SportsShooter.com - Who is switching from Canon to Nikon..?

	Westminster \| MD \| USA \| Posted: 5:18 PM on 05.05.07
	->> I did in 1983. Switched newspapers, so switched from Canon to Nikon because that was the gear they had. But why is it important to know whose switching today? It really doesn't matter. I'm curious where your photographer source got his or her information? Lately I'm switching to RB Graflex SLRs. They are SO cool, especially when the glass is really old.

Michael McNamara, Photo Editor, Photographer

	Lincoln \| NE \| USA \| Posted: 5:44 PM on 05.05.07
	->> Maybe they are switching because they think Canon is making it too easy and they want a good challenge.

Ian L. Sitren, Photographer

	Palm Springs \| CA \| USA \| Posted: 5:46 PM on 05.05.07
	->> I don't see anything wrong with Nikon. But this guy is delusional.

Kevin Liles, Photographer

	Griffin \| GA \| USA \| Posted: 5:59 PM on 05.05.07
	->> Did he tell you that on April Fools Day?

Drew Broadley, Photographer

	Wellington \| NZ \| New Zealand \| Posted: 10:17 PM on 05.05.07
	->> Hello Canon Sheep... I am your Nikon shepard!

JohnPaul Greco, Photographer, Assistant

Milwaukee | WI | USA | Posted: 12:24 AM on 05.06.07

->> LOL!! I was just reading everyone's replies..

The guy who told me this had a pair of Nikon digital bodies on him.. I believe they were D200's..

& he just "knew what he was talking about".. ;-)

He claimed something to the effect of.. .."Every major publication..(Or most, I forget which he said).. was in the process of switching over to Nikon, as well as most professional photographers"...bla bla bla..bla bla.. After hearing all that,...I just wanted to get away from the guy/ goof ball.. This happened about a week ago..not on April fools day.. :-)

I was just wondering which major publications were switching over to Nikon..and why..? (as I thought, there weren't any)..

I agree with Ian... "delusional" is very fitting indeed.. :-)

Yep!

JP

Louis Lopez, Photographer

	Fontana \| CA \| USA \| Posted: 4:01 AM on 05.06.07
	->> Does it really matter? Is the board expected to be a little short on silly threads, this month and you wanted to get a head start?

Jim Colburn, Photographer

	Omaha \| NE \| USA \| Posted: 5:53 AM on 05.06.07
	->> "A photographer told me recently that "Most professional photographers are switching from Canon to Nikon these days".' Delusional doesn't even come close to describing the guys state of mind.

D. Ross Cameron, Photographer

	Oakland \| CA \| USA \| Posted: 7:03 AM on 05.06.07
	->> Why, that guy was Joe Nykon! He's part owner of the Nykon Novelty Firearm company. What you thought you heard as "everybody is switching from Canon to Nikon" was actually, "everybody is switching from cannons to Nykon" [novelty firearms]. Big difference.

Michael Brown, Photographer

Roxburgh Park | Victoria | Australia | Posted: 7:31 AM on 05.06.07

->> This is the funniest thing I have heard in recent times. Personally I am a Nikon shooter, and have been for nearly 25 years, and in the past 3 months I have been looking for any way I can to move the other way. Basically I have given Nikon 3 months to announce the new sports body (3 months is the time Canon will take to actually get the MIII to market and iron out he bugs) If not, Im moving, for no other reason then the high ISO. Other than the low light, the Nikons are fine.

Landon Finch, Photographer

	Colorado Springs \| CO \| USA \| Posted: 10:57 AM on 05.06.07
	->> I'll be selling my D30 (about 5000 clicks), 24-70 L, & 580ex soon (so I can pick up another D200 and some more Nikon glass). I've decided it's not the time for me to switch (at least not yet). I'll wait until the MKIII comes down in price.

