[iandavis]

Hey, photo stuff!

Either Canon or Nikon, I can't imagine you would regret either system. My 2.3 cents:

Nikon has the ability to use older lenses, some conditions apply, mostly with loss of metering and focus features. If you are like me you may want to have access to some of the older (10years or so) pro lenses, since who wants to spend $1800 on a lense, when there is an identical quality lense sitting in the used case for $600.

Canon you are stuck with their new AF lenses only. I have shot with both systems and though canon lenses are dreamy and super clean the ability to use lenses from a few years ago is a MAJOR plus.

Consider pentax also. I shoot with pentax currently since they are the ONLY DSLR capable of using 30 year old manual lenses. I have a few incredible lenses like my 135mm f2.8 which I use all the time! The new higher end pentax dslr will hold it's own against the consumer Nikon (D80) or the Canon (Rebel) and since you can walk into any pawn shop and buy truly remarkable lenses for a song! wow.

My experience is that it's the LENS that makes the image. The body can contribute in ways like speed and focus accuracy but if you are talking pictures of anything that ISN'T a fast moving sports player it really makes almost no difference whether I shoot on canon, nikon or pentax.

Proof. shot with a pentax *ist (street value $400US) and a bunch of extinct lenses I bought for $40-$200. It's really true, the artist makes the image, not the tools.



So really, I strongly urge you to get which ever system has the 'stuff' you like, even as simple as one camera feels better in your hand. You have to use this thing a lot and buy lenses for it. Just get whichever system you FEEL best about. When I bought the *ist I got a lot of peer pressure noise, since I'm a photographer I should be using NIKON OR CANON. The simple truth is, that I've been shooting pentax since buying a super program in 1984 and all of those lenses... It just made sense for me...

I will be upgrading soon, but it's only because for fast moving pro level stuff pentax just doesn't compete with something like the Nikon D200.


http://picasaweb.google.com/ionclad/Fam ... 0911871922
http://picasaweb.google.com/ionclad/Ins ... 2072601538
http://picasaweb.google.com/ionclad/San ... 4716702834
http://picasaweb.google.com/ionclad/Lin ... 5405537778

[Leonardo]

...My experience is that it's the LENS that makes the image....

The photographer makes the image.... the lens makes it better!


expensive cameras + cheap lenses = 99% of wanna be photographers

BTW, I'm gonna have to take a look at pentax... I was not aware of that!

[iandavis]

yeah... of course. without my warm little finger pushing the trigger there be no photos at all.

I forgot to mention that you can even get a cheap adapter (sub $200) and use any of the Pentax 6x7 or 645 medium format lenses on any of their digital cameras. Which is good, since I have a couple really sweet 6x7 lenses.

In fact, I would also consider the Olympus... it's an EXCELLENT camera. I have thrown my top four pics into a page on dpreview. Note that features like image stabilization is only present in the Olympus and Pentax. For a while the same sensor exactly was in the Nikon D series and the Pentax DS. Sometimes the hype can lead you down the path to a poor buying decision (for you).

Either of these cameras will kick major A.

edit: I just did a shoot with a Canon 5D and the thing I found was, though the image quality was higher and it was substantially more sure footed then my current gear, It was HUGE. I get used to how small and comfy the pentax is. I can practically keep it in my pocket! Major perk for me since I like to take my camera a lot of places a lot of the the time.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare ... d&show=all

[andrebaros]

It's not the camera, it's the photographer. Here's some enlightenment on the subject.

http://luminous-landscape.com/columns/O ... _Art.shtml

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/7.htm

[iandavis]

the camera and the photographer work together. Without a certain level of technical ability the camera actually hampers the photographer's artistic expression.

the phrase "it's not the tools that makes the artist" is a phrase to sell t-shirts. In fact, in many very real and tangible ways having pro tools in fact absolutely makes you a better artist.

My photographs pre-digital were good. However, since I've been shooting with a more modern setup I've been able to express myself in ways I could previously only imagine. Tools can change the very foundation of what an artist considers to be their art. Tools and artist form a tight bond that goes back all the way to the hollow tube and raw pigment.

The 'bar' of artist's accomplishments goes up and up as tools become better and more sophisticated. So if an artist clings to that old rhetoric, "don't work, it's not the tools that make an artist" he's doomed to stagnate and not progress and be competitive with his peers.

Just look at these two images. I as an artist have not changed too much, but my art has progressed immeasurably and it's ONLY because I have acquired and learned how to use BETTER TOOLS.

http://picasaweb.google.com/IonClad2/Ve ... 2684263266
http://picasaweb.google.com/IonClad2/Pa ... 2399807650

[simmsimaging]

I think people get too hung up on the "artist" angle. If you are serious about photography you really have to approach it as a craft first and foremost if you want to go beyond images which are interesting, but little more than ego wankery.

If you are interested in photography as a professional tool, or even as a tool to generate images of varying types and looks in varying circumstances and not be at the whim of fortune you have to have a craftsmans approach - and craftsmen depend on good tools. There many tools that make getting the job done much easier, but there are also things you just can't do with some tools. Any camera can take any arbitrary picture, but not any camera can take the one you need for the job at hand. I can take a soft dreamy/grainy shot of a landscape with a cheap disposable, but if I want to impress a paying client and not just a friend of mine I might just have to think about shooting it on at least a decent 35mm, if not a 4X5. Sometimes you actually have to be able to see the details in a shot

Camera *is* important, it's just not the only factor.

b

[Mihai]

Get a Cnikon, and you'll be happiest.

