard, it just boils down to what you want as far as do-dads and gizmos and such i guesse.

And i agree, from what i know about ANY electronics, and from what i have researched that most major brands take turns being "The Best".

~shrug~

[Fibonacci]

Way, way, way too much is made of the hardware in photography. Real photography is a way of seeing and the ability to put that onto paper or screen. People talk about cameras because it is easier to understand than talking about seeing. The job of the photographer is to master whatever camera they have regardless of brand. For this reason, the new breed of super cameras can actually be a hindrance. Give someone a new top of the line Nikon or Canon and they will be able to take good photos pretty quickly but that is not what most of us want. We want to make great images and that requires total mastery. I am beginning to develop the mentality that a simple camera with a few simple features like focus, exposure control is all you really need to develop the skill of photographic seeing. Then, when you own that camera like an extension of your eye, you can progress to one with features you really need. Most of the photographers I have met are nowhere close to mastering their tools and would actually do better with a simpler set up. I know other people who could embarrass you with a pinhole camera made out of an oatmeal box because they know it forward and backward and they know how to see...really see.

[Walkabout]

Way, way, way too much is made of the hardware in photography. Real photography is a way of seeing and the ability to put that onto paper or screen. People talk about cameras because it is easier to understand than talking about seeing. The job of the photographer is to master whatever camera they have regardless of brand. For this reason, the new breed of super cameras can actually be a hindrance. Give someone a new top of the line Nikon or Canon and they will be able to take good photos pretty quickly but that is not what most of us want. We want to make great images and that requires total mastery. I am beginning to develop the mentality that a simple camera with a few simple features like focus, exposure control is all you really need to develop the skill of photographic seeing. Then, when you own that camera like an extension of your eye, you can progress to one with features you really need. Most of the photographers I have met are nowhere close to mastering their tools and would actually do better with a simpler set up. I know other people who could embarrass you with a pinhole camera made out of an oatmeal box because they know it forward and backward and they know how to see...really see.

I couldn't agree more...when we are talking about fine art photography. Except I don't think it's fair to generalize photographers and say we all talk about hardware because it's easier than "seeing." For many of us, it's just the opposite...alot of people have the vision of what they want to portray, but need to learn the technical skills to achieve it.

But given the varied aspects of this craft, some of us talk about hardware because it is relevent to our work. When you are shooting sports, or wildlife, birds especially...I'll put my money on the photographer with the big glass and the internal focusing motor, good quality provia film or exceptional sensor in the new top of the line Canon or Nikon. And I'll wager you won't find any low level camera bodies or pinholes on the sidelines of an NFL game, or in front of the stage at a U2 concert. There, in those places and under those conditions, you have photographers who not only have to "see" but they have to master their hardware. So this is a highly relevent subject for those of us who explore more than one of the many different aspects of photography. The shooter who explores fine art photography, is in a much different world than the one on the sidelines at a ball game, or the one shooting people as they walk down the isle, or the shooter dodgeing bullets in Beirut during wartime...Pinholes and simple cameras have their place, and have unique character all their own, but in the varied world of photography, with the myriad of aspects and applications, hardware is more than relevent, it's essential if you want to be the absolute best. One of the first photos I ever took was with an oatmeal box pinhole as a kid...and I still use simple cameras when exploring my vision of the world, but I also use top of the line Nikons when shooting wildlife in harsh conditions, or shooting sports on a college football field, or shooting ZZ Top on a stage...because those conditions aren't predictable, they are fast moving, they have ever-changing lighting...so in addition to having to not only "see", we need to "see" it quickly, and have the elements of high end pro gear to put what we see on film or screen.

We all enjoy the zenlike conditions of shooting fine art photography, but thats just ONE aspect of this craft...and the one thing I've learned about this craft, this art, over the years...is there is no generalizing. I persue varied aspects of it, Wildlife, cultural, photojournalism, sports, fine art, performance, travel, portraiture, etc.

So just as you can't apply one method or set of tools to painters, with varied styles from acrylics, oils, watercolors, etc.
You can't apply one set of tools or methods to photographers who persue varied styles.