Max Gersh, Student/Intern, Photo Editor

St. Louis | MO | USA | Posted: 11:20 AM on 05.06.07

->> I am one of the only Canon photographers at a school where all the rental equipment is Nikon (or Hasselblad or Sinar, of course). While both are good cameras, I always preach Canon to eveyone I see.

A few days ago, my girlfriend (who doesn't know much at all about photography) said that she can understand why some people are die-hard Canon shooters but there is no reason to be die-hard Nikon. I thought about it and I had to agree.

While it seems like most people on this thread are pro-Canon, looking at it objectivly, is there anything that Nikon has over Canon other than a lower price tag? Why would a publication switch to Nikon??

Mark J. Terrill, Photographer

	Simi Valley \| CA \| USA \| Posted: 12:37 PM on 05.06.07
	->> While it seems like most people on this thread are pro-Canon, looking at it objectivly, is there anything that Nikon has over Canon other than a lower price tag? Sharper glass.

Rafael Delgado, Student/Intern, Photographer

Pasadena | Ca | USA | Posted: 1:28 PM on 05.06.07

->> I considered changing sides simply for the better flash results. The D200 and the SB800 almost did the trick for this Canon user to change.

http://www.daveblackphotography.com/on-the-road/index.htm

Just look at the result Dave Black gets and the Nikon side only has to fix a few things for this Canon user to make the costly change. Full Frame, noise quality and glass that is not more expense than Canon. However until then, I am happy with my Canon gear.

As long as the setup works for you, use it. The images and the ability to tell a story is what I prefer than battling over gear. The gear is disposal in my eye and is simply the tools of the trade. Get the shot in whatever manner possible, whether it is with sony, nikon, canon, lecia, film or digital.

The story telling element is the constant variable that will keep this work alive. The gear will change with each sells quarter.

Heck, the work I am most happy with was with my pentax k1000 on hp5 400asa black and white film with manual focus lenses.
Everything else is simply extras

Nick Doan, Photographer

Scottsdale Phoenix Tempe | AZ | USA | Posted: 1:32 PM on 05.06.07

->> Mark,

I'm extremely envious of a Nikon shooter I know on the Golf Tours. He carries a 200-400/F4 with his D2x. The doubler allows him to reach 800mm, or he can shoot at 200mm around the greens. (My 400/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 on my two 1D Mark IIs are so much heavier to carry around.)

Then, if you think about it, they also have the 200/F2. Granted that the Canon has better noise quality at high ISO; but I would have loved having a 200/F2 lens and the doubler of the Nikon body (400/F2??!!!?) for all sorts of indoor sports, including gymnastics, basketball and hockey.

I would never switch, but those two combinations are very tempting to me. If I was a staffer assigned to shoot golf, I'd demand the first combo. The second combo is just wishful thinking on my part, I believe, but it sure sounds good. :)

Ron Bernardo, Photographer

	Hamilton \| ON \| Canada \| Posted: 2:06 PM on 05.06.07
	->> I do not know why I am replying to this? But it seems this thread is no different from other forums out there. Canon vs. Nikon blah, blah!

Jeff Stanton, Photographer

Tucson | Az | USA | Posted: 2:10 PM on 05.06.07

->> I switched from Canon to Nikon for a while and I'm very impressed with the Nikon D2Hs. That's the "S" body. The noise at ISO 1600, or shall I say, the lack of it, is amazing. It's firing rate in its servo mode is very fast.

I ended up switching back to Canon for a couple of reasons. The EOS 1D bodies feel more comfortable in my hand. There are more USM lenses available in the Canon lineup, compared to Nikon's silent waves, which to me is limited. And I feel Canon's auto focusing is quicker.

I also owned a D200 for a while. Although it wasn't the greatest sports camera or the fastest, I felt it was a very good general use camera that would serve anybody well for most day-to-day assignments.

I am glad to be back using Canon. And I use a 1D. Not a Mark II, just the original 1D. Since its flash sync speed fires up at 500 sec., the ghosting I was getting using the D2Hs at 250 sec has disappeared.