[andrebaros]

You're right, I overplayed the artist vs. camera angle. I know that I personally have a very good relationship with my Canon and would be very unlikely to switch because of that "oneness" with the tool in my hand. But if I were starting over, I would consider a Nikon, but to the same degree I wouldn't consider any other brands for 35mm work.

[iandavis]

I guess the point I was trying to stress regarding brand was that thousands of professional photographers take pictures with Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Leica, etc. It's like saying Honda is better then Toyota. Every brand has it's strong points.

Nikon:
PROS - Professional image and quality, huge stable of lenses, outstanding build quality, generally high interchangeability factor with older components. Some models are considered best in class (ex. D2Xs best for press work) Really slick 1024point metering system. (on pro models)

CONS - Somewhat expensive for higher lense and body levels. Some people have issue with the chunky brownish style. Most bodies and lenses are really big!

Canon:
PROS - Professional quality. Some OUTSTANDING lenses. CMOS sensors. Huge selection of lenses. Canon offers full frame model (5D). Offers a couple of the coolest cameras out there. The 1D-mkIII is rugged+. The 5D can use an 18mm AS an 18mm.

CONS - Expensive Gear (but pro stuff only). New lenses or go home. Zero backward compatibility with older manual focus lenses. Lenses and bodies are very large.

Pentax:
PROS - Compact and clean, this bears repeating... COMPACT.. Can utilize literally thousands of existing lenses going back to the THREADMOUNT lenses of the 70s, as well as any other pentax system, 6x7 and 645, etc. Perfect system for someone without a lot of money to invest. Aimed at the everyman, which means a lot of cool features deemed too 'gimmicky' for pros. I like cool features personally. (like stabilization on the sensor) Sleeper lenses, some of the sharpest rated lenses (rated higher then Leica in some cases) are Pentax lenses. The 50mm f1.7 standard lense ($25 in most used stores) is by far the sharpest and best 50mm I've ever used.

CONS - high end features unavailable. example, the Ultrasonic Motor Driven Lenses are just now being made. Pro bodies not made yet. The highest level is prosumer. Not good enough or fast enough for professional sports or press, but could used for other pro work (I have).

Olympus.

PROS - Cheap but really really good. On the Pentax level but the pro here is that Olympus has always been about creating a lenses 'system'. Their lenses are reputed to be the sharpest in the biz. Their cameras are innovative and high quality. The images coming out of their SLRs is outstanding. Another excellent choice for the sub$2000 range.

CONS - It's niche system and thus doesn't appeal to all people. Pros that need 400mm f2.8 lenses will have to look at Canon or Nikon. All the bad stuff that comes with buying system holding a smaller market share. Think Macintosh. Olympus is kind of the Macintosh of the camera world. Excellent but often overlooked.

Hope this be helpful. Good luck. Oh, stay away from that Leica. It's nothing more then a panasonic in sheeps clothing... or in this case in Leica colors. I took a good look at the images coming out of this camera. Frankly the word that came to mind was "SUCKY". The Canon G7 is a rangefinder and kicks the Leica 'round the block in almost every conceivable angle, especially in the $ department.

[iandavis]

Get a Cnikon, and you'll be happiest.

Was that a typo or a joke?

get a Cnikon, or maybe an Olymtax?

Honestly I love Nikon. I am leaning toward a Nikon for my next camera. The D200 or it's successor. Though I'm always having a Pentax around just to use those funky 70s and 80s lenses!

[Hervé]

I have the D200 Nikon... very happy with it...

[Jeff Tamagini]

This just in...from all my time in the Flickr forums, A Best Buy employee has leaked that on Sept 5th (USA) will start selling the widely rumored new Canon 40D There are no real confirmed specs yet but is rumored to be a 10MP model and have mixture of features of the 30D and the 5D and will have the new DIGIC III sensor To bad I just bought a 30D 2 months ago

[iandavis]

a consumer full frame canon? That would make sense. If that happens then Nikon will follow suit. That is a feature worth waiting for if you are the kind of photographer who shoots a lot of indoor stuff.

I did a shoot with the the 5D and I'd forgotten how wide an 18mm really is without that annoying 1.5FOV crop.

[Mihai]

I am wanting this for a long time, why raise the MP values, it's better making a larger sensor. But it isn't clear if it will be full frame? I kind of doubt it, don't most people buy the 5D especially for that reason?

[iandavis]

Yup. I just did a shoot tonight actually with a 1DmkII and a 5D. There was this SWEET 85mm f1.2 (yes, I said 1.2) and the models feet kept getting cut off for several different areas, but I simply threw the 85 on the 5D and it t'was an 85 not the 85mm x 1.5 (or 1.4?) which is much different for people shots.

I've talked to a few owners and without exception it was either the primary reason or at least a major factor in the purchase of that camera. It's not especially fast (not compared to the 1D... YOWZA) It's that sweet extra angle. Every time I shoot with that thing, it's a thrill. I was shooting with a 15mm tonight getting 180 degrees of view! Don't get me wrong, the 5D is an extremely capable camera. I really can't complain. I've rarely lost a shot when using it. I point, I press the shutter, it takes a picture... all pretty much in less then a second. It's just that the 1D does that plus take an extra 4 more photos in that second.