[MojoMac]

meta said:

I can't see myself ever buying a Nikon camera, because I've experienced what Nikon Digital's warranty service is like for their scanners.

Seriously? Thats a reason? You're comparing a scanner warranty to a camera warranty? My D70 (seems so old now) had a part fail while under warranty. It was fixed and turned around in less then 2 weeks, this was when the camera was maybe 6 months old. Same part failed again, they fixed it again and changed even more things out. Haven't had any problems since. That was 3 years ago.

So what happened with the scanner warranty that turned you off from Nikon all together? Most of the Nikon shooters I know, both consumers and pros, are really happy with Nikon.

[meta]

It's not the length of the warranty, it's the service. Nikon Digital, the same part of the company, is responsible for servicing both Nikon digital cameras and Nikon scanners.

[xtoph]

mr. reichmann is a lot of things, but he isn't a photojournalist (unless you mean someone who writes about photography). your first hint would be the name of his website.

as for nikon vs canon... whatever. if only someone wanted to build the camera that i actually want to use. kinda like the ents... i ain't exactly on anybody's side, 'cause ain't nobody entirely on my side.

and besides, it isn't the cameras in isolation: it's also the lenses. m.r. was able to obtain a (discontinued, highly rare) 28mm/1.4, but that's hardly given. if you want low-light, wide angle photography, right now your best bet is a canon 5d with a 24/1.4.

but of course you can take great pictures with lots of other gear too.

[Rugby]

not sure about the loyalty part, I didn't buy my first digital until D200 as I didn't like some details on the previous (although I did liked the D2X, borrowed that one for a while) but if you have high end gear (expensive lenses) it has to more than flavour of the month to change mind. In the analogue days id very rarely mattered if you had 10-15 year old or the latest, now there are "better" models every week in the shops.
Agree with Leicaman, it does matter to some what model/brand it is - if you enjoy the hardware you feel more comfortable and (hopefully) take better pictures. But it doesn't mean Nikon is better then f ex Canon - just more classy and Nikon users do live a more satisfying life

[Philbert]

"I had an interesting conversation with some Nikon folks ... 'We go back and forth. It rarely changes the mind of the pros, who tend to be locked in to one or the other of us' ..."

It depends on the "improvement". The vast majority of new features "rarely changes the mind of pros" because they aren't important enough. But ask those same Nikon folks about the late 80s - a time when Nikon pretty much owned the professional field ? until Canon came out with a much, much better auto focus system. Professional Nikon shooters (especially sports shooters) switched to Canon in DROVES to the point that Nikon lost their number one spot in short order. Take a look on the sidelines of any pro/college sporting event and you'll see that Canon is still dominate today (even though Nikon's AF system is now just as good).

The point is ... professionals WILL jump ship if the competition's features are game-changing improvements. Canon's auto focus system was game-changing. And so is Nikon's jump in high ISO performance with these new cameras. The ability to obtain high quality images at ISO 6400 and above opens up a whole new world. (I've been in many situations in the past where I would KILL for an extra two stops!)

You can bet that Canon is worried. (which is a good thing for all)

Those here who simply regurgitate "the camera doesn't matter" miss the point. Yes, the photographer is the most important factor in image creation - but equipment can absolutely be the difference in whether or not you get the shot.

-phil

[Rugby]

Philbert said:

The point is ... professionals WILL jump ship if the competition's features are game-changing improvements. Canon's auto focus system was game-changing. And so is Nikon's jump in high ISO performance with these new cameras. The ability to obtain high quality images at ISO 6400 and above opens up a whole new world. (I've been in many situations in the past where I would KILL for an extra two stops!)
-phil

ahhhhhhh yes, sports photography has a tendency to be unpredictable, I have been to many games where Fuji 800 and F4 was my salvation, barely. A good high ISO camera is a good selling point

[drummstick]

Quote

Those here who simply regurgitate "the camera doesn't matter" miss
the point. Yes, the photographer is the most important factor in
image creation - but equipment can absolutely be the difference in
whether or not you get the shot.

I've regurgitated that one many times myself, and still believe it to be substantially true. And while you make valid points about "game-changers," except for the Canon dominance in auto-focus technology that spanned most of the '90's at least, most of these advances only enjoy a relatively fleeting term on the throne before they are equalled or surpassed by competitors.

If the Nikon D3 is as good at ISO 6400 as is indicated by the poster that came bagged with the latest issue of Digital PhotoPro magazine would indicate, it would truly qualify as a game changer. But unless Canon falls behind and stays behind for a number of years, I will not even begin to consider a switch.

And money is only the secondary consideration, even though I would be talking about, at minumum, 20,000 frogskins to acquire a new, comparable array of Nikon equipment. The big hang-up to me would be focusing direction.

My switch from Nikon to Canon back in about 1991 (which I regret not one bit) did lead to at least 3 months of abject frustration while I learned to focus "backwards." My brain's autofocus system had been turned on it's head and had to right itself, which cannot happen overnight. I'd say it was six months before I cold follow-focus without THINKING about it.

Since about half my income on any given month is from sports/action assignmnents, I cannot afford to even think about a switch back to Nikon and risk having my performance go in the toilet for several months. (Auto-focus is a very able assistant, but it cannot take over completely. I use it often to "find" the action, but my hand takes over to follow it.)