Will Powers, Photographer

Denver | CO | USA | Posted: 4:54 PM on 05.06.07

->> It seems to me that many of you compare apples to oranges. The Canon MKIIN is the top of the line for PJ. Is the Nikon D200 the top of the line? I honestly don't know. Comparing anything to a Canon 1D is a little silly because it is two generations old.

The Canon's lenses are heavier and not as sharp, but autofocus faster. The motor is in the lens and therefore heavier. I don't have any experience with the Nikon flash, but I've never been disappointed with my 580s, although I have heard that some people are.

Jim Colburn, Photographer

	Omaha \| NE \| USA \| Posted: 6:41 PM on 05.06.07
	->> "is there anything that Nikon has over Canon other than a lower price tag? Sharper glass." Ha! Ha I say! Stuff and nonsense! (Don't the Brits have lovely ways of saying "BS!"?)

John Green, Photo Editor

	Cool City \| Ca \| USA \| Posted: 7:46 PM on 05.06.07
	->> only a fool

Brian Shirk, Photographer

McCall | ID | US | Posted: 8:19 PM on 05.06.07

->> I honestly wouldn't be surprise if Nikon in a last-ditch effort to catch up to Canon did something radical with their next release, rather than trying to keep up with Canon's release schedule...

They have to either bring their professional equipment ahead a couple of steps or relinquish that to Canon/others - they won't make enough of a profit to keep dumping resources into R&D, with the number of people switching away.

It seems like it just depends on whether they have people saying "We're going to beat them, and no one's going to stop us" (and catch up/exceed on things like iso noise), or "It's not cost-efficient to continue competing in a fight we're losing".

Their consumer/prosumer equipment will definitely be around for a long, long time; it's the pro grade equipment I'm not so sure about. And if they do step down, it would be interesting to see Sigma's response to it.

Bruce Klink, Photographer, Assistant

Nashua | NH | USA | Posted: 8:28 PM on 05.06.07

->> I frequently shoot hockey in strobed rinks for a large event/tournament photographer, and virtually all of their shooters (4 of 5?) use Nikons. As much as I love my Canon stuff, I gotta say that under the lights, the Nikons produce some stunning results - tack sharp and vivid colors. Still, not enough for me to go over to the dark side. I guess if I could strobe all the stuff I shoot, I might be more tempted.

Drew Broadley, Photographer

	Wellington \| NZ \| New Zealand \| Posted: 9:41 PM on 05.06.07
	->> I once got asked by a couple of colleagues in the field, when I take photos directly from my camera to my website what I did to get such rich colours. "Nothing" was my reply. P.S. I have everything set to 0/None/Normal in tone/saturation settings incamera. I love canon, I love nikon. I just happen to have Nikon at the moment.

Robert Hanashiro, Photographer

	Los Angeles \| CA \| \| Posted: 10:42 PM on 05.06.07
	->> You can read between the lines what noted "Digital Guru" Rob Galbraith thinks of Nikon dslrs, ironically, in his users report on the new Canon Mark III: http://tinyurl.com/yplp9r "Of the two dominant digital SLR brands - Canon and Nikon - it's Canon that already produces cameras with the best high-ISO image quality ..."

Darren Whitley, Photographer

	Maryville \| MO \| USA \| Posted: 12:05 AM on 05.07.07
	->> The only Nikon that has any appeal to me are the Nikon-mount Fuji cameras. If Nikon integrated Fuji's technology into their pro bodies... maybe you'd have something. Perhaps I'm buying into smoke and mirrors, but the Fuji just elicits something emotional from me for some reason.

Walter Calahan, Photographer

Westminster | MD | USA | Posted: 9:14 AM on 05.07.07

->> "It's a camera designed to extend Canon's superiority in areas like autofocus and high-ISO image quality, to shore up areas of competitive weakness such as the battery system and camera configuration and to incorporate emerging features like Live View and remote camera access, but do these things better than they've been done before in the digital SLR arena." Rob Galbraith

No system does it ALL. Canon kick's Nikon's butt in some areas. Nikon kick's Canon's butt in some areas. This is the way it's always been. Nothing new here.

