On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 23:03:43 -0500, nospam wrote:
: In article , Robert Coe
: wrote:
:
: : I come from a background of an old Pentax K mount SLR film camera and a
: : long
: : period away from photography. A couple of years ago I bought a cheap
: : super-zoom digital fixed lens just to find out what the digital revolution
: : was about. I am now frustrated with its limitations and looking to go
: : DSLR.
: : I don't have a lot of money but enough to get started. I like to
: : photograph
: : the natural world: eagles, landscapes, insects and flowers. I can see
: : the budget will have to cover several lenses eventually (sigh).
: :
: : Given the price of lenses once you start with a system (eg Nikon or Canon)
: : you tend to stay with it, I don't see that many are going to jump from one
: : to the other although I suppose its possible. This explains why people
: : stick to a system but not why they selected it in the first place. I know
: : there are other systems but for the point of discussion let's stick to
: : those
: : two. Why choose one over the other? A couple of possibilities come to
: : mind, no doubt there are plenty that I haven't thought of.
: :
: : One is that the buyer was attracted to a particular body at a point in time
: : and bought lenses to go with it. This suggests that at some other point in
: : time they could have gone with the opposition if they had a body in their
: : line-up that attracted the buyer more. This implies that there is no
: : intrinsic difference between the competitors but that over time their
: : systems leapfrog each other in appeal according to the models in the
: : catalog.
: :
: : Another is that there is some intrinsic difference between the systems. As
: : neither seem to be fading into oblivion if such a difference exists it
: : seems
: : to be one of style or approach not of basic suitability for purpose. Is
: : there such a difference? If so what is? What kind of photographer is
: : attracted to one or the other?
: :
: : I suppose a third is that they were given a Nikon or that Daddy always used
: : Canon and that is what they learned on, that is the photographer didn't
: : really choose but fell into it. I have no such initial conditions.
: :
: : There could be other reasons for choosing one system over another. What?
: :
: : Is this issue covered on the WWW or in any literature? Where?
: :
: : I am after such general advice that comes from experience and not from
: : sales
: : brochures. If you recommend one or the other I am more interested in the
: : reason why than the recommendation itself, as I might have different needs
: : and abilities to yours. I am not trying to start a flame war, I have no
: : axe to grind nor (I hope) any preconceived ideas.
:
: I'll give you my experience, for what it's worth. And I suspect that there are
: others in the group whose experience is not radically different.
:
: My wife and I were Nikon users in the film days. I had an F-2 and she a
: Nikkormat. We had a couple of 50mm lenses, a 28mm WA, and a 135mm tele. But
: because film photography was so expensive and time consuming, we had largely
: fallen away from photography when the digital era arrived.
:
: In 2003 we decided that we needed digital cameras to take pictures of our
: grandchildren. Our daughter spoke highly of her Canon S50 P&S, so we went
: along. Martha chose an S50 and I a G-5. But like all non-SLR digitals of that
: era, those cameras had a high lag time between what you saw in the viewfinder
: and what you got on the card.
:
: no, definitely not all, and it was very easy to reduce lag to
: imperceptible amounts on cameras that did have lag.
:
: the real problem with a lot of those cameras is that the overall speed
: was slow, such as time from power-on to taking a photo, how long it
: took to achieve focus, how long it took to write out an image to the
: card, etc. those can't be changed.
:
: That mattered a lot as the kids got more active,
: and by late 2006 we had become so frustrated that we decided we had to go
: DSLR. That was a decision point, as we had no investment in removable lenses.
:
: what happened to the couple of 50mm lenses, the 28mm and 135mm you said
: you had ?

We still have them. But all predate AE and AF, so would not have met our needs
and had no effect on our decision.

: We decided to stick with Canon because 1) they do a good job of providing
: superficially similar controls over most of their product line, which I hoped
: would reduce our learning curve,
:
: nikon does the same.
:
: and 2) the XTi (400D) had just come out, and
: it appeared to possibly be a better value than Nikon's entry-level equivalent.
:
: could be, depending on what you needed to do with it. two features that
: particular canon slr didn't have but nikon entry level cameras did was
: auto-iso and spot metering.
:
: (We never really considered other manufacturers, as much out of laziness as
: for any other reason.)
:
: back then there weren't any other manufacturers worth considering. now
: there are quite a few.

You don't think Olympus qualified?

: Then as we started to accumulate lenses and multiple camera bodies, we did get
: hemmed in. As you point out, switching systems when you have a lot of
: equipment is a major step. But we soon realized that both Canon and Nikon are
: in the game to stay and that whenever one of them pulls ahead in any
: significant way, the other soon catches up. That's not to say there aren't
: differences, or that one or the other isn't actually a better choice for a
: given individual at a given time. That's as true today as it's ever been, with
: some conspicuous differences in approach (to high-resolution sensors, for
: example) between the two companies. But those differences are of more
: significance to a professional specialist than they are to the average user.
:
: everyone is in the game to stay. unfortunately, not all win at that
: game. nikon and canon won't be going away anytime soon, but the others
: are not so clear.

I'd still choose Nikon or Canon, assuming I had no useful legacy lenses.

: The bottom line is that your own subjective judgement is probably as good a
: guide to making the "right" choice as any other. Try to get your hands on a
: couple of models of each manufacturer that you're considering, and make sure
: that the overall feel and the layout of the controls won't be an irritant. And
: read the user manuals, both for a comparison of the cameras' features and to
: see how well those features are explained. After all, if you do buy a given
: camera, you want the manual to be useful for its intended purpose.
:
: since the original poster has pentax lenses, his first stop should be
: to look at pentax slrs. they're quite good and the old lenses will
: work.

A valid suggestion, on the face of it. But it's not entirely clear that the OP
still has his Pentax lenses.

: he also should consider mirrorless. slrs are big and bulky.

I guess you and I agree that mirrorless will win eventually. But I don't think
it's sufficiently competitive yet.

Bob