I've long drooled over Nikon's 200mm f/2.0 lens. Another photographer I know uses their 200mm to 400mm f/4.0 lens extensively, and it is quite impressive as well. I've even thought of pricing one or both of these lenses with one Nikon body to use it on. Canon currently has no equivalents for either, though they are "working on" the 200mm 2.0. Conversely, Nikon does not have a 135mm f/2.0 that does not have additional funky optics (defocus control) that jack up the price and weight.

But such "mix and match" approach would only work if I could reverse the focus direction, either through a custom function or through a (hopefully reversible) modification to the lens. This would seem to be possible on lenses with which even manual focus is electronic, but I find no camera manufacturer or service person who offers this service.

The "Nikon v. Canon" debate is for the pro-sumers, who just buy one camera and one or two relatively inexpensive lenses and may replace the whole lot after 3 or 4 years, possibly with a competing brand. If you WORK with this equipment and have a much larger investment in gear, you are pretty much locked in, at least financially, and in my case with focus direction, functionally. If Nikon would offer reversible focus direction, they would have a chance of selling me some equipment, and it's possible I may, over time, migrate completely to their system. Canon might get some Nikon converts if they offer the same.

But until then, for me at least, it's a deal-breaker.

[g4zilla]

Nikon may have moved ahead, at least according to this writer, but their software is, shall we say, less than wonderful. And I'm still waiting for compatibility for Nikon's Capture Control software with Leopard. Yes, it's only been a few months, but that aspect is integral to my shooting efficiency. I've had to cobble together a software workaround until the programmers are done. Or at least done enough.

[Martian]

Super ISO certainly can be”game changing”. Of course the ISO race will continue to swap leads until we can take handheld action shots in starlight with compact f4 lenses.
However, if the allegations are true that Canon’s parts and repair support, and accessory availability are far superior to Nikon’s, this is another story. Company policies, resources and support infrastructure don’t change overnight.
Post-sales support might be the real game changer.

[Steve_S]

drefus, nice post. Easily the most relevant post in this thread.

I think we can all agree that competition is good. Despite the multiple players in the dSLR market, it's still a Canon vs Nikon game. Each has their advantages and disadvantages. I agree with many of your points, but especially Nikon's availability issues. It's not just with accessories, but lenses, too. I've been in a situation where I was just tired of waiting to the point where they ended up losing my business (which admitedly isn't much), but I'd imagine this is more common then some some are aware of.

[RonC]

I'm a consumer, and a dslr wantabe. I believe the Canon XTi is what I'm going to choose as my entry into dslr.(I currently own a Canon Rebel-G film camera with a Sigma 70-200mm. The Sigma will not work with a dslr camera.) I realize that it comes with a marginal quality Canon lens.
Can I have some opinions from you pros as to the better general all-purpose lens to use? I have been leaning towards a Tamron 18-200 mm lens. Is this ok. I have to admit finances are a problem, but I enjoy trying to drink champagne on a beer budget.
Thanks

[nfiertel]

This comment struck a chord with me. In Canada , Canon offer a full warrantee across North America for their cameras and lenses. I ended up buying my equipment at home as it turned out as i ended up getting as competitive price locally but knowing that in future if I found a nice deal in NYC or Chicago or Toronto, I could buy such with no concern as I would have had with Nikon who does not service in Canada, US product, guarantees my loyalty. Sure, Nikon might have this or that feature and Canon some others and people can make the choice on this basis if they wish but I am sold on Canon for their fair business practices. They are simply a good acting company.
With respect to comparisons between them..more importantly for those of us who have been in photography professionally since the bad old days of pushed HP3, two part developing of Kodak Document films and other such extremes necessary to get some semblance of quality with a small portable camera as the 35mm was in comparison to large format film cameras that outshone the best quality that one could get from a 1 by 1.5 inch piece of filmstock, one can only laugh at the nitpicking at the noise level differences.
I mean, with what are now called pro/consumer cameras with chipsets of between 8-12 megapixel resolutions, one can get quality images that no 35mm camera could come close to. I print mostly 24 by 36 inch files from either an 8 or a 10 megapixel Canon Dslrs and often crop more than a little and do a great deal of visual playing with the images and the detail and clarity, subtle shadings and contrast and all the other attributes one might look for in an image makes film gritty and lacking in much of what is taken for granted nowadays. I am not saying the old images are inferior in terms of concept but I am saying essentially we have it made with any of the top cameras and lenses today.
.With a good computer and proper resampling techniques and software for whatever the photographer wants to do with the images, the last thing that gets in the way is the tiny differences between a Canon and Nikon engineering choices. Of course, that is spoken by a non- purist artist/photographer who considers the camera image as a starting place and not the final resting place for idea. No doubt some are shocked that an 8 megapixel image can give a sharp very large image but in reality it is much more information than one could ever obtain from the finest film stock in 35MM FORMAT. It is all about understanding that a digital camera is one end of a digital chain to the final print or file. It is a new world of image making and Canon and Nikon and now Pentax are crowded together making some great first links in the digital chain. Competition is great in this field!