Again, when I look at Max Bittle's winning Eddie Adams Workshop photos, I do not see Canon or Nikon or Graflex 4x5 SLR. What I see are deeply human photographs that tell a story. Low noise at high ISO, faster auto-focus, superior wireless transmission, 10 fps, superior optics, or better battery life do not appear in Max's photography. What appears in Max's photography is a maturity of vision so few of us have at his age and experience.

Cameras are not badges of honor we wear around our necks to signify our professionalism.

Geoff Miller, Photographer

	Portage \| MI \| USA \| Posted: 9:35 AM on 05.07.07
	->> Bottom line: "It's not the wand, it's the Wizard!"

Randy Janoski, Photographer

	Washington DC & Nashville \| TN \| USA \| Posted: 10:35 AM on 05.07.07
	->> My point of view...if you have equipment that does the job and you’re satisfied with it, who really cares!

Debra L Rothenberg, Photographer

New York | NY | USA | Posted: 11:07 AM on 05.07.07

->> YAWN
same thread, different day
If you hate Nikon, so be it
if you hate Canon, so be it

For all you Canon users who hate Nikon and think Nikon stinks, that's your opinion.
I happen to be a Nikon user and I never bash Canon. Come to think of it, I never hear or heard any Nikon user bash Canon, but MANY Canon users feel the need to contantly bash Nikon. Is Canon paying you for this? Why do you always feel the need to stick in your opinions about Canon. Are you the Tom Cruise of equipment (if you don't understand this think back to his rants last year)
I am thrilled you are all happy with your Canon equipment. We pay enough for our equipment that we should be happy with it.
My Nikons are what they are. They are tools. They are my friends. They are with me everyday, and have been since 1981 when I left my good friend, Mr Minolta SRT200 behind. I have never gotten an ERR message, never had to use image rescue. It has failed me sometimes but even people fail us sometimes.
It gets my job done, even when I am shooting totally for fun-for me, and makes me a lot of money.
If you don't like Nikon, don't use it. Make the switch.
But why do we ALL need to know about it...AGAIN?!?!

Arthur Spragg, Photographer

	San Angelo \| TX \| USA \| Posted: 11:28 AM on 05.07.07
	->> ENOUGH ALREADY! Lets put our money where our collective mouths are, and get busy doing what we love to do. Wasting time on the message board isn't where our hands, hearts, minds and especially eyes should be. Thank you! AWS

Jamie Roper, Photographer

Lawrence | KS | United States | Posted: 1:26 PM on 05.07.07

->> ah, finally -- ye olde "it's not the camera, it's the photographer" pseudo high ground crap. if there's anything more predictable than a canon/nikon pissing contest, it's the inevitability of a 'real' photographer missing the point entirely and explaining to me why it's my vision, and not my gear, that determines my success. but i've yet to see a photographer making images without a camera.

Cartier-Bresson didn't shoot with a Brownie, NASA didn't send a 110 Minoltamatic into space, and Bill Frakes doesn't shoot the Kentucky Derby with a homemade pinhole camera (though now that i think about it...).

i'll grant you that conversations like this tend to produce more heat than light, but that doesn't make the subject irrelevant. we're all heavily invested in tools that permit us to work, create, survive. exchanging information, thoughts, opinions help us to make more educated choices.

and hey, Max Bittle and i were on the same team at the workshop (hi Max), and i don't have the slightest idea what sort of camera he was using. but i'm pretty sure he wasn't using gear that he had a contentious relationship with.

"It's not about the bike," says Lance Armstrong. true enough -- unless, of course, it IS about the bike. when a tool is the limiting factor, then it IS about the tool. and, as a part-time tool myself, i know from where i speak. try executing your personal vision with a sketch pad next time.

Drew Broadley, Photographer

	Wellington \| NZ \| New Zealand \| Posted: 7:41 PM on 05.07.07
	->> /me pisses on his Nikon. This should achieve too things: End the pissing contest. Make the canon people happy.

Walter Calahan, Photographer

Westminster | MD | USA | Posted: 8:46 PM on 05.07.07

->> NASA uses Nikon mount Kodak digital cameras, as well as Nikons. They use to use Hasselblads.

Cartier-Bresson used Leicas which optically are a hell of a lot better than both Canon and Nikon.

Bill Frakes has commissioned me to build a laptop controlled sequential pinhole camera for next years Derby (Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha).

Canon's are great cameras. As mentioned above, I used them for years while EVERYONE else used Nikons.

Again, I don't care what anyone uses to achieve their visual expression.

Rodrigo Pena, Photographer

Palm Desert | CA | USA | Posted: 1:05 PM on 05.08.07

->> Good responses. I'm kinda glad this got posted because a young photog told me the same thing about a month ago. I have been mentoring him and he told me that he sold his Canon gear to purchase Nikon gear. He told me that all the pros are using Nikon, not Canon. I countered his argument suggesting that the low noise at high ISO is the main factor between the two. There are other good reasons depending on taste.

I am now a Canon shooter for the last 1 1/2 years. I was a Nikon shooter for about 20 years previous to that. Here are the things I have noticed between the two:

In the day time, I prefer the warmer tones of the Nikon chip. My father, who was a studio photographer for 30 years, told me a long time ago that humans (generally speaking) prefer warmer flesh tones. I never forgot that piece of advice. Nikon has warmer flesh tones, which I love. With Canon, I feel I'm trying to get the warm flesh tones back. Instead I'm correcting in Adobe photoshop for Canon's cooler flesh tones. I've played with some of the functions, but can't seem to get the warmth of Nikon.

I like the Nikon focusing diamond that I wish Canon had. Instead of a ring of fire, which doesn't work sometimes and is therefore unreliable, Nikon has 4 little squares in the center shaped like a diamond. That system worked great for me! I'm getting used to the Canon focus, but I'm not impressed. Too many photos are soft. Even my brief encounter with the Mark III two months ago at the Pacific Life Open Tennis Tournament, left me wanting for a better focusing system. Granted the focus system on the Mark III is better than my Mark IIN, I still miss Nikon's tack-sharp photos. Maybe Canon's glass is the problem, not the body.

Canon really shines in the high ISO department. Enough said. Nikon can't touch this.

Nikon has more reliable speedlights. When I use the commander in conjuction with the Canon speedlights, the exposures are not consistent. My experience with Nikon speedlights was much better. More reliable exposures. Plus Canon's flashes don't even have a pc plug. (Perhaps the new ones do?) I've invested in Nikon Speedlights using radio slaves because the Canon commander is unreliable. Other photogs that I know have done the same. We would prefer to hook up a radio slave to a Nikon speedlight and use it with our Canon cameras.

With Canon, I can crop the heck out of an image and still be able to use it for publication. With my old Nikons, I couldn't do that. I never had a D2X or a D2Hs, only D2H, D1H, D1, & D70.

Since I have small hands the Nikon feels more comfortable in the hand than Nikon. With Canon, my hands sometimes get cramps.

So I see a trade off. Some tools are better than others.

Maybe I'll make my own brand of camera called the "SportsShooter" (with SportsShooter's permission) and produce a camera line that has the best of both worlds.

Corey Perrine, Photographer

	Hudson \| NH \| USA \| Posted: 1:10 PM on 05.08.07
	->> I think the real question is who's switching from a SLR to a HDV?

Chuck Steenburgh, Photographer

Lexington | VA | USA | Posted: 7:39 PM on 05.08.07

->> Maybe the guy meant since 99.9% of Nikon pros have already switched to Canon, if 0.2% switched back then that would be more switching From Canon to Nikon than the other way round?

Seriously, there are differences, and that's a good thing. Many are in the eye of the beholder. I think it would be hard to say that Canon's flash system is as good as Nikon's, any more than it would be hard to say that Nikon's high ISO performance is as good as Canon's. But many other things - ergonomics, for example - are subject to interpretation.

But Corey's right - in 5 years, we'll all be using Sony videocams anyway. ;-)

JohnPaul Greco, Photographer, Assistant

	Milwaukee \| WI \| USA \| Posted: 9:35 PM on 05.08.07
	->> To Mr. Lopez: Yes, it does matter, because I found it interesting! :-) JP

JohnPaul Greco, Photographer, Assistant

Milwaukee | WI | USA | Posted: 9:52 PM on 05.08.07

->> Max,..

I think that Nikon has a whole lot ot offer to the non-working professional photographer (largely speaking)..

For those who are looking to buy a camera that gives them pro-options, like 1/250ths top sync speed, 5 fps, 10mp, and weather sealing..(which IMO makes people more stupid like when anti-lock breaks, or cruise control were first introduced)..(some people believe that makes them water, smash, drop, proof as well)..

& you have a great supporting lens system.. They have a fisheye lens for their digital lens system.. as well as better focal length range lenses than Canon does, which often appeal to the non working professional..(largly speaking).. like the 80-400, vs Canon's 100-400.. In addition,.. for the working pro,...now they have ..(for a few years now) a 200mm f2.0 VR! .....and most Nikon fans don't mind the IMO, small sensor size in their cameras, and view that as more of an atribute to Nikon's digital system...."giving" them a 300mm f2.0 lens!

I'm sorry, but Canon is just lacking in that department..

Yes,... I can see why some people would go with that Nikon system.. & for most, 1.5 format doesn't matter to them.. Many like the additional depth of field (by keeping the same frameing) because their D2x has focus issues anyways! & their cameras seem to be well priced too!

Well,...that's what was going through my mind all week.. :-)

JP

John Green, Photo Editor

	Cool City \| Ca \| USA \| Posted: 11:01 PM on 05.08.07
	->> Nobody

Lane Hickenbottom, Photographer

Grand Island | NE | usa | Posted: 11:44 PM on 05.08.07

->> I shoot Cannon now and am very glad I do. It is (in my humble opinion) a superior camera system.

But those with short memories *ESPECIALLY THOSE AT SMALL MARKET PAPERS* should know that the Nikon D1 changed the face of the newspaper industry. The D1 was not only the best camera out there, but it was about $10k cheaper than the next best thing.

Most pros WAY back then (what was it, 7 years ago?)who were making the switch to digital went Nikon digital. And for the first time ever, most small newspapers actually provided gear for photographers.

Yeah, most pros shoot Cannon now. But it was Nikon before that. And Cannon before that. And Nikon before that.

Andrew Bright, Photographer

Auckland | New Zealand | New Zealand | Posted: 7:07 AM on 05.09.07

->> I look forward to the seeing the inverse of this thread appearing when the D3(X?) hits the stores, and it becomes an argument on how much better the D3 body is than the Mk III. We all know it's gonna happen...until the Mk IV comes out, then the D4, Mk V....

I'm gonna go out on a limb and nominate my Mk1 eyeball as the best camera I've used. Aside from a few lens issues I've had (corneal graft a few years back), it's been close to faultless, and best of all, cost me nothing to buy. A good night's sleep is generally the only maintenance it needs, it outperforms any pro body in terms of frame rate (in that the sample rate is almost indeterminable, but certainly faster than 20fps), I can use it from (probably close to) 10 to 25000 ISO with no noise, AF is great in low or no light, it's light, easily portable, and I've had more ladies gazing lovingly into my eyes than into my D200's. No zoom, sure, but the image quality is second to none.

When they improve on *my* eyes, then let's revisit this discussion,.... when it's meaningful.

Joseph Brymer, Photographer

	Lincolnton \| NC \| usa \| Posted: 1:05 PM on 05.09.07
	->> I'm a Nikon shooter, always have been. I've worked as a staff photographer at papers that have Canon. I can't tell ten cents worth of difference in either. Who cares! There are more productive things to do with our time.

Louis Lopez, Photographer

Fontana | CA | USA | Posted: 1:07 PM on 05.09.07

->> JohnPaul Greco,
When I stated, " Does it Really Matter" I was referring to the fact that when I see an image that captures my attention, the last thing I ask is, what camera does he/she use?
It is a discussion that has no winner, and is on the same level as a "remember when" conversation.
Are you producing images that sell and earning a living, paying the bills, feeding the family, vacations etc... then what's the problem. If you feel the "other" brand offers "something" that is going to improve your ability to capture images then switch.
There is no one "magic bullet" that will make you the best.
I would take preparation and experience over 40fps..

Bryan Hulse, Photographer

Highlands Ranch | Co | USA | Posted: 2:37 PM on 05.09.07

->> Joseph, I agree 100% (although I question as to why I bother posting).
Over the past few years, I’ve worked with many other photographers at events, and often have to process photos at the end of the day taken by a variety of equipment. I am 100% confident that the quality of the work has almost nothing to do with the equipment, but rather the skill of the photographer. I’ve had to process crap from both Canon and Nikon shooters (and Fuji).
To go on and on with this argument is just plain nuts. Even if there are minor differences in particular aspects of performance between two bodies, those are greatly offset by the photographers knowledge of his/her equipment and ability to make the most of it.
Yes, we can go on and on arguing about those differences. But frankly, who cares? Many of the people on this forum arguing either way, aren’t necessarily the ones whose advice should be taken (me included). Someone can write me, email me, talk to me in person, and try to convince me the Canon AF system is superior. But I’ve tried the MKII against my D2X and I absolutely don’t agree (actually, I found them to be more similar than different). So why bother with the bashing when much of this is a matter of personal opinion?
The day I actually loose money shooting with my Nikon equipment (over Canon), and see no hope of Nikon ever catching up with upcoming equipment releases, is the day I would consider a switch. But that isn’t going to happen.
What is sad is that students that can’t afford all this new equipment are being influenced by posts like this. If they have a D70 and one nice lens, they are convinced they need to upgrade immediately to make it as a photographer. At the recent SSA IV, many of the young students shot with older equipment (both Nikon and Canon) and low tech lenses. Their work was stunning. I’m talking D70’s and Digital Rebels.
I think this old Canon vs Nikon argument is getting quite old and diminishes the credibility of this forum. I think spitting matches should be saved for DPReview.

Chuck Steenburgh, Photographer

	Lexington \| VA \| USA \| Posted: 3:01 PM on 05.09.07
	->> Apparently John Green did a survey on Monday and found that there were no more fools in the photography business.

Michael Fischer, Photographer

	Spencer \| Ia \| USA \| Posted: 9:40 PM on 05.09.07
	->> Camera bodies = electronic paint brushes. The ability to make the image = the photographer. This is like asking which paint brushes Michaelanglo used. Who cares? You can use not having such and such as a excuse, or you can go make great images. I think this is the 50th posts. Thank goodness. Michael

JohnPaul Greco, Photographer, Assistant

	Milwaukee \| WI \| USA \| Posted: 9:45 PM on 05.09.07
	->> Mr. Lopez,... To answer every point you made: Yep! ...I agree! I don't think to myself "what camera system was used to take that stunning photo" either.. My topic had nothing to do with that.. I was just asking the group if this "news" was true or not because it made me curious as to why, if it were true.. That's all.. (see above if you don't believe me) :-) JP

This thread has reached the maximum number of posts
If you would like to continue it, please create a new thread.
[ Create new thread? ]

Return to --> Message Board Main Index